In Reply: Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Critical Response (In fact, free speech ENCOURAGES it.)

In reply to: The absurdity of the Mozilla boycott | WashingtonExaminer.com

He wasn't forced out for his beliefs. He was forced out for donating money to those trying to make it a law that everyone--even folks who disagreed with him--had to live according to his beliefs, for not changing his mind--or at least acknowledging that this law forcing everyone to live according to his beliefs hurt real people--and, because that has turned out not to be such a popular thing to do, especially in his industry, for being a potential financial and media drain on the company that'd just made him their public face.

The thing about free speech (in the broad sense--by this point everyone is aware that this was not government action and is therefore not a 1st A issue) is that it does not protect you from other people using their free speech to criticize what you said using yours. He spoke his mind (money being speech, n'all), a lot of folks used their speech to disagree with him and seek remedy, and the free market had it's say, as well...

Those writing posts and deleting their FireFox browsers and other Mozilla products over this guy's resignation are not doing anything different that the folks who support marriage equality were doing a week or more ago because he was hired. I did not participate in the boycotts against the guy, and I don't personally believe he should've been forced out either, but my opinion, like those who're all up in arms now, did not prevail. They saw the landscape and made a corporate decision.

There's nothing wrong with folks who're passionate about an issue voting with their wallets and their feet, whether it's the marriage equality folks for the last few weeks or the traditional marriage supporters in the last few days. Sometimes it actually works.
--

Submitted for moderator approval Posted Saturday, April 5, 2014, 6:50 PM (or so...)

In reply to His Excellency, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan's post "Some Afterthoughts" (Marriage Equality)

In reply to: Some Afterthoughts - The Gospel in the Digital Age
---

I support the right and the necessity for every faith and denomination to define marriage according to the tenets of their faith, and I stand opposed to any individual or group that would try to "force" any church to go against their teachings and marry (or not marry) any couple that doesn't adhere to the faith.

That said, I firmly believe there are significant differences between the sacred and religious rites of marriage, and the civil right to marry, and that it is not for any church to define and codify religious rites into secular law. (if you ask me, the problem is one of semantics. "Marriage" isn't ( or shouldn't be) a legal term, infused as it is with sacred teachings and beliefs.)

The state has every right to choose to recognize religious ceremony as a legal union, just as each church can choose whether or not to recognize the secular, civil ceremony that creates a legal union as a marriage. But the twain needn't meet. Religious marriage is what your faith teaches you is is; no more and no less. Legal marriage need not--and I would argue, ought not--be based on any faith's religious teachings, but on the founding documents and laws of the land. Hopefully, this is the direction we are headed throughout this country.

I applaud the Catholic church's efforts to stay true to their teachings, and I hope they continue to do so. (I feel the same about my own faith--Unitarian Universalism--which has been performing weddings for same and opposite gendered couples for years, in accordance with our beliefs.) I would no more want US law to mandate (or forbid) my religious rites than I would your religious rites. If there's one place where the church and the state ought to remain divided it is in mandating or forbidding religious rites by federal, state, or local law... ...or mandating or forbidding Constitutional rights via the church, either.
---

Submitted for moderator approval July 8, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Donald Douglas - On Teh Gay - July 6, 2011 Edition

Wednesday, July 6, 2011, 12:01 AM:

American Power: The Gay Hate Campaign
"As I've said many times, it's lies, violence, and intimidation that's putting the gay agenda over the top. You gotta call these people out for what that are: Homosexual criminals, mobsters, perverts, and thugs. And that goes as well for the hetero progressives who're enabling the hate."
---

An American Rim Station (Nihilist) X-post