Why was that necessary?
It was necessary because Mozilla believes it is right and good to make people who don’t accept homosexual orthodoxy become unemployed.
Eich may not be a Christian. I haven’t confirmed or denied it yet. But for the purposes of the illiberal pansexualists, he stands for one.
Here’s how the Mozilla blog put it:
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.
This paragraph is full of nonsense. If it says anything at all, it says that Mozilla believes in equality but not freedom of speech. There it is in black and white “you need free speech to fight for equality.” So if you’re speaking against the equality of homosexual acts to heterosexual ones, then you aren’t using your speech for the right purpose. Mozilla believes that their vision of male-on-male anal sex and Lesbian mutual masturbation as equal to heterosexual intercourse trumps free speech. You can’t be surprised. The moment you consider the insanity they are proclaiming you know the only way they are going to make it supreme is by censorship of some kind. You can’t allow people to teach math if you want to spread the idea that 0 = 1.
You don’t need free speech to fight for equality; you need free speech to say anything you want to say without fear of reprisal. Whether you use your free speech to proclaim truth or error is entirely up to you. That’s why it is called free speech.
And, by the way, “equality” is not necessary for free speech. Did Eich ever for one moment claim or believe that homosexuals don’t have a right of free speech? No. Millions of Americans who are Christians or from some other tradition believe 1) that there is no such thing as homosexual marriage, and 2) that self-identified homosexuals and everyone else have every right to say otherwise.
So all of this verbiage is just what fascists say as part of the party program for excommunicating heretics.
I suppose this would be my opportunity to switch from Firefox to… what, Chrome? Like the minions at Google are any less evil.
Of course, no company is necessarily going to tolerate an officer who denies the holocaust or supports the restoration of race-based chattel slavery. But that is the point. Mozilla’s statement does not embrace honesty and say “No one who is opposed to same-sex marriage should be employed at any respectable company.” No they just lie:
Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.
Liars. They don’t tolerate any religious views other than a few pagan and neo-pagan ones, and the Liberal Judas versions of traditional religions, whose advocates make a living pretending that Jesus supports “gay” “marriage.”
Of course, I’m using “free speech” in the cultural sense, not a legal one. I’m talking about the kind of corporate culture that was tolerant and diverse rather than monolithic, intolerant, and fueled by deceit. Strictly speaking, this is not a First Amendment issue.
Even while it is fair game to force a CEO to resign or to refuse to cut the hair of a politician who opposes same sex “marriage,” any attempt to protect the freedom of religion is treated as an unconstitutional attack on homosexuals. Why? Because that’s the way you set up the conversation to allow you to marginalize and criminalize Christianity. (Note: there is another reason this is a First Amendment issue.)
No, I don’t think I’m exaggerating. These people have bloodshed on their minds. I remember something Pastor Doug Wilson wrote back in 2011 that I think really shows what is ahead.
A staple argument of homosex apologetics is that when the Bible condemns the vile behavior of the residents of Sodom, it was addressing the violent side of it — the attempted rape of Lot’s visitors. It does not address at all, so the argument goes, the kind of loving, caring, mutually affirming same sex relationships that we are talking about today.
But let us pretend to accept this for a moment, for the sake of argument. Let us pretend that mutually affirming is the way to go, so long as you avoid that kind of violent hate sex that so unfortunately characterized the men who surrounded Lot’s house.
Comes now Bill Maher, who struts like a crow in a gutter, and is considered to be a leading humorist by the other crows. On a recent show, he had on comedian Marc Maron, who said that he thinks about “angrily f**king” Michele Bachman. He said this, not wanting “to be crass.” Oh, good. For a minute there, we were worried. And then, just to cover their stunted little tails, another guest said, to deflect accusations of sexism, that he would like to do the same to Rick Santorum. So fine then. You guys are willing to engage in hate sex, violent rape, against members of both sexes? And this makes it good, how exactly?
Now this just happened a day or so ago, and to date I have read of no denunciations of this kind of talk from the leftist establishment. It is the kind of thing that might result in such denunciations after some throat clearing and foot dragging, and a lot of pressure. Not everybody in Sodom was outside Lot’s house, but everybody in Sodom was willing to live in a contemptible place like that — including Lot incidentally.
And this is why the standard homosex treatment of Genesis 19 is such a joke. If hatred of God and man were a presswood board, then the “mutually affirming” sex line is the oak veneer. And when homosexual sex becomes fully accepted by a culture, as it has in ours, it is not ten minutes before the oak veneer starts to peel.
We are told that the problem with the residents of Sodom is that they were seething with hatred and were willing to engage in violent sexual acts. And we are told this by people who are seething with hatred . . .
The delusion that has gripped Maher and friends, as they grope for the door of Lot’s house, is the kind of thing that rules over every “we’re being really bad” peer pressure group that ever was. When people get to the point where they are willing to be really out of control, so long as everybody around them is yelling go, go, go, a peculiar kind of blindness sets in. It happens to college girls entering wet t-shirt contests on spring break. It happens to guards at Abu Ghraib. It happened to the piggy piggy suitors at the end of The Odyssey. It happens to talk show hosts who have no idea how transparent they are.
People who write Stalinist justifications for purges and excommunications while giving lip service to inclusion and equality are dangerous people. What else could they claim was a proper balance of “equality” and “freedom”? Virtually anything. Just wait.
It is human nature. The scapegoat is never merely forced to resign as CEO. That’s barely the beginning.