Oops! OkCupid CEO caught in massive hypocrisy after leading the charge to oust Mozilla CEO

On Friday, Glenn described the resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich as “an American nightmare.” Eich’s resignation followed several weeks of public outcry over a $1,000 donation he made in support of California’s Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot proposition defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The online dating site OkCupid led the charge against Eich, posting a letter on its homepage that painted Eich as anti-gay and encouraged Mozilla Firefox users to switch to a different browser. When Eich resigned last Thursday, OkCupid cheered the ousting:

“We are pleased that OkCupid’s boycott has brought tremendous awareness to the critical matter of equal rights for all individuals and partnerships,” the company wrote in a statement.

In a bizarre twist, it now appears as though OkCupid may have been a little quick to judge. According to Uncrunched, OkCupid’s co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan made a $500 donation to Congressman Chris Cannon (R-UT) in 2004. Cannon, who openly opposed same-sex marriage, voted against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and voted for prohibition of gay adoptions, reportedly earned a 0% rating from the pro-abortion group NARAL Pro Choice America.

On radio this morning, Glenn, Pat and Stu discussed the potential black eye this could be for the dating site. After all, by OkCupid’s own ridiculous standard, Yagan should step down. Furthermore, Glenn continues to find himself aligned with strange bedfellows as Mother Jones once again took a balanced approach to its coverage.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

“We have to give kudos to Mother Jones today because… they decided: Well, if we’re going to do witch hunts, let’s look at OkCupid,” Glenn explained. “And the CEO of OkCupid, the guy who led the campaign against the [Mozilla] CEO, also has given money. He gave money to Chris Cannon, a candidate who was… against gay marriage… So Mother Jones is like, ‘Well, what about the CEO of OkCupid? What kind of hater is he? Should we fire him now?’”

In an article published Monday, Mother Jones’ Hannah Levintova writes:

Of course, it’s been a decade since Yagan’s donation to Cannon, and a decade or more since many of Cannon’s votes on gay rights. It’s possible that Cannon’s opinions have shifted, or maybe his votes were more politics than ideology; a tactic by the Mormon Rep. to satisfy his Utah constituency. It’s also quite possible that Yagan’s politics have changed since 2004: He donated to Barack Obama’s campaign in 2007 and 2008. Perhaps even Firefox’s Eich has rethought LGBT equality since his 2008 donation. But OkCupid didn’t include any such nuance in its take-down of Firefox. Combine that with the fact that the company helped force out one tech CEO for something its own CEO also did, and its action last week starts to look more like a PR stunt than an impassioned act of protest.

Regardless of how Yagan feels about gay marriage now, Glenn explained why there should be legitimate concerns about his leadership.

“Here’s the thing: If I were a shareholder in OkCupid, I wouldn’t want this guy to be the CEO for legitimate reasons,” Glenn said. “The guy is so reckless and such a hypocrite… What is the motivation there? He’s put the whole company in jeopardy.”

“So did you actually believe what you said that OkCupid is all about love? Or did you just see that as a convenient way to make your company look like you’re all about love, but you don’t really care,” Glenn asked. “All this game playing is done. There are no secrets anymore, gang.”

  • landofaahs

    Discrimination is a good thing. There should be more not less of it. Discrimination means discerning between what is good and bad, right and wrong, beneficial or unbeneficial. Everyone practices discrimination every day. Mind your own business and live your life. If you can force your views on others, don’t get upset if they force their ideas on you.

  • Carla Jean Page

    beware of okcupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i was a member on there until someone stole my username and password!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • HoustonTX

    Well said Land. I think many past practices have been improved. But many good ones have been lost, among those: staying out of other people’s business and keeping yours to yourself.

  • Anonymous

    Conservatives think that tolerance towards diversity is intolerance towards having a different opinion. This is just wrong. Everyone is entitled to opinion. Go ahead, hate the gays. What they don’t tell you, because it makes their argument invalid, is that they want to make policy based on their intolerant opinion… and then they call liberals bigots because they are not tolerant to their intolerance. And they don’t see the problem with this! One more evidence that shows the conservatives in America are either blind or hypocrites.

  • Anonymous

    Exactly. Stay out of people’s business. If two men or two women want to get married, STAY OUT OF THEIR BUSINESS. You don’t even have to give a flying f…

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72EnfFysPFE Connor

    You just proved our point. Thanks again typical intolerant liberal.

  • Anonymous

    “Discrimination is a good thing”, of course, just like forgetting is good for memory. But that is not what we are talking about. Specifically, you think God should drown all the sodomites… Or at least they should not have the same rights to marry as heterosexual couples have. If you mean THAT discrimination, then you are wrong. But, again, that is not the discrimination you are talking about. You are just making a generalization to sneak in your intolerance.

  • Lisa Bergeson

    Rep Gohmert interrogated AJ Holder today, and threatened a contempt charge against Holder. Holder became ticked off and still is refusing to cooperate. He also asked Holder if one’s belief should be vetted, and he said no. And that he is leaving the courts to decide whether refusing service to gay weddings is an actual crime. What exactly is going on with the contempt charge, and why would Gohmert say as a judge he would wait until the contempt charges were purged before he asked questions. Does this mean Holder will not be held accountable for FAST n FURIOUS?

  • Anonymous

    Nope. You simple don’t get your own point.

  • Rick Cook

    I called publicity stunt when this first happened. That’s what he wanted, and now he’s got a tiger by the tail.

  • Jennifer Lee

    I think you have it backwards, FT, but whatever, troll.

  • Anonymous

    Too bad someone didn’t have the time and money to check all these hypocrits out. Guarantee he is not the only one. Our dictator in chief is one that comes to mind!!!

  • Anonymous

    Is that all you could muster against my argument? bah!

  • ElDuderino

    Liberals think that tolerance towards Christians is intolerance towards having a different opinion. This is just wrong. Everyone is entitled to opinion. Go ahead, hate the Christians. What they don’t tell you, because it makes their argument invalid, is that they want to make policy based on their intolerant opinion… and then they call conservatives bigots because they are not tolerant to their intolerance. And they don’t see the problem with this! One more evidence that shows the liberals in America are either blind or hypocrites.

    See, I can do it too.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72EnfFysPFE Connor

    Why can’t we just agree to disagree on many things and still be friendly. I pray that is not dead in this country anymore.

  • Caleb Arnold

    I generally find your posts here unnecessarily inflammatory and prone to generalization. That being said, I’m with Glenn on this issue; let’s take government out of ‘marriage’ entirely. It shouldn’t be in government’s purview to begin with and there shouldn’t be ‘bonuses’ that you get for being married. If you (or anyone else) wanna say you’re married to someone of the same gender, who gives a flying flip. I don’t have to acknowledge it, cause I don’t consider it a marriage regardless of what you call it.

  • Shane

    You don’t have an argument, you have an opinion.

  • Anonymous

    That’s dumb. It don’t work. Please do tell: what is the policy liberals want to make that institutionalizes discrimination towards Christians? Hint: if it is a policy that removes the Christian supremacy from policy making, it is not a discriminating policy, but just the opposite: a policy that prevents one group to prohibit the freedom of another group. Again, hint: if it is the freedom to take another group’s freedom, then it is not really taking away freedom, but battling against institutionalized discrimination. Did you follow? (or are you good just for mimicry?) So, can you think of one? (I do can think of one in the reverse).

  • ANTHONY CLIFFORD

    I agree that homosexuals should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights. I have a different idea all together. How about we request that the government no longer have anything to do with marriage. That way marriage is simply between you, your partner and God/Allah/Flying spaghetti monster. I think that would help everyone. Homosexuals won’t be discriminated against, nor will the super religious feel that the government is attacking their morality.

    You won’t be in favor of that because you need for the government to bless off on your lifestyle. I don’t need anyone to agree with whom I get married to except for the person I am marrying.

    Championing tolerance by attacking someone who has a less inclusive definition of marriage is folly. You will only galvanize people against your cause.

  • Keith

    No, he didn’t threaten one, he reminded Holder he was already in contempt and appeared as if that was no concern to him.

  • Keith

    And what Gohmert rightly did was wait for a court decision, where the contempt charge is now, before asking Holder any further questions relating to Fast and Furious. Otherwise, he would be infringing on many rights Holder still retains as a citizen.

  • Anonymous

    You’re splitting hairs. You are taking a case of groups of people deciding, outside the law and government, to freely decide who works in their organization. Government should stay out of that, as with marriage. But do tell: what policy are gays trying to pass that “infringe[s] on anyone’s rights”? I’m very very curious.

  • Caleb Arnold

    You point out a behavior that is common in both parties, then try to pin it on just ‘Conservatives.’ The bias is real here, friend.

  • Dan

    Think of how proud your other liberal friends will be once you tell them that you posted on a conservative site and got some people upset. You’ll be a hero. Sure, I know you’d rather keep people separate and have different groups live by different rules then but it’s ok, I won’t tell your friends just how hypocritical you are.

  • Anonymous

    How come gays had to come along for you and Beck to arrive at this conclusion?

  • USAUSAUSA

    do conservatives disagree with the life style of homosexuality? yes. Do they hate them for it? No. Glen has said MULTIPLE TIMES that he does not hate them. Do I hate them? No. Do I disagree with their life style? Yes! would I let a homosexual mechanic work on my car? sure, no issue with it. Not approving of someones homosexual life style is not hatred, it’s preference. I dont approve of women with pink hair. Do i hate them? No, I just like women with blond or brunette hair. Preference is not hatred, and Glen was showing the obvious hypocrisy that your small headed thin skinned liberal mind missed. If you get a guy fired for supporting something, then the same measuring stick should be used on you.

  • ElDuderino

    I was just simply pointing out the over-generalization of your ridiculous statement.. as for bigotry and using the institution of government to decide winners and losers, liberals take the cake.

  • Anonymous

    It’s not Conservatives that come up with hate-speech laws and other fascist acts of intolerance, it’s you Progressives/Liverals. You’re fine with an opinion as long a it’s one you agree with, but when it isn’t, then the holder of that opinion has no right to even live. Hypocrisy!

  • Anonymous

    Listen, you’re gonna expose yourself with a website with a commentary section, you’re gonna get people disagreeing with you… expose yourself, and you expose yourself. Deal with it or get out.

  • Brandon Cochrane

    And a Prejudice Opinion at that.

  • Anonymous

    Couldn’t think of any, huh?

  • Nick

    “Conservatives think tolerance towards diversity is intolerance towards having a different opinion”

    So you’re saying this complete witch-hunt, bulling and ousting of a CEO because of a minor private contribution he made years ago when that was by far the majority opinion, is not in any way intolerance of his beliefs, and rather is is “tolerance towards diversity”? LOL. Apparently conforming to one opinion now means ‘diversity’.

    “and then they call liberals bigots because they are not tolerant to their intolerance”

    It is not “intolerance”. I do not hate or dislike anyone. I do not support homosexuality, and I believe marriage exists for the purpose of uniting children to their biological parents, and same-sex marriage/parenting works against this purpose and this right. That’s it. And this is coming from someone who has same-sex attractions.

  • Anonymous

    Homosexuality is against Christian doctrine. If the Christian churches start condoning it, then they are no longer followers of Christ and God.

    The only ones showing intolerance are the ones trying to force Christians to go against their faith.

  • Shawn Sardella

    Absolutely. How about forcing Christians to violate their conscience and religious beliefs by making them photograph homosexual weddings? Once you FORCE someone to do something, especially something that violates a Constitutionally protected RIGHT, you have not only discriminated against them but you have headed down the path that you don’t want to see the end to. The same tyrannical powers you grant to the idiots in power today will be granted to those on the other side of the aisle once they are in power. When that happens, please do not whine and complain about your rights because I for one won’t give a damn about them.

  • Caleb Arnold

    Making assumptions with no knowledge of me or my political background? Check. Busy trying to deflect the point of the post cause it kills your narrative? Check. This is a basic libertarian principle; get government out of everything possible to still have a functional society. Go research it.

  • Shane

    Says the pajama wearing troll (Fiine) from his mom’s basement! Shouldn’t you be walking the dog, like she told you?

  • USAUSAUSA

    Gotta love the liberal morons (sarcasm). if you don’t approve of them, then it’s hatred, but if they don’t approve of you.. it’s justified.

  • Anonymous

    “I do not support homosexuality, and I believe marriage exists for the purpose of uniting children to their biological parents, and same-sex marriage/parenting works against this purpose and this right. That’s it.” If that were it, we wouldn’t have a problem. But the conservative wing wants to ban gay marriage, pass policy to “protect traditional marriage”. So, nope, that is not it.

  • Dan

    You’re going to expose yourself? I’m no lawyer but I’m pretty sure that’s illegal.

  • ANTHONY CLIFFORD

    They aren’t infringing on anything. Let me rephrase for the learning impaired. You should be able to do what ever you want so long as nobody is having their rights infringed. I didn’t say homosexuals infringe on anyone’s rights. I just don’t want the government involved in marriage at all. In my perfect little Libertarian America, a married homosexual couple can defend their pot farm with a machine gun. Lets move past this whole Liberal vs. Conservative mentality.

  • Guest

    Both “Anti-discrimination” laws and ENDA heavily infringe on individual and private business rights.

  • http://politicoid.us/ Kir (Politicoid)

    I’m curious Glenn, does supporting a candidate mean that you support every position held by that candidate?

  • HoustonTX

    Amen!

  • Dan

    Alright Hero. You’re right, that was a low blow. However, you came on here looking for trouble. I’m just giving it to you. Hopefully making some other people laugh in the process.

  • Jayne Nielsen

    With Democrats…hypocrisy knows no bounds. Actually if you research the definition of hypocrisy you’d see a Jackass next to it!
    It is fitting the Democrats’ “mascot” would be a Jackass.

  • Anonymous

    So that’s a policy liberals want to pass. I thought it to be a policy conservatives wanted to pass. I think you have it backwards, dude. Do go get informed: the policy was a conservative push to allow people to refuse service based on sexual orientation discrimination. Now, this idea the in the Bible it says photographers break their beliefs because they are forced to photograph gay weddings is just so preposterous as to be ridiculous. Not only are you not violating your religious beliefs, you are using religion to discriminate freely. That is just sick, man.

  • Shawn Sardella

    Hint: marriage, not a right. Hint: much to your dismay, freedom of religion is a right. I guess what they say is true, if you actually used logic and facts, you wouldn’t be a liberal. Thanks for playing along, you have a nice day.

  • Caleb Arnold

    There are TONS of radical libs who espouse drastic policies that would discriminate against conservative thinkers based solely on what they believe. Can’t think of one focused on Christians specifically at this point, but some to consider: climate change deniers and evolution deniers in general. I have seen plenty serious ideas on way to silence and discriminate against such. Prevent homeschooling, or prevent them from teaching religion (Richard Dawkins). Stop pretending there aren’t just as many crazy lunatic terrible liberals as there are conservatives. It’s so easy to prove you wrong.

  • Anonymous

    What right is that: to discriminate?

  • Suzi Conroy

    Here is where your glaring intolerant shines through, you wrote, “Conservatives think that tolerance towards diversity is intolerance towards having a different opinion. This is just wrong. Everyone is entitled to opinion. Go ahead, hate the gays.” So because my opinion differs then you I HATE GAYS?? That sir is intolerant of accepting it for what it truly is just a difference of opinion. But if because you say that equates to hate….anyone that has a difference of opionion is a hater, including you!! I suppose you hate straight people or anyone that disagrees with your view point.

  • Anonymous

    If it wasn’t for hypocracy liberals would have nothing to think about!

  • Anonymous

    That is not the argument. The question is about policy, not about liberal or conservative nut jobs existing. The issue at hand here is: gay lifestyle is not an act of intolerance against Christianity. Any attempt to say it is, is precisely intolerance against gay people.

  • Caleb Arnold

    They should be able to deny service. For whatever reason they want. Provided I am not impeding on your freedoms, I should be able to do or not do whatever I desire. FORCING me to do something I don’t want to is infringing on my freedoms.

  • kevin hill

    What policy did Mozilla ceo enact at Firefox? What work rules were put in place that violated anyone? . Your entire point is invalid because no acts of policy or intimidation were made by eich at Mozilla. sorry, but the left demands compliance and the surrender of ideals and opinions that they don’t agree with.

  • Anonymous

    Nah, it was just an example. Your opinion can have the result of a whole range of emotions towards gays. And you are entitled to everyone of them. Now, you try to make policy that discriminates against gays, and you will have an avalanche of people calling you out on you discrimination. That’s it.

  • Caleb Arnold

    I never said it was an argument. Read carefully. I’m not defending those who say gays should be unable to marry. I actually disagree with them. I’m just countering your terrible, biased narrative.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, no policy, so just business acting on their freedom. The guy supported “traditional marriage”, which is a policy that discriminates against gay couples. So, he got the due reaction from his peers. You can agree or disagree, but there was no policy of discrimination. Just the freedom not to employ people who DO spouse discriminating policy.

  • Anonymous

    Whatever.

  • Shane

    Does supporting Prop 8 mean hating gay people?

  • Anonymous

    It’s discrimination, pure and simple. You want to be free to discriminate: not possible in a free country, precisely because discrimination goes against the heart of freedom. Why can’t conservatives see this, beats me.

  • Anonymous

    To get married offers rights. Your religion doesn’t have the freedom to deny those rights, nor the freedom to deny the freedom to marry. So, I don’t get what you are celebrating, maybe your terrible capacity for analysis.

  • Caleb Arnold

    It’s not that discrimination is necessarily a right; it’s that forcing me to NOT discriminate removes my personal ability to choose. By inference, my discrimination is a right, yes.

  • Nick

    What? Nobody is “banning gay marriage”, marriage is just marriage. And in most states, (every single state until the last decade), marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, as it always has. The campaign is to keep the definition of marriage as it’s been for thousands of years.

    Also, what do you mean “if that were it, we wouldn’t have a problem”? That is it, and that is exactly why the conservative wing does not agree with redefining marriage. Same-sex unions are biologically different and serve a different purpose, hence why they should form a separate institution.

  • Anonymous

    Haha.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, yeah. In a minute.

  • Anonymous

    Well, there is your fundamental problem. You have no problem with discrimination. Good luck with that.

  • Caleb Arnold

    No… discrimination IS freedom. Why liberals can’t see this, beats me. If I’m not HURTING you or your property, I can choose to discriminate as I see fit. That’s freedom, cause you can do the same. (Note: businesses that discriminate generally have a poor success rate)

  • Caleb Arnold

    Yep, I figured.

  • Suzi Conroy

    Awww, so now it’s an example, sorry I missed that notification in your “example”, thanks for clarifying. As for policy, what about policy that forces people to go against their belief? Would you be ok with a gay activist that is in marketing be forced to do the marketing for say a far leaning Christian organization or an African American to make the KKK’s clothing? Or a Devout Christian photographer to work a gay wedding? I believe they have the right to refuse to do business just aas the others have the right not to do business with someone, where does it stop? And why do certain people, orgazations trump my rights?

  • Caleb Arnold

    Marriage (legally) is just a contract. A pre-made contract with specific rules. As a contract, it does not grant rights; if anything, it restricts them. There shouldn’t be tax benefits and whatnot imo.

  • Anonymous

    Discrimination is not freedom. You are thinking freedom should entail the freedom to take away other peoples freedom. But that just creates a contradiction in an endless circle.

  • Anonymous

    Sounds fine to me.

  • Suzi Conroy

    Business acting on their freedom, so you are in agreement with Hobby Lobby as well as the young Christian couple (photographers) that refused to do a gay wedding acting on their business freedom, right?

  • Nick

    It’s not discrimination against sexual orientation, we don’t give a crap what they label themselves. We simply don’t want to participate in a same-sex wedding or ceremony. Freedom of association, private property, self-ownership etc. are constitutionally-protected rights, not religious exceptions. Nobody should need a justified religious reason to exercise these rights in the first place.

  • Caleb Arnold

    I believe that discrimination is morally wrong. I believe a lot of things are morally wrong. If there was a business, discriminating against others, they would lose my business. I don’t think I should be able to force my moral perspective on others. Isn’t that the core belief of liberals? You think you should be able to force people to conform to your moral perspective by preventing their free choice (to discriminate). Isn’t that what you’re accusing ‘conservatives’ of doing? Yep.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, nope. the relationship with a business and its employees is not the same as with costumers. You can fire your employees for a whole lot of reasons, not all. You open up a business and you discriminate against a minority: a whole different ball game.

  • Boo2

    AMEN JoJo! That’s sooo true. “Do as I say ….or think as I say and I’ll continue to rip you apart because you won’t!! You cannot have your convictions unless they are in total agreement with mine!”
    That is the progressive “theology”!

  • Caleb Arnold

    By refusing to work for someone I am not taking away their freedom. Forcing me to do so is taking away mine. That being said, I do not discriminate; I work for gays, for people have a live-in partner, etc. I think they are all in the wrong, but I don’t refuse them service. I should be able to if I desire, however.

  • Nick

    There is no right that exists to be free of all discrimination from anybody, ever. Only in the public sector. If there was, it could only exist by heavily violating many constitutional rights. We are not saying that we support *actual* discrimination, but private businesses do have a constitutional right to run their business how they want, and refuse service to anyone for any reason. If the discrimination is unjust, the free market will take care of it when people choose not to give them business.

  • Grabthar’s Hammerpants

    Not clothing the poor or feeding the hungry also does this, yet so many supposed ‘christian’ politicians vote down policies in favor of doing exactly those things. Christian doctrine is also decidedly non-violent, yet so many ‘christian’ politicians (our own president included mind you, not just republican ‘war hawks’ with defense money in their pockets) vote in support of wars with no set budget or planned way to pay for them.

    Yet, we’re all so blind to these important problems, and care so much about who marries who?

    I seem to recall judging others as against ‘christian doctrine’ as well….

  • Caleb Arnold

    Then we finally agree on something. +1 for crossing the aisle to Libertarianism my friend.

  • Dean

    lol… the guy saying something is dumb..

    “That’s dumb. It don’t work”
    should be
    “That’s dumb. It doesn’t work”

  • Boo2

    And you just gave your opinion that people SHOULD agree with or they are hypocrites! Wow! Such ‘deep’ thinking.

  • Shannon C Williamson

    sweet heart, what you obviously do not understand that we DON’T hate homosexuals! I have family members that are homosexual, I love them just as much as I love those who are not. Your intolerance of those who do not share your opinion is glaring. Your ignorance in what conservatives truly believe is obvious. Your inability to accept and understand that this post isn’t even about being against homosexual but against the hypocracy is laughable.

  • The Doz

    Note to Mozella!
    Hi, I want to help!
    I’m interested in getting all the people that I know to STOP using Mozilla, a Fascist web browser. Apparently you people over at the office are CLUELESS about INCLUDING people of differing opinions on you staff? I’m now telling ALL my friends about your unbelievable narrow minded views similar to the way Hitler viewed the Jews! Idiots abound these days. The sad thing is I really loved your browser until you decided to s**t on one of the inventors of Java-Script just because he supported prop 8? What a bunch of hypocritical a**holes (pun intended) you are!

  • Boo2

    WHO doesn’t?!

  • Grabthar’s Hammerpants

    No one is asking christians to believe or go against their faiths, christians just need to realize that -with church and state being separate- their beliefs cannot and SHOULD not supersede the laws of the land.

  • Caleb Arnold

    I’m totally fine with that. They lose business for it, and you are removing their right of choice when you force them to do it.

  • Boo2

    Ahhhhh… Right back at ya.

  • Suzi Conroy

    Ok, so as I wrote below you agree then, a gay activist that is in marketing be forced to do the marketing for say a far leaning Christian organization or an African American to make the KKK’s clothing? Or a Devout Christian photographer to work a gay wedding? I believe they have the right to refuse to do business just aas the others have the right not to do business with someone, where does it stop? And why do certain people, orgazations trump my rights?

  • John

    perhaps not being a supporter of gay marriage is more complex than HATING gays? Perhaps HATE is not part of the equation at all.

  • http://politicoid.us/ Kir (Politicoid)

    Discrimination in your own mind is fine. However, as soon as you use the government to force others to act the way you should, you have crossed the line into moral tyranny.

  • Dan

    What kind of a dog is it?

  • Caleb Arnold

    This is an excellent point. Thank you Suzi for finding a way to see it that I had completely missed. So how about it, should the black photographer be forced to take photos at a KKK rally? Otherwise, that would DISCRIMINATION!!!!

  • Suzi Conroy

    Thanks….just so tried of the double standard!

  • http://politicoid.us/ Kir (Politicoid)

    For some reason my comment is pending. In any case, the answer is no. It means that he doesn’t support “marriage equality”. There’s no question about that. There are however questions about why the CEO of OKC supported a candidate 10 years ago.

    Although he did clear that question up: A decade ago, I made a contribution to Representative Chris Cannon because he was the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that oversaw the Internet and Intellectual Property, matters important to my business and our industry. I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular; I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today. However, a contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues has no equivalence to a contribution supporting Prop. 8, a single issue that has no purpose other than to affirmatively prohibit gay marriage, which I believe is a basic civil right.

  • Kyra Marie

    What freedom is being taken away when someone refuses to provide service to someone else?

    Forget about homosexuality for a second – suppose a store that sells adult DVDs wants me to be their accountant. Under your philosophy of “no discrimination”, I cannot refuse to serve them on the grounds that doing so would violate my principles. You’re saying I should be FORCED to. THAT is an infringement upon freedoms. Telling the customer to go somewhere else is not at all an infringement upon one’s freedom.

    Edit: We’re assuming I work for a consulting firm, not that I’ve applied to this company voluntarily.

  • Shannon C Williamson

    Uhm but Church and State are NOT separate! The Constitution does NOT say that. Seperaton of Church and State was made up in the 60′s based off of a commet made by Thomas Jefferson way after the Constitution was written and used as an excuse to remove anything Christian from the schools. What the Constitution says is in laymens terms; the government can not mandate a religion and the church can not mandate the government. It is THAT simple. The sooner stupid people get that in their mind the sooner we can all move on from the ignorance, hate, and persicution Christians experience every day now.

  • Anonymous

    BUT if you happen to be a photographer or a baker or an event venue owner, You are NOT ALLOWED to stay out of their business…

  • Anonymous

    Well said Shannon.

  • Shannon C Williamson

    And THAT is total BS as well! Onc again, ignorance of the facts is not an excuse.
    NOT wanting to change the meaning of marriage is NOT judging people. That is such a logical fallacy it truly makes you ignorant to say it.
    Republican war hawks with defense money in their pockets, OMG that is the funniest thing I have read today! Oh by the way, do you know who the top 20 richest people in Congress are? Of that 20, do you know that only 2 maybe 3, can’t remember right now, are Republican. Go chew on that for a while, and try and figure out just where they get their money from. At least one of them from the KOCH brothers that I hear so many liberals all up in arms about.
    Judge not, least you be judged! And at least while you are judging, try and do so with some facts, will ya?

    AND most conservatives are against sending money over seas to third world countries before feeding, clothing and housing our own first! AND conservatives donate MORE than liberals on average!

  • Caleb Arnold

    To further elaborate on this point:

    The phrase ‘separation of church and state’ comes from a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist church. As the British monarchy had demanded you be Anglican (part of the reason many left for America in the first place) and many colonies had similar laws originally, the Danbury Baptists were concerned that a church power would take over and try to force their religion on others. Jefferson was assuring them that this would not happen, as there was a ‘wall of separation’ between Church and State. Nothing in this says anything about voting based on your religious beliefs, or having the ten commandments on your desk if you work for the government.

  • Anonymous

    obama is NOT Christian, he’s muslim! And learn the difference between judging and admonishing!

  • Suzi Conroy

    Hobby Lobby has nothing to do with the customers.. it is about the 20 birth control options mandated by the ACA, Hobby Lobby is willing to offer 16 out of the 20 just not 4.

  • John Roberson

    Guess it comes down to one-upmanship, even on Glenn Beck’s part. God does have the Last Word though

  • Caleb Arnold

    Let me make this a little more clear:

    Christians, in the scriptures, are charged to take care of others. To help the poor, the needy, etc. The important point here is that they are charged as individuals. Using the government to TAKE from some and GIVE to others is the opposite of a true Christian belief. I have the responsibility to give, not the authority to force others to do it for me.

    Also, if you’re going to reference the “judge not” scripture, at least include the surrounding text. It’s about hypocrisy, and is followed immediately by a command to fix yourself so you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brothers eye. Which would be a commandment TO judge, in a helpful, Christian way. He never said to just leave the speck where it is…

  • Anonymous

    Well, now that the CEO has resigned, perhaps people will dump Mozilla in protest of the intolerant fascists. We are getting the true flavor of what democracy looks like. Only problem is, the liberals really don’t understand they are the minority.

  • Anonymous

    Sheer, unadulterated, hypocrisy! Are there not many hypocrites in our political process & society in general? Has not D in Democrat transformed into D for deceit, D for deception & D for disinformation?

  • Anonymous

    I would suggest that Eich is partly to blame for his own demise. Just remember what happened with the Duck Dynasty incdent. There was no backing down from accusations which had bigger coverage than Eich’s case. People have to stand their ground against these minority groups who push their agenda ever chance they get.

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Tapestry … Gaystopo tactics are never welcomed for any reason or any cause.

  • Caleb Arnold

    As Bill Maher put it, the Gay Mafia.

  • Anonymous

    That’s the thing Land. Used to be people who had “discriminating tastes” were considered people who made wise choices based on their cognitive process . Now the definition is unfair treatment of a person or a group based on prejudice. Both are valid definitions but the the first one has all but been forgotten and the latter has become the standard. Therefore you can no longer make a “discriminating” choice but your choice becomes a “prejudiced” one. So now it’s a bad thing to make a wise choice.

  • Boo2

    The Bible teaches between right and wrong. Read Matthew 22:36-38. These are the greatest commandments. Yes God is a God of love. BUT! Also read Deuteronomy 13:1-5. He is also a God of judgement! And then read Isaiah 55:4-9. That explains a little about God. The Bible is full of wondrous things! Love….and judgment. And you’ll never change that. You cannot pick & choose what you want to believe in the Bible. Or what you THINK it says.

  • 1-800-Obummercare

    Glad this Mozilla CEO thing dominated the news. It helped the Gimmie Dats take the focus off of the latest Obama Scandal.

  • 1-800-Obummercare

    Are they the ones that kill while skipping?

  • Caleb Arnold

    And giggling. With their pinkies up.

  • 1-800-Obummercare

    Brendan Eich gave the money the same year Obama said he was against Gay Marriage. Why aren’t the left going after Obama too. Or was it because Obama has “Evolved” as a person. He evolved to win more left wing support and votes. Wake up people. The left are the worse hypocrites on earth.

  • Anonymous

    It also demonstrates their ignorance about “discrimination”. This man should sue for harassment on the job for religious beliefs.

  • 1-800-Obummercare

    And bob their heads as they talk.

  • 1-800-Obummercare

    In the Dictionary next to the word Hypocrisy it says “See Democrat.”

  • Caleb Arnold

    Lots of hand motions in there, too. With loose wrists.

  • Anonymous

    Coming to our neighborhoods:
    Thought Police

  • Anonymous

    There’s another “D” evil

  • 1-800-Obummercare

    Freedom as defined by left wing liberals. No sir don’t need any of that.

  • Tanya Benedict

    Yes!

  • James Childress

    I think it was just a publicity stunt designed to take advantage of the situation for free advertising.

  • 1-800-Obummercare

    I think free membership does a better job. But you know those loony lefties.

  • 1-800-Obummercare

    The left wants everyone to have freedom of speech and expression. Well until it goes against what they think or believe.

  • Shannon C Williamson

    Uh sooooo, taking the Chrstians rights to display Christian things like crosses, or have a bible in class, or contribute to a Christian based ideology isn’t discriminating against Christians or taking a gropse freedom? Christian supremacy? Really? How about Liberal or even Homosexual supremacy? Institutional discrimination is forcing others to conform to your way of thinking, demanding that Christians accept marriage be changed from a man and woman to who ever loves each other comes to mind. Demanding tha a CEO be fired from his position of a company for his personal beliefs is another. The media praising a baskeball player for admitting he is gay while condeming a footall player for praising God is another. Need I go on? Well how about these public schools that do not allow Christian groups on their campus while allowing muslim and saintest to have theirs?

  • Charm City Fan

    Well spelt too!

  • Anonymous

    It is simple, Christians must go against their”faith” or become totally obsolete. What I mean by totally, no one would buy or sell to them, speaking to them would be immoral. Death would be much better for them then to live in the modern, up to date world of the 21st Century. We may relent and find some hidden, desolate place to bury them so they wont become worshiped saints.

  • Shannon C Williamson

    Evidently YOU are the one who is NOT informed! What policy are you refering to exactly that pushes to allw pople ot refuse service bsed on sexual orientation? You are some kind of stupid aren’t you? If a Christian who owns his own business, i.e, photography, cake making… refuses to do a wedding for a gay couple, that is his/her right! Just as if a homosexual business owner refuses to serve straight people. But by george, if that were to happen people like you would be supportive of that business owner because it is his right to not serve straight people. Who are YOU to say a Christian would not be violatig their religious beliefs?

  • Shannon C Williamson

    The Christian who refused to take pictures did NOT take their freedom to find a new photgrapher! Nor did the cake maker deny the homosexual couple from finding a new bakery! But because they got all butt hurt they sued the photorapher and the cake maker and that liberal judge FORCED them to take the pictures and make the cake.

  • Take 2

    Moses made tribal Laws (breathed by God) for those with hardened hearts i.e. those unknowing of Gods original plan or eg., refused to follow God’s original plan (specifically Man – Woman relationships.)

    Christ was asked “Why Moses created such hypocrisy in Gods original plan for Man-Woman relationships” (“in my words”.)

    What was Christ reply! Look it up folks!

    In essence, the road is narrow, and tunnel visioned conservatives need to understand toleration ie. Tribal Law that is not inconstant order with or of Gods original plan…and get that it ‘is’ for Gods own good purpose.

    Moses in his own heart or life did not agree with the tribal Law for divorce (as an example) BUT in order to keep peace did what God commanded for those of no faith or those not following Gods original plan.

  • Shannon C Williamson

    Exactly! Cause other wise all these business who refuse service based on the no shirt, no shoes or no concealed weapon would be discriminatng.

  • Shannon C Williamson

    Then by all means, explain how that works when the gay person can sue the business owner because the businss owner refuses them service?

  • S. C. Mema

    Jesus commands his followers to care for the widows and the orphans. He never said that his followers should give more money to Rome so they could feed the hungry and take care of the poor. And as for judging… Jesus said that we should judge. We just need to be sure that we realize the same measuring stick we use on others will be used on us. What we’re not supposed to do is seek vengeance — that belongs to God alone.

  • Anonymous

    Mozilla can go after this hypocrite in court

  • Randall Dunlap

    Here I am a white, working class, conservative, Southern Baptist, and one of the most vilified demographics in America. I have employed many people over the years with whom I disagree politically. I can’t imagine refusing to do business with one of my suppliers because someone in management made a contribution to a certain political cause. Furthermore I don’t think any of my contemporaries would act like that either. It just seems bizarre to me to try and get someone fired because they disagree with me on a political matter.

  • Caleb Arnold

    Um… what?

  • Shannon C Williamson

    OMG! Seriously???? Well then why hasn’t Obama been fired yet? Heck, why was he even elected? He had the exact same views as Eich did! Eich did NOT work for Mozilla when he made that donation in 2008! He has only been therefor ONE week! So forcing a man out of his jobis ok with you just because he supports traditional marriag? REALLY? And no honey, there is no actualy policy under traditional marriage.

  • Anonymous

    I believe in totally making up the rules of God because they are so out of touch with the 21st Century. I believe God wants us to be happy and not bother each other with silly orders, like thou shall not. If He was living today and on the internet He would immediately see how out of touch He is. I’m sure He would do a instant rewrite and self publish and be #1 on the NY Times best seller list.

  • Caleb Arnold

    Actually, he’s been at Mozilla a long time. He was a co-founder. He has only been CEO for a week.

    That being said, Mozilla’s big mistake was putting him there in the first place. They already knew about the donation; they should have known it would cause trouble.

    I do agree on the point about Obama though. Double standard here.

  • Shannon C Williamson

    Where in the heck do you get that? I believe that people who devote their lives to each other should be afforded all the same benefits. Leave marriage to the church and just have civil unions by the government. That would fix the issue, well unil gays demand churches marry them.

  • Caleb Arnold

    Already happened. They sued the church. Of course, that was in the UK. Still… ridiculous.

  • John Voss

    Very well articulated Caleb.

  • Anonymous

    The real problem is different denominations pick and choose what they want to believe, many times as their initial reason and cornerstone of their denomination. Therefore dislike and even hate between people who believe in God. I love God personally because he gives hope and reason to our short time on Earth. Do I think God wants us to intellectually split hairs over doctrine to the point of making the simple points of His love for us secondary. Sure, Hes a nut case and loves to see the denomination interplay that can lead to the worst of human destruction. Case in point England and Ireland etc.

  • Anonymous

    Caleb, your so out of touch !!

  • Anonymous

    What, like God gave us the ‘thou shalt nots’ to make us miserable? Because He decided to hand down a bunch of rules just because He was out to spoil your good time? That’s like the argument a 7-year-old comes up with when he doesn’t want to clean his room or do his homework or eat a healthy dinner instead of Pop Tarts and is told not to play in the middle of the street. As far as he’s concerned, Mommy and Daddy just want to stop him from having fun.

  • Anonymous

    Too late.

  • Anonymous

    The Bible has a lot of wisdom in it. Modern definition it is such a bad book. Think I’m overstating. Wish I was.

  • Anonymous

    My neighbor exposes himself occasionally. Is that the same thing?

  • Anonymous

    That’s too complicated a concept for some people.

  • Anonymous

    Size matters!!!

  • http://www.absoluteintensity.com dennis reilly

    When will the pompous Yagan step down , become a preacher and marry people you coward, ceo is not for you

  • Anonymous

    Well said!

  • Caleb Arnold

    ???

    Elaboration would be appreciated.

  • Anonymous

    If you are pro-Separation of church and state, then are you anti-ACA? Because Obama has said that his religious views about caring for the poor (his church) influenced the impetus for getting universal health care passed into law (the state).

  • Anonymous

    The door to homosexual acceptance has been opened. Do you really believe they will be satisfied with a cursory O.K. but don’t make to much noise. Believe that there is an agenda , spoken or not to strut there stuff in the faces of any and all who even hint at disagreement. The parades and some of the other hunting and pecking are only the beginning. Question is, can our society withstand a full acceptance without a basic moral collapse?

  • texastruthtweet

    Watch out, left-wingers! Instant Karma will get you!

  • Yeba

    a third neuron would help your logic a lot.

  • Magnus Shrugged

    OkStupid is a Bad Omen, they are doing the SAME thing as the NAZIS did, to they’re PERCEIVED ENEMIES. SILENCE anyone that doesn’t FOLLOW your Philosophy. This is how a REPUBLIC DIES, from the INSIDE. Like a CANCER. Except this cancer is totally PREVENTABLE, all people have to do IS: THINK and LEARN and GROW-UP!! I DO, and I don’t fall for ALL this BS, even if I was “gay,” my sense of REALITY and JUSTICE, would not allow me to act like a Douchebag, that FORCES other INDIVIDUALS to OBEY my beliefs, especially – by LAW, by COERCION, by the GOVT.

  • Steve Sepos

    I think Caleb is exactly right

  • Titicaca

    The Bible says about 8 times (which, for those of you who can actually count, is about 7 more times than homosexuality is mentioned) that eating seafood aside from fish is a sin. So how about you leave the LGBT community alone and go protest some damn Red Lobsters?

  • doodooworld

    we are awash in a sea of MORAL RELATIVISM…and until we recognize and adhere to MORAL ABSOLUTES…we will be adrift and lost

  • Sarcastic Sam

    Yes, Caleb, you are absolutely right. It is very much about hypocrisy. I see many people who pick and choose what they want to follow from the Bible. I mean, homosexuality is a detestable sin, so we should definitely continue to use our government to limit the civil rights of homosexuals, but we should take it a step further, even. The Bible states that people who partake in such uncleanliness should be separated from their people– cut off by their society. How about we round them up and relocate these individuals? I mean, our great God-fearing ‘Murica should be a beacon of Christianity to the world, and removing the defilers would support that symbolism. I mean, really, who wants our great nation to be a symbol of ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom’? No says I; I think your rights end where my homophobic, not-so-sure-about-my-sexuality tendencies begin! If we just kicked out all the gay people, then I wouldn’t have to question myself anymore! Let’s not stop there, though! Let’s execute adulterers and force rapists to marry their victims! If we only followed every law in the Bible, instead of the ones we pick and choose we should follow, then this country would be heaven on earth! I am so sick of the hypocrisy in the Christian faith, it’s time we do something about it. We can worry about all those other unimportant matters, such as healthcare, education, and national defense, after we lead this crusade to abolish ALL sin in the US of A. I know you and many others will understand me, Caleb, after all, we’re not sinners, are we?

  • Boo2

    I don’t know about “nut case” but I do think He has a sense of humor!

  • Boo2

    “All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” (Romans 3:23). ALL!
    God gives everyone freedom of choice. You decide what you want to believe or not believe. BUT He also sets boundaries He wants all to follow. So while you chose, He says, “choose you this day Whom you will serve, as for me and my house, we WILL serve The Lord!” Joshua 24:15.
    It really is a shame that the left thinks ALL should believe as they do. Those who don’t, are labeled right wing racists. My sister is gay. She’s been with the same woman for 40 years. I think the world of and love both of them. But I in no way agree with their lifestyle.
    Read Mark 13:12.

  • Anonymous

    Who’s? Should vegans get to decide that you can’t eat meat? Should Mormons get to decide that you can’t drink coffee or alcohol? Should Muslims get to decide that women have to wear those shroud things that I’m too lazy to look up? Who’s morals get to decide what is “absolute”?

    The founding fathers specifically, explicitly stated that religion, and the morals that come with it, do not get to dictate government. Government is about rights, not morals.

  • Sarcastic Sam

    Please, refer back to my response to Caleb.

  • Anonymous

    It seems bizarre to me too, yet, some people are bent on passing laws that guarantee some can discriminate against certain marginalized social groups. If you don’t see it first hand, it don’t mean it doesn’t exist. In other words, if you are white, blue collar conservative, and you are not a racist bigot, great! good for you. Now, please do not tell me there is no racism and sexual preference discrimination. There is. And don’t tell me people like that are not trying to pass laws. They are.

  • Anonymous

    That might as well be true. But the fact that banning gay marriage entails discrimination is not up for grabs: it does. You can discriminate without hate, sure.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, and if a person loses his/her job because he/she’s a racist, I would be fine with that too.

  • Anonymous

    But if we’re charged as individuals to help the poor and needy, and it’s not right for government to force us to obey that commandment, even though love of money is literally the root of all evil; then doesn’t the same thing apply to homosexuality? You have the right to continue to preach that homosexuality is wrong, but government shouldn’t restrict homosexuality anymore than it should mandate “charitable” acts by taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor.

  • Sarcastic Sam

    Ms. Williamson, I fail to see your logic in this post. If the church cannot mandate the government, and the government cannot mandate a religion, then that would be separation of church and state, correct? I don’t know, maybe I just can’t understand what you mean by “church cannot mandate the government”, obviously you mean that religion can’t be involved in the lawmaking process, unless it’s your religion. Am I getting warmer? That ideology reminds me of this theocracy in the Middle East that all the conservatives love, but I can’t quite remember the name of this country… oh, that’s right, Iran. They run their government in a similar fashion, and we just love how Iran treats it’s citizens. The Golden Rule only applies when it comes down to how you treat me, right? It’s not like Christ preached about love and treating those who are different the way you expect to be treated. Nah, that never happened.

  • Anonymous

    If the Christian organization is asking for a marketing campaign that promotes discrimination towards gays; and if the KKK is asking a black person to do clothing that is offensive (historically: this is important), such as those white hooded robes, then both not only can refuse, they SHOULD refuse to do the job. They are being attacked based on who they are. If they are asking for just normal marketing or normal clothes, I see no reason they should refuse. If they do refuse, they are discriminating of the basis of faith. But if a devout Christian photographer is asked to photograph a normal gay wedding (nothing kinky or pornographic), if the photographer refuses because he thinks, like some here say, homosexuality is against his religious beliefs, then he is discriminating. Gays are not attacking Christians by marrying. No matter how you bent it up rhetorically, being openly just doesn’t add up to religious persecution: it’s free speech. Because as much as you search in the Bible, you won’t find it saying that either one shouldn’t take photographs of those one deems sinners, or (more realistically) that one should have enough disgust towards sinners as to judge them, here on Earth, before God gets a proper (non a priori) judgement.

  • Anonymous

    Nope, you are wrong. Please read above.

  • Anonymous

    Sounds fine with me. Yet, what you spouse is not what other conservatives think.

  • Anonymous

    Again, do tell: how exactly are liberals forcing “people to conform to (our) moral perspective”… I’m very curious.

  • Anonymous

    So you’re the grammar police, or something?

  • Sarcastic Sam

    Very well said, if only others shared that belief. My apologies for the response I left you on your later post, I generalized you before reading down and seeing that you are a supporter of the non-aggression principle, not against it.

  • Anonymous

    If you don’t know, dear Shannon, do go get informed.

  • Anonymous

    Answer’s yes.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks, already there.

  • Anonymous

    No. We are just kindly asking for your faith (my faith too) not to try to pass laws that allow people to discriminate against us (surprise! I’m gaaaay Christian!)

  • Sarcastic Sam

    Well said, Boo. I’m glad you accept your sister for who she is. Now, why is it that your sister cannot be married to the woman she has already been with for 40 years? Let God decide if their love is legitimate, not the church or any government.

  • Anonymous

    Nope. You are not allowed to refuse the business you willingly put out there for the public based on a discrimination of sexual orientation. You guys are very sneaky, always trying to sneak by with semantics and ill interpreted technicalities. No wonder you are losing the argument.

  • johnboy

    my suggest that it is not “the love of money is the root of all evil” but instead we say “the use of money can be the root of all evil”.

  • Shane

    Ever seen the sign, No shirt, No shoes, No service? Topless, shoeless activist unite! Totally full of it Fiine! Private business is exactly that, private. No business is (was) required to serve or sell to anyone. Just like is (was) not required to buy their services or products.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, I am intolerant. Not as much as you. I’d have to work really hard to get that intolerant. Oh, and I don’t deny being so like you either. I’d hate to be a lying, intolerant hypocrite like you. That would be obnoxious.

  • Anonymous

    Taking care of people’s needs such as those you listed above is not the government’s responsibility. That is our responsibility, family, friends, neighbors and churches. Government does not do a good job of that and I believe that given more of our money, government would not do any better, unless you think that CREATING dependency is a good thing. “Dependency” is about the only thing that government effectively does create in our country right now.
    Judging? We better start judging our leaders and doing something about it or we are in for really bad times.

  • Randall Dunlap

    All 50 states have laws against polygamy and bigamy. That is discrimination too.

  • Anonymous

    Homosexuals marrying makes as much sense as sending a comatose child to a regular classroom. He won’t benefit from it, neither will society, even if it makes the family feel their child is “normal.”

  • Boo2

    They’ve been ‘married’ a long time. In Massachusetts (I think …or some NE state)years ago when they had some judge ok it and then later it was rescinded…..or something.
    They have free will to choose that lifestyle and yes I love them but will never call it a marriage.

  • Boo2

    Your response to Caleb fits your ‘handle’ SS.

  • Sarcastic Sam

    Haha, clever. I can appreciate a good sense of humor.

  • Sarcastic Sam

    And it is your right to not call it a marriage, just as it is their’s to be married.

  • Bryan

    The Bible does not say give the government your money to feed and cloth the poor. It says for you to do it. It is a call to service, not a call to pay taxes. Oh, and I’m not judging you.

  • Anonymous

    Then the homosexual community should lay off of the Christians. I’m tired of being forced to go against my faith.

  • Anonymous

    The government doesn’t restrict homosexuality. They promote it in the schools from kindergarten on up. NAMBLA is one of the backers and promoters of it, especially in California.

  • Anonymous

    Jesus did plenty of judging in the Bible.

  • Anonymous

    LOL so you want to rewrite the Bible because the word of God is “out of touch”?

    Thanks for the laugh. It’s not often that I read a post from someone that not only knows what God would think, but puts himself above God.

  • Anonymous

    No where in the Constitution does it say that the church and state are separate. It states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The first part means that there will be no state religion, an example would be like the Church of England, creating the Church of the United States. The second part means that the government cannot prohibit people from exercising their right to worship. Unfortunately, the government has been on a witch hunt against Christians since the early 1960′s and getting worse since obama was elected. The muslims get a pass. THEY are allowed prayer rooms in public school.

    Since there are over 20 muslim training camps, I can’t wait until the liberals and homosexual community get a sample of muslim “tolerance”.

  • Anonymous

    No, this separation of church and state is a liberal lie that has been repeated so often that people actually think that line exists in the Constitution.

    There’s a line, tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

    You might want to try reading the Constitution, and the Danbury letters.

  • Anonymous

    Kindly? Seriously? The homosexuals were throwing feces at people. They publicize the names and addresses of people that they don’t like because of their political/social views in order for people to go to their homes and harass them.

    As for being a homosexual Christian….LOL whatever.

  • Anonymous

    You went off into OT Jewish law with that one, dude.

  • Silent Political Yeoman

    Also, as a companion to many Bible verses, here’s one from The Book of Mormon.

    “Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.” (1 Nephi 4:13)

  • davspa

    Some discrimination IS a good thing. You mean that if you are an employer that you will just hire any person who walks in off the street wanting a job? You won’t WEED OUT candidates who aren’t qualified or who can’t get along with others? How is that not discrimination? You must not understand the meaning of the word.
    And you are mistaking disagreement for intolerance. I don’t agree with a lot of things people say, but I accept their right to say them. But you, and many other liberals, seem to think that if one disagrees with someone’s lifestyle, that makes him a bigot. Not so. It is absolutely possible to disagree with someone but yet accept their right to say it. You are telling me you agree with everything everyone says? Well if that is ok for you, why is it not for others?
    In fact, YOU are being hypocritical in calling someone intolerant – your statements are dripping with intolerance of the Christian position. Why is THAT not bigotry? Why is that not intolerance? Why should only YOUR viewpoint hold sway?

    And the mature Christian does not wish homosexuals to be destroyed, but he disagrees with the societal definition of marriage being changed to include same-sex couples.

  • Equis

    Everyone knows that the bible states that a marriage is between a man and a woman. It seems to me that the only reason that they would want to call their union a marriage would be to mock Christianity. So to be a Christian is not the intent why would anyone insert themselves into a Christian faith based doctrine and title when they could title their union anything else and still have the rights that go with it. Just curious….

  • Jenn

    queers for too long have ruined what family life is supposed to be….its time to stand up and take back what marriage really is…ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN..PERIOD!!!

  • Jenn

    it certainly seems to me that these queers are mocking Christianity…there is no love in their so called relationships…its just a way to get in the spotlight and ruin something beautiful that should only be for one man and one woman…its all a joke..

  • davspa

    Did you not read her argument? She clearly said that the Constitution does not support a religion that runs the government, yet you implied she was wanting a theocracy, as Iran has. That is what she was saying the Constitution forbids, just the opposite of your statement.

  • Anonymous

    Dear Sardonic Spam; I personally enjoy reading the ramblings of people who don’t know what they are talking about but still keep talking…You may have a small shovel but you sure are willing to shovel a lot of crap.

    For starters, many of the commands that Moses gave his people while they were wandering in the desert (which are found in the first 5 books of the bible and known as Mosaic Law) were commands given specifically to those people, Jews wandering in the desert. Unless you are a Jew in the desert, thousands of years ago, they don’t apply to you. Their purpose was to keep the tribes strong and united. healthy and separate from other peoples.

    Second, there is always a clear distinction, between what Moses says, and what God tells him to say. These are 2 different levels of authority…one a man, the other God, so they carry different weight. This is true throughout the bible where the writer makes a clear distinction between his thoughts and Gods commands. But you’ll never notice it if all you are focused on is the sensational things you don’t understand

    Third, the bible is very consistent, especially in the New Testament, that we are to love each other, no matter what, the differences, no matter the issue. But loving someone doesn’t mean you have to condone everything they do. Only a co-dependent emotional slave would believe that.

    Your problem, it seems to me, is that you don’t know what you’re reading. You also don’t seem to be able to separate a behavior from a person, which makes me think you don’t have any kids, or that you think that people are nothing more than the sum of their current or past behaviors.

    No Christian would ever believe that a person is only the sum of their past actions. That is the exact opposite of what the bible, and Christianity are all about.

    Your joking cynicism tells me you don’t know the topic very well. Being confused makes people pissed. Your anger seems like is a response to fear. I think your fear would subside if you learned more about what the bible really says.

  • Jonithon R Bankston

    So he’s ok with people being gay if he is will payed?

  • Jonithon R Bankston

    Is evil just taking everything over?

  • HomeAgain

    As a Christian, repect my Constitutional right to religious freedom and my belief to practice my religion. Give me the same consideration everyone gives to Muslims.

  • Nadia Decker

    What I want to know, is why do people have to resign for simply having a difference of OPINION? Get over yourself. People are entitled to their own beliefs and morality.

    Also, Mother Jones forgot to mention… that in 2007 and 2008 Barack Obama was ANTI-gay marriage too. SOO insinuating that Yagan’s support of Obama somehow compensates for his previous donation to a Republican candidate that was also ANTI-gay marriage in 2004— is meaningless. It’s the SAME damn thing.

  • Anonymous

    Just follow the dots. Law is basically written by lawyers who get it through congress. Lawyers are almost all democrat. They have the money, they have the control of the academia, and of media. Who are the lawyers, what religion (even if atheists)? It is easy control of society. Instead of openly denying them something, you have laws that punish you. Nobody can go against it.

  • Caleb Arnold

    Have you even taken the time to READ my posts on this topic? Beyond the one that you picked to reply to? I think you haven’t. I think you’re far to busy indulging your ‘righteous’ anger to actually take the time to see my view on these topics.

    The government should have nothing to do with marriage. Get it out completely. If homosexuals want to say they are married, that’s fine with me. If sixteen people want to all be married to one another, go right ahead.

    If anything, I find your anger sadly misplaced. There are plenty other posters who believe exactly what your imply I believe. My own brother (not on this thread) believes all sin should be litigated against. Lying, adultery, fornication; they should all be punishable by law.

    I don’t believe that. I’m a Libertarian. I believe you should be able to do whatever you desire so long as you are not harming someone else or their property. I hold my beliefs dear, and WILL preach that sin is sin, but that doesn’t mean I believe we should litigate against it. That’s simply absurd.

    Next time, take the time to actually read before you get on your high horse. Otherwise, you just look like an idiot.

    EDIT: In light of another comment, I want to apologize for my tone in this one. I’ll leave it as-is, just to show that I, too, can let anger get the better of me at times.

  • Caleb Arnold

    The idea was to protect the rights of individuals to pursue their religion, not to keep individuals from voting based on their religion. Big freaking difference.

    Your posts are so full of vitriol it’s hard to even read them.

  • Caleb Arnold

    I should be allowed to discriminate against you, and vice versa, providing no harm to person or property is done. The laws should prevent the GOVERNMENT from discriminating. At the moment, marriage laws are discriminatory. Get rid of them completely.

    EDIT: Let me point out, again, that I am not one who agrees with discriminatory action on a moral point. But I don’t believe it should be illegal, provided it is not doing harm to person or property. My point is that laws that allow discrimination are fine; laws that discriminate are not.

  • Caleb Arnold

    My apologies as well. I might have just read your replies and responded in kind.

    Peace.

  • Caleb Arnold

    Forcing someone to do something against their beliefs; work for someone they choose not to. That’s exactly what you’re proposing.

  • Caleb Arnold

    So… the basis of who must or must not preform a service they are uncomfortable with… is based on your basis or moral acceptance. If it’s offensive from a HISTORICAL view, it’s okay; if the MESSAGE is offensive, it’s okay; but if it’s offensive because of a RELIGIOUS view, it’s not okay. That’s… well, that’s just ridiculous. Talk about a severe double standard.

    I should be able to refuse work or employment on whatever grounds I desire. I, personally, would not. But the option should be there. THAT is freedom. What you’re proposing is the opposite.

  • Caleb Arnold

    You can claim to be. Some of your other responses are anti-Liberty though. Like forcing me to do something against my believe simply because I own a business. Not Libertarian at all.

    EDIT: It’s not my place to say what you are or aren’t; if you claim to be a Libertarian, so be it. You just don’t fit my personal definition.

  • Caleb Arnold

    By refusing to work for someone I am not taking their freedom. Unless your saying that freedom is, in essence, the opportunity to get what you want regardless of other’s opinions. I mean, sure, you can say that. But the logical conclusion to that thought process is that I can ask you to come to whatever service you do, and you have to do it, even if I can’t pay. Cause, you know, that discrimination against the poor…

  • Kenyan Mocker

    Again you show your progressive lack of understanding. A person has the right to choose what they support and don’t. Once you bring in Govt you then say it’s OK to force people to not keep to their beliefs. Govt should have no right to tell me I have no right to choose who and what I support.

    You on one hand say keep church and state separate but then support that Govt control church. The entire concept as put forth by the founding fathers was that no one religion would become supported as the official religion.

  • Caleb Arnold

    I’ve said exactly that repeatedly in other comments on this page. Government should not be in control of marriage.

  • Caleb Arnold

    The translation that I use reads “the love of money is the root of all KINDS of evil.” Hope that helps.

  • Anonymous

    When is the great keeper of the “TRUTH” Glenn Beck going make a comment on the defamation lawsuit that’s going to cost him dearly in terms of tens of million of dollars and a severely tarnished reputation?

  • Kenyan Mocker

    Libertarians believe in freedom, but then still asking, or forcing, by Govt mandate to pay for the results.
    When the drug culture and the gay lifestyle, supported by LP, was interjected by the HIV/Aids epidemic it was declared that Govt be responsible for the cost.
    You can do as you please and can personally pay for or be a hypocrite. The choice clearly shows the faults of LP.

  • Caleb Arnold

    Link, plz.

  • Caleb Arnold

    I’m not sure exactly what your point is here.

    As far as I’m concerned, if you screw up, you pay the price yourself, or look for charity from others.

    The government isn’t there to fix your problems. It is ONLY there to protect your LIberty.

  • ConcernedMommy

    Hammerpants, I’m sorry, but you are mistaken. I assume you aren’t Christian, otherwise you would know that we are charged with the responsibility of caring for orphans, supporting the widow, giving to our neighbor and sharing our tithe and offering with the church. We just don’t want the government taking it from us for their interests. I would much rather have less taxes taken out of my pay so I can give to those that need it right here in my community.Before you criticize Christians like this, perhaps take a look at my church’s mission here in Florida called Love Orlando. (www.firstorlando.com)

  • Anonymous

    No one is more of a hypocrite than Glenn Beck! He parades around proclaiming “THE TRUTH LIVES HERE” while he’s out there making false accusations against innocent young people. Now he can’t even release a statement about the defamation lawsuit that will probably cost him multiple millions of dollars and a national embarrassment and humiliation. Where’s your statement Glenn? Come on big mouth. Find some courage Glenn!

  • Anonymous

    The love of money gave us Glenn Beck, so that proves it’s the root of evil. When is the great keeper of the “TRUTH” Glenn Beck going make a comment on the defamation lawsuit that’s going to cost him dearly in terms of tens of million of dollars and a severely tarnished reputation?

  • ken.

    thats a bad example, no shirt, no shoes, no service is based on health code. a better example would be we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

  • Caleb Arnold

    Source, plz.

  • Caleb Arnold

    As said previously, source plz.

  • Anonymous

    Equality on Earth is a myth. Just as there is good and evil, there will be division. “Equality” (even if legislated) will not eliminate greed, lies, lust, anger, resentment and gluttony. Somebody, somewhere will want somebody else’s stuff and will do anything to obtain it.

  • Anonymous

    That’s what “equality” is all about — force. Force by the impatient and envious not taking into account the consequences. People may complain that the “Civil Rights Movement” would never have happened except by force and protests. Look back further. Indeed, it was the force of those progressives who erroneously thought that slavery was the future. The progressives didn’t look far enough ahead.

  • Anonymous

    Semantics? The deceitful, homosexual agenda is driven by word redefinition. Yes, you’re losing the argument because you have accepted the homosexual lies and redefinitions. There are other things at work in the rest of the world. Not legal in the USA (yet) but in the names of “rights”, “natural”, “born that way” and “love” it will be presented.

  • http://politicoid.us/ Kir (Politicoid)

    I’ll repeat what I said; you have crossed the line when you use the government to force others to act the way you think they should. In addition, humans will figure things out for themselves. Government just gets in the way and muddles things up.

  • Anonymous

    If you cannot endure to be “not married” then you are not tolerant.

  • Javier

    The excuse is going to be that donations above $500.00 should be considered problematic, however, anything below that benchmark still falls within the leftist parameters and there is no conflict here. (sarc)

  • Kirby Crowley

    Fiine, you lose credibility when you try to tell me (and others) what we think. “Specifically, you think God should drown all the sodomites… Or at least they should not have the same rights to marry as heterosexual couples have.” You don’t know what I think, unless I specifically tell you, and then you, acting on faith, believe my words.

    Quit putting words in others’ mouths.

  • Anonymous

    Oh, Caleb. You are just trying to justify discriminating based on your religious beliefs. In other words, your interpretation (because that’s all it is) of the Christian faith is that you, a citizen, can open a business (not Christian, not a religious affiliation, but a business that serves customers), and you want the “freedom” to say, “this person(s), because they are sinners in my book, I won’t receive as customers”, and that is just plain discrimination against someone or a group, a discrimination based not on who you are, what you belief, but based on your judgement of a person who just happens to be so different than you, that somehow it is intolerable for you to offer your business… well, in this country, you then don’t get the freedom to open you discriminatory business… don’t get it? don’t want to get it? Too bad. This is America, we’ve gone through so many things to be rid of discrimination, and you want to takes us back to being petty and afraid of our fellow Americans, to start dividing us and segregating us again. And you wonder why other groups are weary of white male America… it’s not racism, it is weariness of being discriminated against, again…

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t say it to you, Kirby. It was a comment to landofaas, who has actually said those exact words to me. It’s not my problem that you amalgamate all liberals as if they were all talking to you.

  • Anonymous

    Easy to say when you’re heterosexual and no one is giving you a hard time for getting married or even wanting too.

  • Anonymous

    So the real problem that questionable “discrimination” is in direct conflict with the views of the gay community. Then they rally the troops, hound down the person who disagrees with their position, and pushes to get them fired. Obviously Mozilla is a coward company who refuses to stand by their CEO who made that donation several years ago, and it was NONE of their BUSINESS what he does in his private life or with his private money.

    There is no evidence at all that this man treated employees differently because of ANY difference they may have: age, religion, sexual orientation, race. In otherwards, he was a stand-up guy at work. And yet, the gay community pushed to get him which cost him his way of making a living because he DARED to support the view he believes in. SHAME on the whole bunch of mean-spirited cowards represented at OkCupid and all who support what they did.

    Things always have a way of coming back to haunt you . . . . I am hoping I live long enough to witness it. Remember, the Muslims are populating this country by the thousands, and they believe that the gay community must be exterminated. Good luck working your “discrimination” on those guys!

  • Populist democrat

    How can the biggest hypocrite in the media point his finger at anyone else’s hypocrisy? Well, when your followers turn ideologically blinded eyes toward Beck’s hypocrisy, then anything is possible.

    Question everything, starting with Glenn Beck.

  • Gdrake

    Where are we told to drown all sodomites? Marriage was created by God not the Federal government. So if the Feds wants to call the Union of homosexuals civil union with all the rights and privileges that would be afforded heterosexuals what is the problem. No one is keeping you from your happiness.

  • JamieDNYC

    I don’t think we should be calling Yagan a hypocrite just yet, because we don’t know why Yagan contributed to Cannon. As a candidate, Cannon represents a slate of issues. Maybe there was some other issue Yagan was passionate about that Cannon was supporting? We don’t know yet so I’ll reserve judgement until more information comes out.

  • CHARLES F. GOTTER

    Anyone who says they do not ever discriminate is lying, period! Or, maybe just to stupid to realize it. Same with racism. Those who are so willing to call you a racist or a bigot can be counted among the same as they accuse.

  • Mick

    Simply not true, and a simple google search of something like, “business killed over gay marriage” will bring up pages of examples.

    It has happened, and has happened many, many times.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/washington-florist-sued-refusing-provide-flowers-sex-wedding/t/story?id=18922065&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/07/gay-colorado-couple-sues-bakery-for-allegedly-refusing-them-wedding-cake/

    There is 2 examples.

  • Carol Bernard

    my&nbspbest&nbspfriend’s&nbspstep-mother&nbspΜ­­­­­­а­­­­­­κ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ѕ&nbsp$­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­75&nbspհ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­υ­­­­­­rly&nbspon&nbspthe&nbspl­­­­­­а­­­­­­р­­­­­­τ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­р.&nbspShe&nbsphas&nbspbeen&nbspwithout&nbspa&nbspј­­­­­օ­­­­­ƅ&nbspfor&nbspnine&nbspΜ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ­­­­­­ѕ&nbspbut&nbsplast&nbspΜ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ&nbspher&nbspincome&nbspwas&nbsp$­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­19101&nbspjust&nbspW­­­­­­օ­­­­­­r­­­­­­κing&nbspon&nbsp
    the&nbspl­­­­­­а­­­­­­р­­­­­­τ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­р&nbspfor&nbspa&nbspϜ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­W&nbspհ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­υ­­­­­­rs.&nbspyou&nbspcan&nbspfind&nbspout&nbspmore,
    …&nbsphttp://Googlemakemoney2014control7fslu91u

    ✒✒✒ �✒✒✒ ✒✒✒ ✒✒�✒ ✒✒✒No business is (was) required to serve or sell to anyone. Just like is (was) not required to buy their services or products.

  • Guardian

    What then does “tie and jacket required fall under?

  • Anonymous

    Okay let’s with a question for you … EXACTLY what Beck hypocrisy are you referring?

  • Caleb Arnold

    Not in this instance. But there most certainly are instances where this happens. All over the place.

  • Anonymous

    I wasn’t necessarily disagreeing.

  • Anonymous

    Whatever happened to freedom of speech and free thought – do these stupid liberals want to control everything? Oh no, just conservative thinkers – they have tolerance only when you agree with them. What a stinking hypocrite he is but just so typical of a liberal.

  • Anonymous

    EXACTLY! Liberals only want freedom of speech for liberals – nobody else is allowed to have a mind of their own. I personally don’t care one way or the other about gays and lesbians; however, I don’t believe they have the same right to marriage and I should be allowed to voice my opinion.

  • Anonymous

    You are a misinformed idiot! Any business has the right to refuse service. Deal with it! I guarantee if a gay business owner refused to do something for a traditional wedding there would be no outcry!

  • Anonymous

    And you need to go troll a liberal site.

  • Anonymous

    Well said!

  • Anonymous

    And bear in mind that people like Mitt Romney who was vilified for the money he has made gives literally millions to charity and our illustrious president gave about $3,000/year and Biden, the bobble head, gave about $300. Oh yeah, they are definitely for helping poverty – just don’t use their money- use everyone else’s. It’s the liberal way.

  • Caleb Arnold

    You have completely missed my point…

    My point is not that Christian, or even Religious, people should be able to discriminate. It’s that ALL people should. As I have said repeatedly, I actually have the opportunity to do so… and don’t. I work in a service industry and can refuse service with no questions asked in my area. So your attempt to explain my points away as being driven by my desire to do so are entirely baseless. I CAN do so… but I don’t. Why? Because I believe it would be morally wrong. Because my interpretation of the scriptures, as you put it, tell me I cannot remove myself from the world. Because, if I refused to service the homosexual, I would also have to refuse to service the adulterer, the fornicator, the liar, etc.

    My POINT, which you seem to miss, is that you and those like you endeavor to remove my RIGHT to CHOOSE whom I will service. You want to take my LIBERTY. Why? Because you don’t want to be discriminated against. Well, guess what? Freedom from being discriminated against by others is not a right. You’re totally right, this is America. And American Patriots believe in Liberty. The LAWS should treat everyone equally; that I believe in the core of my soul. Jim Crow was wrong. Segregation was wrong. There is no debate on this. It is you who want laws that discriminate. Government should not force us to treat each other equally. Giving the government the power to force us to perform some action is a slippery slope. Every power given to government can be abused.

    You have admitted that you are homosexual. By assaulting my motives, you have put your own on trial. So, why do you pursue this point? It seems very self-serving.On the other side, if what I’m championing comes to pass, it would have absolutely zero affect on how I do business. None. Zip. Nothing will change. YOU don’t want to be discriminated against. Why? Cause… it… hurts your feelings? It doesn’t remove any right from you. You, nor your property, are harmed by being denied service. Your feelings should not be protected by law, any more than mine should. I’m not claiming that this is, in fact, your motive, but you opened this can of worms, sir, not me. I’m merely offering the possibility to others that read this.

    As I’ve said before, I would not do business with a company that actively discriminates against others. I believe it to be morally wrong, just as I believe adultery, fornication and yes, homosexuality, to be morally wrong. But I don’t think these things should be illegal. And I don’t think an individual, or a company, refusing service because of these or any other things, should be illegal. You claim I am trying to divide Americans, start segregating them; but your claim is just that: a claim. If anything, my perspective is FAR more consistent that yours, which seems solely based around your personal FEELINGS. Feelings have no bearing on my perspective; it’s based solely on Liberty.

    I believe marriage should be out of government hands, allowing the populace to pursue it however they wish: how does this fit with the agenda you proposed I have? It doesn’t.

    As the quote goes, “Give me Liberty, or give me Death.”

  • Mick

    Even though a business serves the public it is not a public business.

    You do know that right? I mean you argue like you have so much knowledge, you surely understand that private businesses do serve the public right?

    A grocery store that serves the public can trespass people from their store because the store is private property. The same holds true for a bakery, florist, or photography business. Even though these businesses serve the public, they are private business.

    Ever seen a sign that says, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”? They can say that and do that because they are a private business. Or they can do it, as long as the people they refuse aren’t gay. If they refuse to serve gay people they are hate mongers and are forced to close by the government.

  • Mick

    How do you put God drowning the sodomites in comparison with someone’s beliefs in gay marriage?

    The two are nowhere near similar. That’s like comparing apples and soccer balls. This is an example of the emotional rhetoric that gets used to tie people with different beliefs into horrible, hate-mongering, murderous, religious zealots.

    Opposing gay marriage is not even remotely similar to wanting God to drown gay people. And I think you are the one using hate speech calling them sodomites in order to show how horrible anyone with differing views is

  • Caleb Arnold

    To continue, your entire argument is based around my motives. It’s isn’t even a real argument; it’s a personal attack. Where is your assertion? It’s pointed at my motives, at me being a terrible, mean, right-wing Christian that wants to segregate and divide our nation. There’s no logic to it, just emotion.

    Now, if you had said that such a law would segregate and divide our nation (instead of claiming that I want to do so), THAT would be an argument. And a half-decent one, to be honest. What happens if a group of people who HATE (insert group of people) create their own town and every business refuses to service (insert group of people)? THAT’s an argument. And, in all sincerity, that is the ONE point that makes me question my position. Not enough to change it, but enough to give me pause.

    But you didn’t do that. You attacked me. I attacked back; my motive is not based on how this would effect me, because it wouldn’t. It could, however, effect you.

    Careful where you tread, sir. Personal attacks can often backfire.

    Like this one did.

  • women 99

    my view on you, IDIOT AND PROBABLY ONE OF CUPIDS CLIENTS

  • women 99

    Being gay (what a laugh most vicious people ever) is not a protected class
    if it is I want Christians to be protected class too.

  • women 99

    fline
    and keep it in your bedroom sweety and not in our schools
    God says its wrong and that’s enough for me and mine

  • women 99

    Fiine
    We will see who loses when we stand before God for judgment. It bet my money on you a and your ILK

  • women 99

    as long as activist judges are here straight people will be bothered by the shall we call them what God does?
    The abominations of mankind

  • women 99

    intolerance comes from the INTOLERANT QUEERS LIKE YOU
    GOD HAS SET HIS WORD AND HIS WORD IS AND WILL BE THE LAST WORD FOR BOTH YOU AND ME

  • women 99

    Caleb
    did you read the part where the woman uses oil on Jesus and judas said why waste the oil it is valuable.
    Jesus said what she did was good and wait for it Caleb
    JESUS SAID THE POOR WILL (ALWAYS BE WITH YOU)

  • women 99

    Jesus, SAID YOU ARE AN ABOMINATION LOOK IT UP
    as TO WHAT TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALS Jesus will take CARE of them remember Sodom and Gomorrah? In the end all sinners will be determined at judgment day for EACH PERSON

  • women 99

    Right on te Mark as a Christian

  • women 99

    God has decided and you and your ilk will not accept that decision

  • women 99

    Caleb can they also marry a goat and dog and pig and you don’t care? Do you stand for anything?

  • women 99

    Yes the OT was written for the Jews However IF YOU (EVERYONE NOT YOU ALONE) ARE JEWISH YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THE NT WHICH IS WHERE JESUS RETELLS THE TEN COMMANDMENTS TO GIVE AS A GUIDE FOR TODAY TIME ALSO.
    I accept as a Christian the WHOLE BIBLE OT AND NT TO BE GOD’S INSPIRED WORD TO MAN
    BLESSINGSTO YOUI

  • Anonymous

    Bigotry incarnate.

  • Carrie Geren Scoggins

    http://youtu.be/hBSqi1sKObE HOW MOZILLA VIOLATED THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, AND CORE VALUES RULING, “MOZILLA VIOLATES RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES, 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, CORE VALUES, CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS ” CEO OF MOZILLA BULLIED INTO RESIGNING AFTER HE DONATED TO AN ORGANIZATION SUPPORTING THE CHRISTIAN DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE:
    MOZILLA VIOLATES 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, AND FEDERAL SUPREME COURT RULING GIVING CHRISTIANS THE “LEGAL RIGHTS TO ADHERE TO CORE VALUES,” CHRISTIANS DO NOT LOOSE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS WHILE ON THE JOB

    BRENDAN EICH DONATED $1,000 DOLLARS TO A GROUP SUPPORTING THE BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, WHICH IS ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, OPPOSING PROPOSITION 8. THEN HE SUFFERED DISCRIMINATION WHEN THE COMPANY SENT OUT MESSAGES DEMONIZING HIM FOR HIS BELIEF IN ROMANS CHAP. 1, BULLYING HIM INTO RESIGNING.

    THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT MAINTAINS THAT ONE DOES NOT LOSE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS WHEN THEY GO ONTO THEIR JOBS, NOR IN THEIR BUSINESSES, AND THE FED SUPREME COURT RULINGS OF OUR “LEGAL RIGHTS TO ADHERE TO CORE VALUES.”

    MOZILLA IS VIOLATED THEIR CEO’S CHRISTIAN CIVIL RIGHTS DEMONIZING THEIR EMPLOYEE FOR HIS CHRISTIAN TENETS OF FAITH, THAT OF ROMANS CHAP 1., AND THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BEING BETWEEN ONE MAN, AND ONE WOMAN. THE CEO HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO “ADHERE TO CORE VALUES,” AND IS SUPPORTED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
    [ violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 ]

    THE MESSAGE SENT OUT BY THE COMPANY THAT THE CEO BRENDAN EICH WORKED FOR ATTEMPTED TO DEMONIZE HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AS ANTI-GAY, FOR HIS BELIEFS IN THE BIBLE’S VIEWPOINT OF HOMOSEXUAILTY BEING SIN, AND HIS SUPPORT OF THE BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BEING LAW. THIS VIOLATES EICH’S CHRISTIAN CIVIL RIGHTS, AS HIS EMPLOYER CAN NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HIS TENET OF FAITH, THAT OF ROMANS CHAP 1., OR ANY BIBLICAL BELIEFS.

    CHRISTIANS DO NOT LOSE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS, THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO “ADHERE TO CORE VALUES,” SUCH AS ROMANS CHAPTER 1, OR ANY BIBLICAL BELIEF, WHILE ON THE JOB, OR IN THEIR BUSINESSES. THIS FEDERAL SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT HAS BEEN SET, SUPPORTING CHRISTIAN CIVIL RIGHTS. THE “CORE VALUES” RULING SUPPORTED THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
    [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 ]

    THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED THE “HATE SPEECH,” LAWS THAT CENSORED BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES ON HOMOSEXAULITY, AND UPHELD THE CHRISTIAN’S “LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUE,” SUPPORTING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS OF CHRISTIANS, AND THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS TO ADHERE TO CORE VALUES OF ROMANS CHAP.1, AS THE HATE SPEECH LAWS VIOLATED SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN ILLEGAL RELIGIOUS CENSORSHIP. WE DO NOT PREACH A CENSORED BIBLE, AND HAVE THE FULL LEGAL RIGHT TO PREACH, TEACH, ADHERE TO, AND SUPPORT, THE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINTS.

    DEMOCRATS ONLY WANTED FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS FOR THOSE SUPPORTING THEIR VIEWS, BUT OUR LAWS SUPPORT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THOSE FROM BOTH ENDS OF THE POLITICAL, AND RELIGIOUS, SPECTRUMS, WITHOUT CENSORSHIP! IT IS FREEDOM STRAIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD, INCLUDING THE FREEDOM FOR CHRISTIANS. IT IS THE LEGAL RIGHTS TO OPPOSE MAINSTREAM THOUGHT.THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DISAGREE, ARGUE, AND DEBATE, ISSUES, AND TO ADHERE TO BIBLICAL MORAL STANDARDS.

    ONE’S EMPLOYER CAN NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ONE’S RELIGIOUS TENETS OF FAITH. THEY CAN NOT HARASS THEIR EMPLOYEES OVER THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON ANY ISSUE, NOR DEMONIZE THEM TO OTHERS FOR SAID BELIEFS. THIS INCLUDES ROMANS CHAP. 1, WHICH REFERS TO HOMOSEXUALITY AS A SINFUL LIFESTYLE, THAT OF A REPROBATE MIND. RELIGION IS A “PROTECTED CLASS” UNDER THE LAW, AND IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST EMPLOYEES DUE TO RELIGIOUS FAITH.

    EVEN IF OTHERS FIND THE EMPLOYEE’S CHRISTIAN FAITH OFFENSIVE, THEY CAN NOT CENSOR THE EMPLOYEE ON RELIGIOUS ISSUES, NOR CAN DISCRIMINATE. THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT DID ***NOT*** FIND A FREEDOM FROM RELIGION, SO THOSE THAT OPPOSE THE CHRISTIAN FAITH ARE EXPECTED TO PRACTICE RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE.
    MOZILLA WAS EXPECTED TO BE TOLERANT OF THE RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS OF THEIR CEO, MR. EICH.

    THERE IS NO FREEDOM FROM RELIGION, THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT DID NOT FIND A FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IS EXPECTED FROM THOSE THAT OPPOSE THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.
    “YOU ARE NOT A LIBERTARIAN UNTIL YOU SUPPORT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THOSE THAT YOU DESPISE.”

    CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS YOUTUBE CHANNEL PLAYLISTS AND VIDEOS COVER TOPICS RANGING FROM:
    Playlists And Videos Of Christian Bible Children’s Videos, Cartoons / Claymation / Puppet videos, Christian guitar, Christian Band, Christian Music, Latin and Spanish Guitar, Christian Band Rejoice, Playlists of Bible Prophecy, End Time Events, Natural Disasters Book Of Revelations, Water Turned To Blood Rev 16:4, Political, Bible Videos, Favorites, Playlists With Clean Movies, Documentaries, How To Videos.prophecy

  • landofaahs

    I don’t care about your opinion. I only respond because not responding would not get the message to someone of your lack of IQ.

  • landofaahs

    Do you mean like taxing me against my will to support abortion? Or how about encouraging bad behavior by welfare and food stamps? How about laws against hate speech? How about hiring or firing people at my business without government EEOC rules?

  • Deckard426

    OkStupid did screw up when it matched Donner with Blitzen. Now all the presents are late because of their antics on the roof.

  • Todd A Scheller

    How can the bigger hypocrite, named Victor Scott Tiffany call anyone else a hypocrite?
    You claim on your blog to be a Lincolnian Republican, now you use a screen name of Populist democrat, so which is it. Which Lie are you going to drop?
    Question everything, including Victor Scott Tiffany and his delusions of grandeur.
    Did the FBI ever return your calls about me? or did you figure out that i was doing nothing illegal? My bosses sure got a big laugh out of you calling them though.

  • Todd A Scheller

    Victor has more hypocrisy of his own than he can ever point too for Glenn Beck.

  • Bill Tilghman

    This guy at OKCupid must be a liberal. That explains his hypocrisy.

  • Bill Tilghman

    How can the bigger hypcrite, named Victor Scott Tiffany call anyone else a hypocrite? Easy – that is what hypocrites do!

    You are absolutely correct – there is no bigger hypocrite than Victor.

  • Bill Tilghman

    He thinks Beck waking up in the morning is hypocrisy.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Is that your new pseudonym? It fits.

  • Bill Tilghman

    First it was Paula Deen, then Duck Dynasty, now Brendan Eich. Lynch mobs all have one thing in common – a fondness for rope and trees.

  • Bill Tilghman

    He did a fine job of tap dancing on hot water with that statement. All very politically correct and in line with all the little bullies we must answer to in this day and age.

    He is still a hypocrite – his statement is after the fact of the lynching he presided over. Yagan’s knee-jerk reaction is predictable and expected. When his flaws in judgement were scrutinized and it was made apparent he had a problem he turned to his lawyers and they created this neat and tidy denial for him to sign off on, and for people like you to believe.

  • Bill Tilghman

    You have no idea what conservatives think. Your judgement is tainted by your liberal bias, so making statements predicated on YOUR OPINION of what conservatives think is immaterial, since you really don’t have any clue about conservative values in the first place.

    You are a troll, you have admitted it, and now everyone ignores you because they all know it too.

    The hypocrite is you – thinking you can come here and level claims and judgments. You do not represent anyone here, nor is your opinion of any value in relation to this subject.

    You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to denigrate others based on that opinion. Your circular reasoning regarding tolerance and lack thereof is simply hypocrisy taken to the furthest extent possible.

    The hate comes from liberals like you.

  • Bill Tilghman

    There is a reason some groups are marginalized – they are on the fringe to begin with.

    No one can tell you anything because you have a closed mind.

  • Bill Tilghman

    What purpose does gay marriage serve? You will not let your grasp on hate and discrimination go. You come here to hate and discriminate – you’ve admitted it in the past and there are some of us here who remember it. Should I remind you?

  • Bill Tilghman

    You are about as thick as a brick. How many times and from how many people do your ideas have to be pointed out for inaccurate assumptions before you are able to concede you might not be right?

    The facts in the case are counter to all you have been ranting about. You are one of the lynch mob mentality, and as soon as you admit that we can all move on.

  • Bill Tilghman

    It should not have caused trouble, people who wanted to make trouble took a lot of effort to make trouble over it. Lynching people for their beliefs, race, creed, orientation and the like has always been prohibited by society. Until now, because we must all adhere to the artificial norms of political correctness above all else.

    The thinking behind it is not a stranger to mobs. The people who push gay marriage are working to make as much noise as they can, and this is just another hanging to them. They don’t care about who they go after or why, they have a lust for this kind of abuse of others and it has been a driving force in humanity for a long time. There have been vigilantes, the klan, the reich, the bolsheviks, and many more who have done this kind of persecution throughout history, so now we have the militant gay factions doing it too. It isn’t justice, it is vengeance. There is a big difference between the two.

  • Bill Tilghman

    I assume you meant consumers or customers… in any regard, you are wrong. Businesses are not forced to do business with any particular individual. There is no compulsory satisfaction requirement in business. All a business has to do is refuse to serve and refuse to take your money, then they can have you escorted outside.

    If you think that is discrimination you need to review the law. There is nothing that compels a business to serve the entire public.

  • Bill Tilghman

    She told you – and she was right.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Actually, he’s right, and you of course, as always, are wrong. Declaring the other guy wrong is a typical liberal tactic when losing an argument, and it never works.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Your refusal to accept reality is no longer any one else’s problem – it’s yours. You are absolutely wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG-O, wrong!

  • Bill Tilghman

    Says you.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Yes, you are dumb.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Dean is correct and you, well you are a fool – and you are wrong.

  • Bill Tilghman

    You don’t even know what the issue at hand here is. Try again but I have confidence you will never get it.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Oh what a fount of wisdom you are…

  • Bill Tilghman

    The fact is any person in business is free to reject the opportunity to deliver goods or services to anyone at any time without having to have a reason for it.

    All a business has to so is refuse to enter into a deal with you or anyone else and they are perfectly within their rights to do so. Forcing the issue by suing is what people with an agenda do, people who can take no for an answer will simply find someone else to do business with.

  • Bill Tilghman

    There isn’t any reason, other than Tapestry is full of it.

  • Bill Tilghman

    It isn’t discrimination. You have no case. You have no standing. There is no obligation to take your money or do work for you. Deal with it.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Refusing a person’s business isn’t taking your freedom. You are the one creating the infinite loop here.

  • Bill Tilghman

    You really are a complete idiot.

  • Bill Tilghman

    No it isn’t. There is no answer. History will tell the tale as it always has.

  • Bill Tilghman

    He has nothing to defend, and you have nothing to contribute. Read the title of this article and get back on topic.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Marriage conveys privileges, not rights. The Bill of Rights covers your rights. No wonder you are so mixed up. You have no room accusing anyone of having a capacity for flawed analysis – that is all you are ever capable of.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Liar, you have been arguing on that subject and ignoring the topic for dozens of comments.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Don’t worry, he is no libertarian – he is a liberal troll and he’s been on this site for years. He even admitted he comes here to troll, so I wouldn’t treat any of his comments with serious consideration.

  • Bill Tilghman

    What argument? She is correct, and you, well, not so much.

  • Caleb Arnold

    You seemed to miss the part where I stated I will call sin, sin. I proudly vocalize my religious conviction, but when it come to law I don’t care if someone claims to marry a goat, a pig or even an inanimate object. Claiming that government should be the deciding factor is simply ridiculous. Any power given to government can and likely will be abused. Do you like the idea of government having control of marriage? I don’t.

  • Bill Tilghman

    You are a known malcontent troll here, and I see many here agree with me and disagree with your foolish ranting. You may as well bark at the moon for all the good your comments serve.
    ************************************************************************

    To all the people who have been counter-posting to this fool, the lousy wall rug:

    Thank all of you for understanding this liberal troll is plainly crazy and illogical. He is a nuisance and unworthy of anyone’s efforts, but your rejection of his insipid works is heartwarming.

    ****************************************************************************

  • Caleb Arnold

    I fail to see how this in any way negates my position. Yes, the poor will always be with us, which mean we as Christians will always have a personal responsibility to help them.

    Nothing in your statement even opposes mine, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at.

  • Bill Tilghman

    My view on you – inconsequential and worthy of being ignored. Land is correct in his statement, and you apparently don’t know what discriminate means. Look it up if you have doubts.

  • Bill Tilghman

    That all depends on the context of the word discriminate. Using the government to reverse discriminate is just as evil. A hanging in the public square is still a hanging, and writing a check to a political campaign isn’t a crime or critera for deciding who is the guest of honor at the hanging.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Muddles? I have another word in mind…

  • Bill Tilghman

    You have no clue. Again you make a display of your ignorance, and again you are of course wrong.

    Demanding the resignation of a man for writing a check is how you sneak your intolerance in, isn’t it?

  • Caleb Arnold

    Bill,

    While I certainly agree that FiineTapestry is, to an extent, trollish, I also have to consider that he sincerely believes the reasoning he has offered. I don’t feel that following his posts calling him names is going to move the conversation in any positive direction, though I have no doubt that it feels good.

    Admittedly, I am new to commenting on this site, and so do not have experience with FiineTapestry behind this page; nevertheless, the point of my posts, at least, isn’t specifically to persuade this one individual, but to offer a Libertarian perspective to everyone following the conversation.

    To that end, I don’t believe name-calling or verbal aggression serve a positive purpose.

  • Bill Tilghman

    You have a habit of attributing others with your words and have been doing it for years. Are you denying that? If so, you are a pathological liar.

  • Caleb Arnold

    Please people, report the advertiser. Flag as inappropriate in the upper right corner.

  • Bill Tilghman

    Freak! Just go someplace and get married, and then you can find out for yourself. There are many places you can get married if that is your deal. Stop caterwauling and do something!

  • Bill Tilghman

    Sure you are.

  • http://politicoid.us/ Kir (Politicoid)

    Those would be examples of the government using force to act in a way you think they should act. I’m opposed to all of those activities mentioned above.

    What’s your point?

  • http://politicoid.us/ Kir (Politicoid)

    Good thing there was no hanging at the public square then. And there was certainly no use of force, let alone government force. This were purely a product of free market dynamics. It was entirely voluntary. The government did not fire the CEO. The government did not demand that he quit.

    What happened? The CEO made a voluntary decision to contribute to a political position. OKCupid, a private corporation made a voluntary decision to not accept requests by Firefox. Firefox’s users made voluntary decisions to not use Firefox based on the voluntary actions of the CEO. Firefox’s CEO voluntarily decided to leave the position based on the voluntary actions of Firefox’s customer base.

    Got it now?

  • http://politicoid.us/ Kir (Politicoid)

    I wasn’t quite sure at the time and rather just run with a rebuttal that may not be necessary, I just reinforced my original point. :p

  • Caleb Arnold

    Agreed, Kir. Just because the actions of Mozilla and OKCupid (and the rabble-rousers) are detestable doesn’t mean they should be illegal.

  • http://politicoid.us/ Kir (Politicoid)

    Making them illegal would be a total violation of free market principals, so you’re right, they should not be illegal.

    All this shows is the power customers have in a free market. When a business does something its customers don’t want, the business will pay the price.

  • landofaahs

    According to you. Perhaps you would feel different if the slight majority forced it’s will on you when you disagree with it. That’s my point pinhead.

  • landofaahs

    And if a business does not want to bake a cake for you, go somewhere else. Stay out of their business.

  • http://politicoid.us/ Kir (Politicoid)

    As long as it did so through free market principals, I can’t really say I’d have any complaints. The free market is a wonderful thing. Government… not so much. In the end, when decisions are made through free market dynamics, most people are satisfied for the majority of the time. With government, very few are satisfied even some of the time.

  • landofaahs

    We are not because of government tyranny. You cannot justify it in the sense of freedom for all. Your rights end where my nose and my business begins. Let me give an example. Say a bunch of homosexuals or blacks own a BBQ place and they advertise free delivery 24 hours a day seven days a week within 2 miles of the city limits. Then say that the KKK were wanting you to deliver that to their cross burning within the 2 miles at midnight. Would the BBQ business be allowed to refuse? I have even more examples for you after this one.

  • Caleb Arnold

    It actually looks like you are both in general agreement… What’s the fuss?

  • http://politicoid.us/ Kir (Politicoid)

    One would think that we are. His tone and use of “pinhead” makes me question that. The problem with a lot of “constitutionalists” and “free market capitalists” is they only want the constitution and free market when they both work in their personal favor.

    It seems as if landofaahs is unhappy with the way the free market “voted”.

  • Caleb Arnold

    I agree that his choice of words is less than respectful.

  • landofaahs

    LOL. GPS.

  • Bill Tilghman

    I have to agree in that it has no effect on him. It is important to let new people here know that he is a self professed troll and he never has anything positive, relevant or informative to relate.

    He has been coming here for several years, and his schtick is attack Beck, and anyone he thinks he can beat up on. He is a dishonorable person and isn’t to be treated with any regard.

    As far as following his posts, he is here all the time – back again after being barred from commenting multiple times. It takes no effort to find him, just look at any thread on this site and he will be there.

    I agree with many libertarian and conservative views, but I prefer not to cast myself as solidly one or the other. People are too complex in my view to be regarded within such narrow confines.

  • Christopher Springmann

    NAMBLA? JoJo58 means the “North American Man-Boy Love Association”

  • Anonymous

    What about the people of California that voted not once, not twice but three times against Prop 8. Seems to me that it’s the homosexual community that are very unhappy to the point of violence as to how the CITIZENS voted.

    The free market should be what it is. FREE. If the homosexual community doesn’t like something, then do what you tell everyone else “change the channel”. In this case, find a provider that you like. Baker doesn’t want to make a cake for your wedding? Then find one that will. Don’t like that the CEO of a company donated 1000.00 to Prop 8 several years ago? Use Google Chrome.

  • Anonymous

    Yes. Tell that to the homosexual community. It seems that they like to seek out and exploit Christian businesses so they can sue them and force them to either go out of business or go against their religious doctrine.

    It’s NOT about equality. It’s about breaking down the morality of this country. When you have no religion, no sense of right or wrong and that anything goes, you have chaos.

  • http://politicoid.us/ Kir (Politicoid)

    It seems that editing a post sets it to require approval from a moderator. I doubt that will happen so I’ll summarize: the percentage who voted yes to prop 8 is a small percentage of Facebook’s customer base.

    No force was used. Government was not involved. The actions that took place were 100% within the free market. The fact that you don’t like how the market dynamics played out is your own problem.

  • Anonymous

    Yes. Sorry. I usually write out what NAMBLA stands for since there are a lot of people that don’t know who or what this group actually is. Thanks.

  • Anonymous

    LOL now you want to edit my post and are disappointed that you can’t? Typical. So WHAT if the percentage of the win for prop 8 was a small percentage of Facebook’s customer base. The vote carried by over 5%. If the vote had gone the other way, and the traditional marriage folks protested and got prop 8 on the ballot again, the homosexual community would have come unglued and screamed from the rooftops while throwing feces on people that “WE WON, GET OVER IT”. The fact that even after this supposed close election, prop 8 won again and again. It was a judge that decided to legislate from the bench and go against the people’s wishes.

    No violence took place? I remember an elderly woman being struck to the ground because she dared to hold a sign that offended a homosexual. There were more incidents, but this one was actually recorded. The homosexual community also took it upon themselves to research EVERY name and business that donated money or were connected in any way to prop 8. They would go to the business, take pictures, write down license plate numbers of all their customers, post their addresses online and encouraged people to go to their private homes. The reason was to intimidate and threaten people.

    Be sure in your next post to let everyone know what type of drugs you’re taking so we can all be as delusional as you are.

  • http://politicoid.us/ Kir (Politicoid)

    I did not want to edit your post. I wanted to edit mine for clarity.

    So what? So votes don’t mean anything to a business. Satisfying your customer base is all that matters in a free market.

    I meant what force was used to get the CEO to quit? It’s a sad reality that within want large enough group you will have those who cannot settle things peacefully, but force and violence were not used here. No government was involved. No legal action was involved. Costumers reacted and the business responded to its customer base.

    That is the core of free market principles. Or do you think that business should act against the wishes of its cutomers?

    As for the drug comment, you diagreeing with the way the free market reacted and that I’m pointing that out, is no reason to sling insults. Try to actually come up with a valid argument instead.

  • Anonymous

    Dennis Praeger got it right when he said that we should all uninstall Firefox and use one of the many other search engines instead. And perhaps we ought to add OkCupid to that list as well. Any company or state that puts Gay Marriage above the First Amendment rights of the people should be ostracized, boycotted and treated like a plague carrier.

  • Populist democrat