Sharia VS LGBT Rights

[Ruteger]

This world has gone insane, but it is tragically ironic. The mentally-ill Leftist European countries (such as England) advocates for diversity, multiculturalism (mass immigration from islamic countries) and LGBT rights. Now when the muslim hordes invade and start to dominate their societies (they already have) and demand an end to gay rights and related activities, which societal view takes precedence? The muslims will not compromise, so you can guess what happens next? Will the Left submit to the gays or the muslims? The Left cannot have their cake and eat it too.

Interesting article follows!

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sultan-brunei-beverly-hills-20140505-story.html

[MV/Liberace!]

It really is hilarious to watch.  Liberals are typically quick to criticize Christians just for existing, yet they're extremely reluctant to assess Islam.  Why?  1) Because Islamists, unlike Christians, will eventually slit your fucking throat for insulting their religion and 2) Islamist populations are more likely to be dark skinned, so criticism of these people, in any regard, could be interpreted as racist.  We all know how eager liberals are to prove they're not one of the "bad" white people... just as Americans were afraid of being labeled communist in the 1950s.  They're the "good" white people with no hate in their hearts.  The irony is, European liberals, while more likely to defend Islamists, allowing them unfettered access to their countries with ZERO hope of assimilation, would be the first to have their "gay loving" throats slit.

Oh, and before anyone accuses me of being a bigot/racist/sexist/homophobe, you should know I'm married to a Muslim and my child will receive her religious education in a mosque.  These facts do not render me impervious to debate.  Rather, it DOES mean you'd better be a little more creative than to label me a right wing nut. 

Oh, and I also believe gays are born gay.  So there.

[PB the Deplorable]

The British stopped serving school children Hot Crossed Buns some yeas ago in deference to the Moslem invaders. 

A few days ago Subway Sandwich in the UK announced it was no longer offering ham or bacon in order to please these people.

These are just two outrageous examples - there are dozens if not hundreds more around the Western World.  It won't end until they get sharia law and a one-world caliphate.  The more we give in to this garbage, the weaker we look, and the more the demands are going to escalate.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Why?  1) Because Islamists, unlike Christians, will eventually slit your fucking throat for insulting their religion and 2) Islamist populations are more likely to be dark skinned, so criticism of these people, in any regard, could be interpreted as racist...

and 3) because the Left and the Moslems have a common enemy - the rest of us - and a common goal - a one-world government run by them.  Only when the rest of us are eliminated and the one-world government is up for grabs will they turn on each other.

[onan]

All religions bring on the crazy.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/TheLaw/michigan-christian-militia-hutaree-targeted-law-enforcement/story?id=10228716


yeah from 2010... I am heading to bed and have spent all the time I care to on this.

[SciFiAuthor]

This is definitely one of the strangest positions the left has. For two reasons actually.

1. Why would anyone knowingly import a foreign social problem into their own country?

2. Why would liberals be for importing religious people? Practicing Muslims are vehemently homophobic, very much against gay marriage, they're the most anti-woman's rights people on the planet, they've got the death penalty enshrined in their religion, they are by definition hostile to the idea of separation of church and state, they've got no concept of free speech (just slander Muhammad to see that one) . . . how is that you think these people aren't going to end up opposing you?

You'd think the lefties would pick up on that one. If they were ideologically consistent, they would oppose Islam above any other thing on earth. It is the antithesis of liberalism. But the bobbleheads keep bobbling while the professors and the media keep issuing the platform and the talking points. If destroying and remaking the Western World is your aim, I guess it helps to cozy up to the Western World's historic opposition. Trouble is, that opposition is a hell of a lot more conservative than the West is.

[Yorkshire pud]

This is definitely one of the strangest positions the left has. For two reasons actually.

1. Why would anyone knowingly import a foreign social problem into their own country?

2. Why would liberals be for importing religious people? Practicing Muslims are vehemently homophobic, very much against gay marriage, they're the most anti-woman's rights people on the planet, they've got the death penalty enshrined in their religion, they are by definition hostile to the idea of separation of church and state, they've got no concept of free speech (just slander Muhammad to see that one) . . . how is that you think these people aren't going to end up opposing you?

How do you square that with right wing Christian anti gay bigots? You know, along the lines of the Church that set up a 'gay cure' programme that resulted in several suicides and ultimately in their leader admitting he was bi sexual? All religion is crap in my view. It's there to subjugate the weak or women or both, exploit the vulnerable and make at least one (usually more than one) section of society the scapegoat. If that doesn't work, turn on another religion...the wheel keeps spinning.

You'd think the lefties would pick up on that one. If they were ideologically consistent, they would oppose Islam above any other thing on earth.

Sorry to burst your preconception of your version of the REALWORLDâ,,¢, but in my experience religion hasn't really got up there as an ideology among those with left of centre leanings..Wasn't Marx a rampant orthodox Christian? Perhaps not... A lot of scientists are aethiests, and we're given to believe by some that all scientists are rabid liberal left wing socialist Marxist Leninist lovers of Communism.

As for me? As above...Religion is a fantasy for the powerful to put down the weak for their own ends. I guess that makes me erm, a right wing centrist left winger?
Maybe.

It is the antithesis of liberalism. But the bobbleheads keep bobbling while the professors and the media keep issuing the platform and the talking points. If destroying and remaking the Western World is your aim, I guess it helps to cozy up to the Western World's historic opposition. Trouble is, that opposition is a hell of a lot more conservative than the West is.

Yep...it is, and it's only noticed now...The Christian crusades are forgotten...As is the invasion of the Vatican throughout the South Americas and Western Europe and Parts of Africa where the  poverty stricken give money to the Catholic church and keep breeding because it's a sin to prevent conception..All advocated by men who haven't the first clue about conception, pregnancy or childbirth (I would say sex but we know that isn't an exclusive tenet observed by all priests, and especially not with consenting adults)..    More subjugation.

[SciFiAuthor]

How do you square that with right wing Christian anti gay bigots? You know, along the lines of the Church that set up a 'gay cure' programme that resulted in several suicides and ultimately in their leader admitting he was bi sexual? All religion is crap in my view. It's there to subjugate the weak or women or both, exploit the vulnerable and make at least one (usually more than one) section of society the scapegoat. If that doesn't work, turn on another religion...the wheel keeps spinning.

I don't, I think the Christian anti-Gay bigots are wrong. I've said repeatedly that I am an agnostic at best, but most days I'm an atheist. I have also stated on multiple occasions that I am not homophobic and I fully support gay marriage. I also don't have a problem if someone wants to believe logically inconsistent notions about God/s/esses. Just don't foist it on the rest of us. Now you need to tell me why you're importing bigots. You don't just have it from one side now, you're importing a second branch of bigotry into your society and making accommodations for it. Why? It doesn't make any kind of practical sense.

Sorry to burst your preconception of your version of the REALWORLDâ,,¢, but in my experience religion hasn't really got up there as an ideology among those with left of centre leanings..Wasn't Marx a rampant orthodox Christian? Perhaps not... A lot of scientists are aethiests, and we're given to believe by some that all scientists are rabid liberal left wing socialist Marxist Leninist lovers of Communism.

So why has Labour consistently been pro-Islam? I hold a degree in a science.

As for me? As above...Religion is a fantasy for the powerful to put down the weak for their own ends. I guess that makes me erm, a right wing centrist left winger?
Maybe.

No, it makes you an atheist. So why import a huge amount of people that believe you're wrong into your country and act as apologists for them? What do you think the end result of that will be?

[Yorkshire pud]

I don't, I think the Christian anti-Gay bigots are wrong. I've said repeatedly that I am an agnostic at best, but most days I'm an atheist. I have also stated on multiple occasions that I am not homophobic and I fully support gay marriage. I also don't have a problem if someone wants to believe logically inconsistent notions about God/s/esses. Just don't foist it on the rest of us. Now you need to tell me why you're importing bigots. You don't just have it from one side now, you're importing a second branch of bigotry into your society and making accommodations for it. Why? It doesn't make any kind of practical sense.

I don't 'import' them...ask someone who knows why. It sure isn't me. Can I suggest Messrs Cameron and Clegg c/o 10 Downing Street, Whitehall, London, England.

So why has Labour consistently been pro-Islam? I hold a degree in a science.

No, it makes you an atheist. So why import a huge amount of people that believe you're wrong into your country and act as apologists for them? What do you think the end result of that will be?

Well, my own view FWIW and that's it's worth; Is that with the imminent European elections coming up, Council elections and within 12 months a general election, the political make up could alter significantly over the next 18 months-2 years. Politicians are just as flawed as the rest of us, with bigger egos. Which means they'll promise the world, and some believe they can, but found wanting when they deliver a wheelbarrow full of the same shit their predecessor brought to the party, irrespective of flag colour. Mix this with dire apathy from the electorate where in some places fewer than 15% even bother to vote ever but clearly if the majority of that 15% vote for the elected leader, you're effectively not being represented by the mandate..It's why proportional representation has some advocates.

In practical terms we might see some councils having new leaders or certainly a high representation with far right/left Councillors because the mainstream parties are too complacent and their few hard core followers too apathetic to go an d vote to keep out the new minority parties.

In short expect some quite volatile times ahead in pockets of the UK as far as elections are concerned. Time will tell what that results in. Several are pressing for a referendum to the UK's continued membership of the EU, the main parties are split among themselves whether to have one. Tony Benn that well known left wing firebrand who recently passed away was vehemently opposed to the EU from it's conception (Common Market) to what it became. He predicted it would become an over arching unaccountable bureaucracy, steeped in corruption and not for the benefit of the people it was set up to represent..oh boy was ever a man a walking talking crystal ball! 

[SciFiAuthor]

I don't 'import' them...ask someone who knows why. It sure isn't me. Can I suggest Messrs Cameron and Clegg c/o 10 Downing Street, Whitehall, London, England.

No, you import them. They wouldn't be there otherwise. Downing Street won't have a good answer because they'd just be recounting 60 years of labour policy on the matter of Islamic immigration and denying 40 years of delayed tory adoption of labour policy. Now they're beheading your off-duty soldiers in the streets. Multiculturalism wasn't worth it.

Well, my own view FWIW and that's it's worth; Is that with the imminent European elections coming up, Council elections and within 12 months a general election, the political make up could alter significantly over the next 18 months-2 years. Politicians are just as flawed as the rest of us, with bigger egos. Which means they'll promise the world, and some believe they can, but found wanting when they deliver a wheelbarrow full of the same shit their predecessor brought to the party, irrespective of flag colour. Mix this with dire apathy from the electorate where in some places fewer than 15% even bother to vote ever but clearly if the majority of that 15% vote for the elected leader, you're effectively not being represented by the mandate..It's why proportional representation has some advocates.

In practical terms we might see some councils having new leaders or certainly a high representation with far right/left Councillors because the mainstream parties are too complacent and their few hard core followers too apathetic to go an d vote to keep out the new minority parties.

In short expect some quite volatile times ahead in pockets of the UK as far as elections are concerned. Time will tell what that results in. Several are pressing for a referendum to the UK's continued membership of the EU, the main parties are split among themselves whether to have one. Tony Benn that well known left wing firebrand who recently passed away was vehemently opposed to the EU from it's conception (Common Market) to what it became. He predicted it would become an over arching unaccountable bureaucracy, steeped in corruption and not for the benefit of the people it was set up to represent..oh boy was ever a man a walking talking crystal ball!

Well, it's part apathy, but also that your culture grew stupid and hedonistic. Mine did the same. People either don't vote and stay home to watch the reality TV shows and get drunk, or they vote through rote indoctrination without thinking, or they vote themselves a pay raise. Only a small percentage actually put any thought into anything, which isn't a good thing because it favors more extreme movements like the BNP.

As far as the EU, I agree, it went where it's opponents said it would. It quickly devolved into a ridiculous bureaucracy. It didn't have to, if better run it would have been a positive thing. Instead it's just another layer of crushing bureaucracy making life difficult.

[Yorkshire pud]

No, you import them.

I don't, but if it makes you feel better, then who am I to disavow you of that opinion? 

They wouldn't be there otherwise. Downing Street won't have a good answer because they'd just be recounting 60 years of labour policy on the matter of Islamic immigration and denying 40 years of delayed tory adoption of labour policy. Now they're beheading your off-duty soldiers in the streets. Multiculturalism wasn't worth it.

It's funny you say that, because Blair is commonly felt to have followed the principles of Thatcher..Whose hero was Churchill, who started his political career as a liberal. He also tried to stifle the press I believe, and he's (rightly) seen as being the right man at the right time during WW2..However the surviving troops coming home after the war showed their appreciation by contributing to him being voted out and replaced by Atlee.   

Well, it's part apathy, but also that your culture grew stupid and hedonistic. Mine did the same. People either don't vote and stay home to watch the reality TV shows and get drunk, or they vote through rote indoctrination without thinking, or they vote themselves a pay raise. Only a small percentage actually put any thought into anything, which isn't a good thing because it favors more extreme movements like the BNP.

As far as the EU, I agree, it went where it's opponents said it would. It quickly devolved into a ridiculous bureaucracy. It didn't have to, if better run it would have been a positive thing. Instead it's just another layer of crushing bureaucracy making life difficult.

I can't really argue against the above. Especially the rote indoctrination. "I vote (insert party) because well, we are (insert party) and my parent's voted for them" It's frustrating to the nth degree. BUT the caveat certainly in the last twenty years or so is the mainstream parties have been falling over themselves to get the centre ground. To the extent in some respects you can't get a cig paper between them.

[SciFiAuthor]

I don't, but if it makes you feel better, then who am I to disavow you of that opinion? 

Well, if you voted for the politician, then you own their issues. If you haven't, mea culpa.

It's funny you say that, because Blair is commonly felt to have followed the principles of Thatcher..Whose hero was Churchill, who started his political career as a liberal. He also tried to stifle the press I believe, and he's (rightly) seen as being the right man at the right time during WW2..However the surviving troops coming home after the war showed their appreciation by contributing to him being voted out and replaced by Atlee.   

And then they voted him in again after Atlee. Churchill is probably the most frequently quoted western world leader in regards for distrust of Islam. He didn't seem to want it in his country.

I can't really argue against the above. Especially the rote indoctrination. "I vote (insert party) because well, we are (insert party) and my parent's voted for them" It's frustrating to the nth degree. BUT the caveat certainly in the last twenty years or so is the mainstream parties have been falling over themselves to get the centre ground. To the extent in some respects you can't get a cig paper between them.

That's certainly true. It's often frustrating to see how deep into the minutiae everyone has delved while growing increasingly extreme about it. We're not talking about Marx and Jefferson here, we're talking from two sides of the same page. In some ways this is a good thing, it indicates that the world is becoming more stable and moving towards a consensus. Up until recently with Putin the world had become a question of how to deal with terrorists with bombs as opposed to nuclear war. That's certainly an improvement over the 1960's. But in other ways it's a bad thing, new ideas or non-conventional thinking--or even objective or pragmatic thinking--tends to get tossed out as extreme when it's not.

[Jackstar]

Well, if you voted for the politician, then you own their issues.

"Everything in the Universe is either cheese or purple." -- Aristotle

[Juan]

2. Why would liberals be for importing religious people? Practicing Muslims are vehemently homophobic, very much against gay marriage, they're the most anti-woman's rights people on the planet, they've got the death penalty enshrined in their religion, they are by definition hostile to the idea of separation of church and state, they've got no concept of free speech (just slander Muhammad to see that one) . . . how is that you think these people aren't going to end up opposing you?

Because Muslims were reliable Obama voters, and the Democrats believe they will remain party voters.

[PB the Deplorable]

Because Muslims were reliable Obama voters, and the Democrats believe they will remain party voters.

And customers for their handout agencies

[Yorkshire pud]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27307324


Hmmm, all these liberal media/ showbiz types supporting the Sultan of Brunei in this short video...Oh, apparently not they're not. So that means if they're left wing liberal media and showbiz types, then the Sultan of Brunei isn't...He's right wing after all! Who knew? Just who knew? 

[NowhereInTime]

It really is hilarious to watch.  Liberals are typically quick to criticize Christians just for existing, yet they're extremely reluctant to assess Islam.  Why?  1) Because Islamists, unlike Christians, will eventually slit your fucking throat for insulting their religion and 2) Islamist populations are more likely to be dark skinned, so criticism of these people, in any regard, could be interpreted as racist.  We all know how eager liberals are to prove they're not one of the "bad" white people... just as Americans were afraid of being labeled communist in the 1950s.  They're the "good" white people with no hate in their hearts.  The irony is, European liberals, while more likely to defend Islamists, allowing them unfettered access to their countries with ZERO hope of assimilation, would be the first to have their "gay loving" throats slit.

Oh, and before anyone accuses me of being a bigot/racist/sexist/homophobe, you should know I'm married to a Muslim and my child will receive her religious education in a mosque.  These facts do not render me impervious to debate.  Rather, it DOES mean you'd better be a little more creative than to label me a right wing nut. 

Oh, and I also believe gays are born gay.  So there.

See, this is crap, though.  Conservatives (morons like Ruteger) immediately conflate liberal philosophy for the sake of denigrating it. You presume because we prefer an open and tolerant society that we somehow tolerate intolerance itself.  Asinine. 
We welcome all to practice their faith in peace; in fact it's one of the most important foundation blocks of our nation.  What no liberal I've ever met will tolerate is causing harm to others yet somehow conservatives get to say we do (without supporting evidence) and are given credibility on this issue.   
What you, Ruteger, and (to my utter astonishment) Paper*boy are doing is conflating the notion that all of Islam is about fundamentalism or extremism when it is not.  Nor is Christianity.  What liberals like myself challenge is just that: fundamentalism and extremism.
Do you know how offensive it is to me as an American that an Orthodox Jew will not return my handshake and considers me "unclean"?  Yet you will never see me demand their removal nor wish them any harm.  Why?  Because though that behavior is offensive to me it is also actually harmless.  As is conservative teaching of Christianity (to which I have been subjected) and Islam, and it remains harmless until we venture into extremism.
When Islamic Fascists, eager to restore the glory of the Caliphate, move into a foreign society and use violence to further their agenda, it is wrong.  When Islamic Fascists proclaim an insult to Allah and use it as an excuse to kill people, it is a suppression tactic to create an atmosphere of fear.  (Ask Israel - they've been living with it since day 1). No liberal I know supports the use of force to further religious agenda; its wholly counterintuitive to liberalism.
The Europeans don't challenge as openly as we would (although Marie Le Pen from Front National in France may beg to differ) because they logistically and geographically are very close to millions of Islamic extremists who may exact retribution.
There are over 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.  If just 1% are Fascist/Extremist then you are talking about a potential army of 16 million people hell bent on aggression.  This isn't a function of Western Liberalism (and I cannot believe I had to type that).

[NowhereInTime]

Because Muslims were reliable Obama voters, and the Democrats believe they will remain party voters.

Hey, there's Juan "Aspersion-Casting" UFOFill, back in the game to besmirch more people!

So, here's the question, Juan, why the hell do you think 85% of Muslims in the US...

http://www.amperspective.com/?page_id=92

...voted for Barry O?  Because he's a "secret Muslim?"  Or could it be because people like you, Paper*Boy, and frightened whitey conservatives everywhere write them all off as terrorists?

90% of black voters, 71% of Latino voters, 85% Muslim voters, 56% of female voters.  Do you think there's a message in there?
Yeah, clearly there is.

[NowhereInTime]

And customers for their handout agencies

Like the D.O.D.  I just got my F-35 strike fighter.

[MV/Liberace!]

See, this is crap, though.  Conservatives (morons like Ruteger) immediately conflate liberal philosophy for the sake of denigrating it. You presume because we prefer an open and tolerant society that we somehow tolerate intolerance itself.  Asinine. 
We welcome all to practice their faith in peace; in fact it's one of the most important foundation blocks of our nation.  What no liberal I've ever met will tolerate is causing harm to others yet somehow conservatives get to say we do (without supporting evidence) and are given credibility on this issue.   
What you, Ruteger, and (to my utter astonishment) Paper*boy are doing is conflating the notion that all of Islam is about fundamentalism or extremism when it is not.  Nor is Christianity.  What liberals like myself challenge is just that: fundamentalism and extremism.
Do you know how offensive it is to me as an American that an Orthodox Jew will not return my handshake and considers me "unclean"?  Yet you will never see me demand their removal nor wish them any harm.  Why?  Because though that behavior is offensive to me it is also actually harmless.  As is conservative teaching of Christianity (to which I have been subjected) and Islam, and it remains harmless until we venture into extremism.
When Islamic Fascists, eager to restore the glory of the Caliphate, move into a foreign society and use violence to further their agenda, it is wrong.  When Islamic Fascists proclaim an insult to Allah and use it as an excuse to kill people, it is a suppression tactic to create an atmosphere of fear.  (Ask Israel - they've been living with it since day 1). No liberal I know supports the use of force to further religious agenda; its wholly counterintuitive to liberalism.
The Europeans don't challenge as openly as we would (although Marie Le Pen from Front National in France may beg to differ) because they logistically and geographically are very close to millions of Islamic extremists who may exact retribution.
There are over 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.  If just 1% are Fascist/Extremist then you are talking about a potential army of 16 million people hell bent on aggression.  This isn't a function of Western Liberalism (and I cannot believe I had to type that).

ok, so you're a liberal who is fair and judicious in your critiques of christianity and islam.  great.  it's my observation, however, that most liberals aren't.  and to say liberals don't tolerate intolerance is just as silly a generalization as any you might rail against.  there is intolerance everywhere.  just ask the former CEO of mozilla.  the irony is, the very people who demanded his removal would probably have been pleased were he replaced with an imam (so long as he's vehemently anti-israel).

[Juan]

Hey, there's Juan "Aspersion-Casting" UFOFill, back in the game to besmirch more people!

So, here's the question, Juan, why the hell do you think 85% of Muslims in the US...

http://www.amperspective.com/?page_id=92

...voted for Barry O?  Because he's a "secret Muslim?"  Or could it be because people like you, Paper*Boy, and frightened whitey conservatives everywhere write them all off as terrorists?

90% of black voters, 71% of Latino voters, 85% Muslim voters, 56% of female voters.  Do you think there's a message in there?
Yeah, clearly there is.

I bow to your tolerance, sensitivity and avoidance of generalizations.

[NowhereInTime]

I bow to your tolerance, sensitivity and avoidance of generalizations.

I mean, you do this all the time where you come on and make some statement which appears at first glance to be neutral but in reality is really loaded.  Yes, Muslims voted for Obama and will continue to favor Democrats until Republicans (who are now mostly White and Conservative) offer a political landscape free of fear mongering. 
Generalization?  Yeah, for now...

[NowhereInTime]

ok, so you're a liberal who is fair and judicious in your critiques of christianity and islam.  great.  it's my observation, however, that most liberals aren't.  and to say liberals don't tolerate intolerance is just as silly a generalization as any you might rail against.  there is intolerance everywhere.  just ask the former CEO of mozilla.  the irony is, the very people who demanded his removal would probably have been pleased were he replaced with an imam (so long as he's vehemently anti-israel).

I couldn't disagree with you more.  The Brendan Eich case is a perfect example of what I'm talking about - why should someone who actively opposed the civil rights of others be permitted the privilege of a position like CEO?  What kind of leadership message would the Mozilla Foundation be sending if they elevated someone (even as credentialed as Eich) who actively worked against the rights of others?

Forbes magazine agrees with that sentiment:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-deserve-to-be-removed-from-his-position-due-to-his-support-for-proposition-8/

You would ask me to be tolerant of the opposition of gay rights to which I would respond that, to me, is intolerance and I cannot support it.

[MV/Liberace!]

I couldn't disagree with you more.  The Brendan Eich case is a perfect example of what I'm talking about - why should someone who actively opposed the civil rights of others be permitted the privilege of a position like CEO?  What kind of leadership message would the Mozilla Foundation be sending if they elevated someone (even as credentialed as Eich) who actively worked against the rights of others?

Forbes magazine agrees with that sentiment:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-deserve-to-be-removed-from-his-position-due-to-his-support-for-proposition-8/

You would ask me to be tolerant of the opposition of gay rights to which I would respond that, to me, is intolerance and I cannot support it.

he simply donated money to a group opposing gay marriage in california.  hey, i support the right of gays to marry if they choose, but this witch hunt nonsense is nothing BUT intolerance of differing points of view.  we have thousands of years of precedent to suggest marriage is between a man and a woman, so it's ridiculous to think society's opinion on this issue can and should change overnight.  to expect everyone should agree with your position and to support their termination when they don't is intolerance manifest, and if you can't see that, then your overall credibility is questionable where political observation is concerned.  if you could prove he denied promotions or treated employees unfairly due to his opinion, then you'd have a point... but to my knowledge, you can't.

would you like to list any other social issues on which we must agree with you in order to keep our jobs?

[Juan]

I think I said just about that.  Muslims were reliable Obama voters.  We agree on that.  Democrats hope they will continue to vote for Democrats. I think we agree on that, too.  I don't understand what the objection is or where the load is.

Perhaps it's in the "offer a political landscape free of fear mongering."  I don't think either Democrats or Republicans will ever do that - they both attempt to raise the fears of their bases.  Many politicians, regardless of party, hold voters in low esteem and believe they respond only to fear.

[NowhereInTime]

he simply donated money to a group opposing gay marriage in california.  hey, i support the right of gays to marry if they choose, but this witch hunt nonsense is nothing BUT intolerance of differing points of view.  we have thousands of years of precedent to suggest marriage is between a man and a woman, so it's ridiculous to think society's opinion on this issue can and should change overnight.  to expect everyone should agree with your position and to support their termination when they don't is intolerance manifest.  if you could prove he denied promotions or treated employees unfairly due to his opinion, then you'd have a point... but to my knowledge, you can't.

would you like to list any other social issues on which we must agree with you in order to keep our jobs?

Just the basic one: equal treatment for all under the law. 
No more judging people as substandard or subhuman because of their race or creed or gender.
You want to oppose equality for other people? Why should you be rewarded?
This is a basic American tenet of freedom; equality of opportunity.  If someone demonstrates that they don't support the rights of others then how can they be trusted to lead? How can they be trusted to ensure the best talent is promoted to the right jobs, that there isn't a litmus test?
As a shareholder (though in this case Mozilla is a foundation), you should demand that talent is harnessed in the proper position regardless of gender, race, creed.  As an American, you should demand that rights enjoyed by some should be enjoyed by all; why should personal biases supercede the rights and abilities of others?
I don't understand your point; is it to say that Eich should've kept his job though exposed as an open homophobe and to ask him to leave was intolerant?  How exactly is that a "witch-hunt"?  He gave money to an anti-rights campaign - doesn't this preclude dismissing this as merely an "opposing point of view"?  Can I prove discrimination on his part?  Actively? No.  But he put his money where his mouth (and heart) is and testified against himself here.

[PB the Deplorable]

Barrack Obama went into the White House opposing gay marriage.  So did his first Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton.  So did most of the rest of the cabinet.  Same with most House and Senate Dems.

Oh that the Libs new Tolerance Rule on 'gay marriage' were being applied evenly and they'd been turned on and tossed out by their supporters.

[PB the Deplorable]

... would you like to list any other social issues on which we must agree with you in order to keep our jobs?

See, the Libs are never intolerant.  When you disagree with them, what looks like intolerance on their part is actually a more evolved form of tolerance.

They are 'Progressive', pushing and pulling an intolerant society towards Utopia, a place where enforced 'tolerance' is the norm.  How dare you look to history, or think for yourself.  This is why history must be destroyed - or at least continuously updated. 

What's next, you'll be caught clinging to your guns and religion and expecting to be able to keep you doctor if you want to?

[NowhereInTime]

Barrack Obama went into the White House opposing gay marriage.  So did his first Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton.  So did most of the rest of the cabinet.  Same with most House and Senate Dems.

Oh that the Libs new Tolerance Rule on 'gay marriage' were being applied evenly and they'd been turned on and tossed out by their supporters.

And yet, when push came to shove, they all did the correct thing, didn't they?
Obama no longer enforces DOMA and got the Pentagon to scrap Don't Ask Don't Tell.
It's called growth - it's what happens when people hold off their personal reservations enough to learn what they're really afraid of and if there's really anything of which to be afraid.  Gay dudes driving tanks?  Not really a problem, after all.
Give them credit where credit is due; I wish conservatives would try it sometime.

[MV/Liberace!]

Just the basic one: equal treatment for all under the law. 
No more judging people as substandard or subhuman because of their race or creed or gender.
You want to oppose equality for other people? Why should you be rewarded?
This is a basic American tenet of freedom; equality of opportunity.  If someone demonstrates that they don't support the rights of others then how can they be trusted to lead? How can they be trusted to ensure the best talent is promoted to the right jobs, that there isn't a litmus test?
As a shareholder (though in this case Mozilla is a foundation), you should demand that talent is harnessed in the proper position regardless of gender, race, creed.  As an American, you should demand that rights enjoyed by some should be enjoyed by all; why should personal biases supercede the rights and abilities of others?
I don't understand your point; is it to say that Eich should've kept his job though exposed as an open homophobe and to ask him to leave was intolerant?  How exactly is that a "witch-hunt"?  He gave money to an anti-rights campaign - doesn't this preclude dismissing this as merely an "opposing point of view"?  Can I prove discrimination on his part?  Actively? No.  But he put his money where his mouth (and heart) is and testified against himself here.

so, in your world view, the belief that marriage is between a man and woman makes one a "homophobe"?  your fast and loose use of that word i find unimpressive, and i question whether you even know what it means.  opposition of gay marriage is one of two mainstream positions in the united states.  you act as if it's a position found only in the deepest pockets of the south/bible belt among idiots who use straw as a toothpick and can't read.  by your standard, approximately half of all americans aren't qualified for employment because they don't agree with you on a fundamental issue.  you should go work for al sharpton's national action network.  you'd fit right in. 

you clearly don't support freedom or civil rights unless it's for people who agree with you.  the mozilla ceo has a right to participate in the political process, and he has the freedom to hold whatever views he pleases.  it's how those views manifest themselves in his day to day life that matter.  your inability to see that i find frightening, and i hope you're not in charge of anything anywhere. 

again... can you prove he denied promotions or otherwise mistreated employees within the foundation due to his personal opinions on gay marriage?  you simply want people fired over an opinion.  that's fucking orwellian, it's happening everywhere, and i'm sick of it. 

your expectation that everyone change their opinion overnight on such a fundamental issue steeped in thousands of years of tradition is striking and unrealistic.  this notion that those who differ in their beliefs should be fired is a fundamental threat to the freedom and civil rights you claim to uphold.  you're so short sighted on this issue.  NO human being is as clean in their opinions, dealings, pursuits, history, and interactions as you seem to think they should be... yourself included.  if you're not going to support civil rights and freedoms for everyone, then you will eventually find yourself on the chopping block for something controversial you've said or done.  NOBODY is that free of blemishes.