Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[nodoginnafight]

Yes, "saint" Mike, I do....but that's not discrimination. In fact, wanting churches to bend to peer pressure and be more open and accepting of gays and lesbians is the opposite of discrimination.

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

Really?

So you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

The African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

Or is this just specific to homosexuals and the church?

Not what I said at all.

What I DID say was that screaming that a group doesn't have a right to discriminate and trying to force them to change is discriminating against that group. Doesn't matter what group that is.

Okay then- again then

Do you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

Do you think that the African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

In both cases, you had a specific group saying that the church shouldn't discriminate and try to 'force' the church to change through public opinion.

That is 100% correct. Look up the definition of discrimination.

If you have two churches , one accepts female ministers and one doesn't , and you treat one differently than the other, you have discriminated.

The difference between you and I is, I believe that it is a crock of shit for the government at any level to tell us we can not discriminate.

You lost that battle 50 years ago

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, "saint" Mike, I do....but that's not discrimination. In fact, wanting churches to bend to peer pressure and be more open and accepting of gays and lesbians is the opposite of discrimination.

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

Really?

So you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

The African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

Or is this just specific to homosexuals and the church?

Not what I said at all.

What I DID say was that screaming that a group doesn't have a right to discriminate and trying to force them to change is discriminating against that group. Doesn't matter what group that is.

Okay then- again then

Do you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

Do you think that the African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

In both cases, you had a specific group saying that the church shouldn't discriminate and try to 'force' the church to change through public opinion.

That is 100% correct. Look up the definition of discrimination.

If you have two churches , one accepts female ministers and one doesn't , and you treat one differently than the other, you have discriminated.

The difference between you and I is, I believe that it is a crock of shit for the government at any level to tell us we can not discriminate.

Oh I absolutely agree that churches can and do discriminate- that is not was not my question

Do you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?- not the church- are the women who ask to be treated equally 'discriminating' against those who disagree with them as you claim homosexuals are?

Do you think that the African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them? Not the church were the African Americans who asked to be treated equally 'discriminating' against those who disagree with them as you claim homosexuals are?

In both cases, you had a specific group saying that the church shouldn't discriminate and try to 'force' the church to change through public opinion- just like you say is discrimination when gays want to use public opinion to change church policy.

 

[Syriusly]

Be aware that Syriusly is trying to equate gay sex with either a race or a religion...

...OK, now , proceed...

Be aware that you are an idiot.

I haven't mentioned 'gay sex', except in reference to discussing sodomy laws.

You are also delusional.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

Really?

So you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

The African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

Or is this just specific to homosexuals and the church?

Not what I said at all.

What I DID say was that screaming that a group doesn't have a right to discriminate and trying to force them to change is discriminating against that group. Doesn't matter what group that is.

Okay then- again then

Do you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

Do you think that the African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

In both cases, you had a specific group saying that the church shouldn't discriminate and try to 'force' the church to change through public opinion.

That is 100% correct. Look up the definition of discrimination.

If you have two churches , one accepts female ministers and one doesn't , and you treat one differently than the other, you have discriminated.

The difference between you and I is, I believe that it is a crock of shit for the government at any level to tell us we can not discriminate.

Oh I absolutely agree that churches can and do discriminate- that is not was not my question

Do you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?- not the church- are the women who ask to be treated equally 'discriminating' against those who disagree with them as you claim homosexuals are?

Do you think that the African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them? Not the church were the African Americans who asked to be treated equally 'discriminating' against those who disagree with them as you claim homosexuals are?

In both cases, you had a specific group saying that the church shouldn't discriminate and try to 'force' the church to change through public opinion- just like you say is discrimination when gays want to use public opinion to change church policy.

Asked and answered. My opinion is not based on the fact that we are talking about gays.

 

[Skylar]

Be aware that Syriusly is trying to equate gay sex with either a race or a religion...

...OK, now , proceed...

Its not Sy you have to worry about. But the USSC who has cited cases involving racial discrimination when discussing the limitations to State power regarding gays.

The Supreme Court itself has cited Loving V. Virginia as an example of the constitutional guarantees that state marriage laws are subject to when discussing gay marriage.

In the Romer V. Evans case, the court specifically cited Sweatt v. Painter when discussing 'Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities' related to gays. And the Sweatt case involved a black man who was denied access to a Texas lawschool. Itself was citing Shelley v. Kraemer, a USSC case only 2 years before Sweatt v. Painter, in which racial covenants on real estate were invalidated.

And when discussing laws that specifically target gays, the courts affirmed that a statute is enacted devoid of any factual context that would link it to a legitmate state interest, that law is void under the 14th amendment. And they cited the Civiil Rights Cases of the 1880s. All about racial discrimination.

You can ignore this and pretend it never happened. But its not like the USSC is going to ignore itself because you imagine a 'false analogy'. The arbitrary violation of rights is explicitly analogous. In fact, any arbitirary restriction is applicable. Be it from food stamp laws in Department of Agriculture v. Moreno or arbitrary residency requirements in Dunn v. Blumstein, the restrictions themselves need to pass constitutional muster.

If they can't, they're invalid. And over and over, restrictions against same sex marriage have been found to fail that standard.

 

[Seawytch]

No, Rabbi is trying to play games and I am appalled you'd be stupid enough to fall into it. Anal and oral sex between a man and a woman were not outlawed, sex between men was. Contrary to Rabid's claims, people were arrested for it.

Just like anti gay marriage laws, anti sodomy laws were based solely on animus against gay people so they lost just like bigoted anti gay marriage laws. When you have no rational basis to discriminate, you tend to lose.

You lose me whenever you talk about someone having animus towards you, I'd buy a mirror.

Sodomy laws are State law so they are different, I wasn't making an inclusive statement about what they say. But I agreed the sex sodomy laws are targeted at gays. But that wasn't good enough for you. Again, the mirror...

I don't want to discriminate against someone based solely on animus, you do. I saw that you agreed, that's nice. You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

Yes, "saint" Mike, I do....but that's not discrimination. In fact, wanting churches to bend to peer pressure and be more open and accepting of gays and lesbians is the opposite of discrimination.

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

You're so silly. It's not the government doing the forcing, Dumber than a stuffed bear, it's the members of the congregation. You know...like when the Mormons accepted blacks and then let them have leadership position.

Or when unbaptized babies and people who ate meat on Fridays stopped going to limbo or burning in hell or whatever.

Times change and churches adapt or die.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You lose me whenever you talk about someone having animus towards you, I'd buy a mirror.

Sodomy laws are State law so they are different, I wasn't making an inclusive statement about what they say. But I agreed the sex sodomy laws are targeted at gays. But that wasn't good enough for you. Again, the mirror...

I don't want to discriminate against someone based solely on animus, you do. I saw that you agreed, that's nice. You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

Yes, "saint" Mike, I do....but that's not discrimination. In fact, wanting churches to bend to peer pressure and be more open and accepting of gays and lesbians is the opposite of discrimination.

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

You're so silly. It's not the government doing the forcing, Dumber than a stuffed bear, it's the members of the congregation. You know...like when the Mormons accepted blacks and then let them have leadership position.

Or when unbaptized babies and people who ate meat on Fridays stopped going to limbo or burning in hell or whatever.

Times change and churches adapt or die.

Talk about dumb, I didnt say it was GOVERNMENT discrimination , did I?

 

[Seawytch]

I don't want to discriminate against someone based solely on animus, you do. I saw that you agreed, that's nice. You want a cookie now? I said that anti gay marriage laws are based on the same animus that anti gay sodomy laws were. You disagree. Okay. Want another cookie? I don't need a cookie since judges are agreeing with my opinion on the subject, not yours.

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

Yes, "saint" Mike, I do....but that's not discrimination. In fact, wanting churches to bend to peer pressure and be more open and accepting of gays and lesbians is the opposite of discrimination.

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

You're so silly. It's not the government doing the forcing, Dumber than a stuffed bear, it's the members of the congregation. You know...like when the Mormons accepted blacks and then let them have leadership position.

Or when unbaptized babies and people who ate meat on Fridays stopped going to limbo or burning in hell or whatever.

Times change and churches adapt or die.

Talk about dumb, I didnt say it was GOVERNMENT discrimination , did I?

It's not discrimination. Wanting to change church policy through Public Opinion is not discrimination. No one is being denied anything if a church is more accepting (like Jesus teaches)

 

[Syriusly]

Really?

So you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

The African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

Or is this just specific to homosexuals and the church?

Not what I said at all.

What I DID say was that screaming that a group doesn't have a right to discriminate and trying to force them to change is discriminating against that group. Doesn't matter what group that is.

Okay then- again then

Do you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

Do you think that the African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

In both cases, you had a specific group saying that the church shouldn't discriminate and try to 'force' the church to change through public opinion.

That is 100% correct. Look up the definition of discrimination.

If you have two churches , one accepts female ministers and one doesn't , and you treat one differently than the other, you have discriminated.

The difference between you and I is, I believe that it is a crock of shit for the government at any level to tell us we can not discriminate.

Oh I absolutely agree that churches can and do discriminate- that is not was not my question

Do you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?- not the church- are the women who ask to be treated equally 'discriminating' against those who disagree with them as you claim homosexuals are?

Do you think that the African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them? Not the church were the African Americans who asked to be treated equally 'discriminating' against those who disagree with them as you claim homosexuals are?

In both cases, you had a specific group saying that the church shouldn't discriminate and try to 'force' the church to change through public opinion- just like you say is discrimination when gays want to use public opinion to change church policy.

Asked and answered. My opinion is not based on the fact that we are talking about gays.

Nah- you didn't- but I know you well enough to know that you never will.

 

[The Rabbi]

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

Really?

So you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

The African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

Or is this just specific to homosexuals and the church?

Not what I said at all.

What I DID say was that screaming that a group doesn't have a right to discriminate and trying to force them to change is discriminating against that group. Doesn't matter what group that is.

Okay then- again then

Do you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

Do you think that the African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

In both cases, you had a specific group saying that the church shouldn't discriminate and try to 'force' the church to change through public opinion.

That is 100% correct. Look up the definition of discrimination.

If you have two churches , one accepts female ministers and one doesn't , and you treat one differently than the other, you have discriminated.

The difference between you and I is, I believe that it is a crock of shit for the government at any level to tell us we can not discriminate.

You lost that battle 50 years ago

Argument 1

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes you do. You want to force churches to accept gays because you hate churches that don't. Oh sure you claim to want to force them through peer pressure rather than law, but in either case you hate them and want to force them to YOUR way of thinking rather than just accepting them for what they are.

You militant queers are no better than the militant anti gays.

Yes, "saint" Mike, I do....but that's not discrimination. In fact, wanting churches to bend to peer pressure and be more open and accepting of gays and lesbians is the opposite of discrimination.

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

You're so silly. It's not the government doing the forcing, Dumber than a stuffed bear, it's the members of the congregation. You know...like when the Mormons accepted blacks and then let them have leadership position.

Or when unbaptized babies and people who ate meat on Fridays stopped going to limbo or burning in hell or whatever.

Times change and churches adapt or die.

Talk about dumb, I didnt say it was GOVERNMENT discrimination , did I?

It's not discrimination. Wanting to change church policy through Public Opinion is not discrimination. No one is being denied anything if a church is more accepting (like Jesus teaches)

Jesus taught people that being gay was OK? Who knew.
We know how the fag lobby works. Look at what happened to the CEO Brendan Eich of Mozilla when it came out he had contributed to a group that supported one man one woman marriage An ugly slanderous campaign that resulted in his resignation.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, "saint" Mike, I do....but that's not discrimination. In fact, wanting churches to bend to peer pressure and be more open and accepting of gays and lesbians is the opposite of discrimination.

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

You're so silly. It's not the government doing the forcing, Dumber than a stuffed bear, it's the members of the congregation. You know...like when the Mormons accepted blacks and then let them have leadership position.

Or when unbaptized babies and people who ate meat on Fridays stopped going to limbo or burning in hell or whatever.

Times change and churches adapt or die.

Talk about dumb, I didnt say it was GOVERNMENT discrimination , did I?

It's not discrimination. Wanting to change church policy through Public Opinion is not discrimination. No one is being denied anything if a church is more accepting (like Jesus teaches)

Jesus taught people that being gay was OK? Who knew.

Actually he never said a thing about gays. He did talk a lot about tolerance and would not have shunned a gay person nor would have wanted them kept from a church. Not the guy I've read about anyway.

We know how the fag lobby works. Look at what happened to the CEO Brendan Eich of Mozilla when it came out he had contributed to a group that supported one man one woman marriage An ugly slanderous campaign that resulted in his resignation.

So when Christians boycott Disney it's okay because they suck at it?

 

[Skylar]

Argument 1

Which sends you running every time. Keep running!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

You're so silly. It's not the government doing the forcing, Dumber than a stuffed bear, it's the members of the congregation. You know...like when the Mormons accepted blacks and then let them have leadership position.

Or when unbaptized babies and people who ate meat on Fridays stopped going to limbo or burning in hell or whatever.

Times change and churches adapt or die.

Talk about dumb, I didnt say it was GOVERNMENT discrimination , did I?

It's not discrimination. Wanting to change church policy through Public Opinion is not discrimination. No one is being denied anything if a church is more accepting (like Jesus teaches)

Jesus taught people that being gay was OK? Who knew.

Actually he never said a thing about gays. He did talk a lot about tolerance and would not have shunned a gay person nor would have wanted them kept from a church. Not the guy I've read about anyway.

We know how the fag lobby works. Look at what happened to the CEO Brendan Eich of Mozilla when it came out he had contributed to a group that supported one man one woman marriage An ugly slanderous campaign that resulted in his resignation.

So when Christians boycott Disney it's okay because they suck at it?

He wouldn't have shunned you but He would have told you to stop living in sin.

That's the Jesus I know, if you want to pretend otherwise, that's fine, but don't then turn around and tell me I shouldn't believe what I do.

Hypocrite.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, "saint" Mike, I do....but that's not discrimination. In fact, wanting churches to bend to peer pressure and be more open and accepting of gays and lesbians is the opposite of discrimination.

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

You're so silly. It's not the government doing the forcing, Dumber than a stuffed bear, it's the members of the congregation. You know...like when the Mormons accepted blacks and then let them have leadership position.

Or when unbaptized babies and people who ate meat on Fridays stopped going to limbo or burning in hell or whatever.

Times change and churches adapt or die.

Talk about dumb, I didnt say it was GOVERNMENT discrimination , did I?

It's not discrimination. Wanting to change church policy through Public Opinion is not discrimination. No one is being denied anything if a church is more accepting (like Jesus teaches)

Jesus taught people that being gay was OK? Who knew.
We know how the fag lobby works. Look at what happened to the CEO Brendan Eich of Mozilla when it came out he had contributed to a group that supported one man one woman marriage An ugly slanderous campaign that resulted in his resignation.

We know how the homophobic bigot lobby works.Look at what happened when it came out that Bezos contributed to a pro-marriage equality campaign, and the bigots started a boycott of Amazon.

An ugly slanderous campaign that got little success, because homophobic bigots are largely irrelevant.

 

[Syriusly]

Really?

So you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

The African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

Or is this just specific to homosexuals and the church?

Not what I said at all.

What I DID say was that screaming that a group doesn't have a right to discriminate and trying to force them to change is discriminating against that group. Doesn't matter what group that is.

Okay then- again then

Do you think that the thousands of Catholic women who have been advocating for years to be accepted as Priests in the Church are 'discriminating against men's right not to accept them'?

Do you think that the African Americans who asked that they be considered full and equal members of the Church of Latter Day Saints with white people were discriminating against White people right not to accept them?

In both cases, you had a specific group saying that the church shouldn't discriminate and try to 'force' the church to change through public opinion.

That is 100% correct. Look up the definition of discrimination.

If you have two churches , one accepts female ministers and one doesn't , and you treat one differently than the other, you have discriminated.

The difference between you and I is, I believe that it is a crock of shit for the government at any level to tell us we can not discriminate.

You lost that battle 50 years ago

Argument 1

Translation: another argument that Rabbi cannot win.

 

[The Rabbi]

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

You're so silly. It's not the government doing the forcing, Dumber than a stuffed bear, it's the members of the congregation. You know...like when the Mormons accepted blacks and then let them have leadership position.

Or when unbaptized babies and people who ate meat on Fridays stopped going to limbo or burning in hell or whatever.

Times change and churches adapt or die.

Talk about dumb, I didnt say it was GOVERNMENT discrimination , did I?

It's not discrimination. Wanting to change church policy through Public Opinion is not discrimination. No one is being denied anything if a church is more accepting (like Jesus teaches)

Jesus taught people that being gay was OK? Who knew.

Actually he never said a thing about gays. He did talk a lot about tolerance and would not have shunned a gay person nor would have wanted them kept from a church. Not the guy I've read about anyway.

We know how the fag lobby works. Look at what happened to the CEO Brendan Eich of Mozilla when it came out he had contributed to a group that supported one man one woman marriage An ugly slanderous campaign that resulted in his resignation.

So when Christians boycott Disney it's okay because they suck at it?

HE came outo f a traditon that stoned people for homosexual acts. You cant tell me Jesus came to uproot the law.
Is Disneyland out of business? Do no Christians go there anymore?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

BUllshit, it is DISCRIMINATING against their right not to accept you.

You're so silly. It's not the government doing the forcing, Dumber than a stuffed bear, it's the members of the congregation. You know...like when the Mormons accepted blacks and then let them have leadership position.

Or when unbaptized babies and people who ate meat on Fridays stopped going to limbo or burning in hell or whatever.

Times change and churches adapt or die.

Talk about dumb, I didnt say it was GOVERNMENT discrimination , did I?

It's not discrimination. Wanting to change church policy through Public Opinion is not discrimination. No one is being denied anything if a church is more accepting (like Jesus teaches)

Jesus taught people that being gay was OK? Who knew.
We know how the fag lobby works. Look at what happened to the CEO Brendan Eich of Mozilla when it came out he had contributed to a group that supported one man one woman marriage An ugly slanderous campaign that resulted in his resignation.

We know how the homophobic bigot lobby works.Look at what happened when it came out that Bezos contributed to a pro-marriage equality campaign, and the bigots started a boycott of Amazon.

An ugly slanderous campaign that got little success, because homophobic bigots are largely irrelevant.

Yes it worked as well as the faggot boycott worked on say Chick Fill A, or Hobby Lobby right?

 

[Skylar]

HE came outo f a traditon that stoned people for homosexual acts. You cant tell me Jesus came to uproot the law.
Is Disneyland out of business? Do no Christians go there anymore?

Jesus didn't stone anyone. Or advocate the stoning of anyone.

 

[Syriusly]

You're so silly. It's not the government doing the forcing, Dumber than a stuffed bear, it's the members of the congregation. You know...like when the Mormons accepted blacks and then let them have leadership position.

Or when unbaptized babies and people who ate meat on Fridays stopped going to limbo or burning in hell or whatever.

Times change and churches adapt or die.

Talk about dumb, I didnt say it was GOVERNMENT discrimination , did I?

It's not discrimination. Wanting to change church policy through Public Opinion is not discrimination. No one is being denied anything if a church is more accepting (like Jesus teaches)

Jesus taught people that being gay was OK? Who knew.

Actually he never said a thing about gays. He did talk a lot about tolerance and would not have shunned a gay person nor would have wanted them kept from a church. Not the guy I've read about anyway.

We know how the fag lobby works. Look at what happened to the CEO Brendan Eich of Mozilla when it came out he had contributed to a group that supported one man one woman marriage An ugly slanderous campaign that resulted in his resignation.

So when Christians boycott Disney it's okay because they suck at it?

Is Disneyland out of business? Do no Christians go there anymore?

LOL- so its okay when Christians boycott Disney- because they didn't drive Disney out of business?

But when the 'fag lobby' actually does nothing but object to Eich's contribution- leading to his board asking for his resignation- that- that you think is wrong.

The difference?

Well apparently either its because a) the Christians failed or b) because you think its wrong when 'fags' do it.