Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

Jorja Fox

Vesuvius, VA

#18708 Apr 7, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to ONLY be outraged by this action, yet mute on the boycotts by Million Moms and other hate groups who have costed celebrities their endorsements like Ellen with JCPenny.......seems a bit hypocritical if ya ask me!!!
The reason that Mozilla asked him to step down(if they actually did that) was because his position is in DIRECT conflict with their mission Statement!!!
I didn't ask you anything. And you have no idea what my outrages are. JC Penny & Ellen were not even mentioned in the post I responded to. But since you seem to think I am hypocritical--let me say this...I am FOR freedom of speech-INCLUDING for those whom I disagree with.

His position was "freedom of speech" period. If that is in DIRECT conflict with their mission (and it seems to be) maybe they need to find a new mission.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18709 Apr 7, 2014
Jorja Fox wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ask you anything. And you have no idea what my outrages are. JC Penny & Ellen were not even mentioned in the post I responded to. But since you seem to think I am hypocritical--let me say this...I am FOR freedom of speech-INCLUDING for those whom I disagree with.
His position was "freedom of speech" period. If that is in DIRECT conflict with their mission (and it seems to be) maybe they need to find a new mission.
Here's the thing: Freedom of speech protects one from being jailed for speaking one's mind. It does NOT protect one from non-governmental consequences, incurred by speaking freely, any more than it protects you from being spoken ABOUT.

You have the right to prejudicial speech - you don't have the right to be 'free' from its consequences.

If you were to publicly state that the company you work for is evil because it supports gay marriage, would you expect to keep your job?

Would you WANT to keep your job? Eich didn't.

He resigned.

Get over it.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#18710 Apr 7, 2014
Jorja Fox wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ask you anything. And you have no idea what my outrages are. JC Penny & Ellen were not even mentioned in the post I responded to. But since you seem to think I am hypocritical--let me say this...I am FOR freedom of speech-INCLUDING for those whom I disagree with.
His position was "freedom of speech" period. If that is in DIRECT conflict with their mission (and it seems to be) maybe they need to find a new mission.
Nope, maybe he needs to be inline with the Company's Mission Statement!!!
barry

Pisgah, AL

#18711 Apr 7, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh puh-leez. Who is restricting your right to worship?
It's not about just worship, it's about " free exercise thereof."

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18712 Apr 7, 2014
Jorja Fox wrote:
It didn't? Was his right to speak freely infringed? Was his right to speak freely impaired? Was his right to speak freely denied to him? Nope. He spoke very freely and very candidly. Seems he was able to exercise his freedom of speech just fine.
Freedom of speech is not accompanied by a freedom of repercussion based on exercising that freedom of speech.
No, I do not have a problem with the backlash- I have a problem with it costing him his job .
He quit his job.

If those against gay marriage (and gays in general) don't like the policies regarding same, as held by their companies of employment, they are perfectly free to find employment elsewhere.

His freedom of speech is still intact - because he wasn't imprisoned as a result of it.

Be well.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#18713 Apr 7, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
...Um, that's not what Brian stated. Brian has stated that Eich lost his job as a result of gays marrying. Brian blames everything on gays marrying. From the weather, to women and children getting off a sinking ship, they are all somehow forever altered because gays marry....
^^^This quote is nonsense; Brendan Eich was hounded out of his job by sex segregationist marriage supporters and their allies. If you want to understand their hate, ask Jon.

Mozilla, the company he cofounded, has the same benefits for same sex coupled employees that it has for married employees.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18714 Apr 7, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>It's not about just worship, it's about " free exercise thereof."
You are quite free to exercise your religion upon yourself.

You are NOT free to exercise it upon others.

Quite a distinction. Try to comprehend it.

Next....

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#18715 Apr 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What law do you think Brendan Eich broke?
Same sex marriage is the death of American free speech.
He didn't break any laws, he has a right to donate to any cause/election he desires.

You know, I worked as a waitress in the summertime when school was out. I learned pretty quickly that co-workers who weren't friendly to their customers didn't get much in the way of tips.

Looks like Eich offended a portion of his own customer base and members of his own company asked him to step down. Too bad, seems he is quite the computer wizard.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#18716 Apr 8, 2014
Here's how TV's Bill Maher interprets hounding Eich out of his job:
MAHER: What do you think about the Mozilla CEO having to step down over his donation to a pro-Proposition 8 group.

The Mozilla -- which I'm wearing right now, by the way. I didn't know what Mozilla was. I saw it on my computer, but -- it's Firefix, right? It's the browser.

So this guy apparently does not want gay people to get married and he had to step down. What do you think of that, the question asks.

FMR. REP. TOM DAVIS (R-VA): Because he gave $1,000 eight years ago and it's come back to haunt him.

CARRIE SHEFFIELD, FORBES: Well, and he gave it when President Obama was still against gay marriage. So, I don't think it's very fair.

MAHER: Good point. Also, I think there is a gay mafia. I think if you cross them, you do get whacked.
The left has a strong streak of fascism.

Judged:

17

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#18717 Apr 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Here's how TV's Bill Maher interprets hounding Eich out of his job:
<quoted text>
The left has a strong streak of fascism.
We learned from the anti-gay who (1) passed laws that we couldn't work for the government (2) passed laws that we couldn't work in schools (3) boycotted dozens of companies, including current boycotts against J C Penny (because they hate Ellen), Starbucks (because they support the same thing Eich opposes), and Mozilla (because they took the action that they hope Penny and Starbucks will take).

You might be taken more seriously if you weren't such a hypocrite. But you should probably also learn some basic vocabulary, such as the definition of "fascism." You use it as a slogan, not as a descriptor.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#18718 Apr 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Here's how TV's Bill Maher interprets hounding Eich out of his job:
The left has a strong streak of fascism.
You do realize that Bill Maher is a comedian, right?

And quite frankly, that was a funny joke.

You do understand that he was making a joke, right?

If he saw your use of his material in this context he might make a joke about you for being a moron.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18719 Apr 8, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that Bill Maher is a comedian, right?
And quite frankly, that was a funny joke.
You do understand that he was making a joke, right?
If he saw your use of his material in this context he might make a joke about you for being a moron.
I agree. Brian is way too stupid to see the humor.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#18720 Apr 8, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Brian is way too stupid to see the humor.
He doesn't know what the word "fascism" means. So the irony is lost.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18721 Apr 8, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
He doesn't know what the word "fascism" means. So the irony is lost.
Exactly.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18722 Apr 8, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No doubt you think "atoms" and "DNA" are recent inventions too.
Scientific progress.
Our understanding of ourselves and the world around us increases over time.
Yes it does.
It contradicts religious scripture for one thing.
What specifically does it contradict, and which religious scripture?
But then much of science historically has contradicted religious scripture or religious doctrine.
Modern science isn't that old, nor is there science in scripture.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatr...
Other than perhaps a few miscellaneous words of Italian, I've yet to see anything worth learning from you based on your postings.
Take off the rainbow colored glasses.
I don't really care to add being stupid, intellectually dishonest, a liar, a bigot or generally uneducable to my skill set.
So don't then.
While I make no claims of knowing everything, I generally look to experts or at least people with some modicum of knowledge on a particular topic in order to learn something.
Ahhhhh.....the disclaimer, "generally".....I suppose if it works for you....

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#18723 Apr 8, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
What specifically does it contradict, and which religious scripture?
Seriously? Of all the stupid denials you've mad over the last several thousand pages, this actually surprised me. Apparently, you need to take a trip to the Creation Museum.

Let me give a few examples:

The earth is 7000 years old.
On the third day, God created two great lights (usually assumed to be sun and moon): One to rule the day, and one to rule the night. But anyone who observes the moon would be aware that it is around during the day as much as in the night. So either there is some unidentified great light, or the Bible is wrong.
All of the sea creatures were created on the fourth day
All of the land creatures (including man) were created the next day.
The sun spins around the earth.
The earth has four corners.

We could go on ad nauseum, but I have no need to further embarrass you.(If you are capable of being embarrassed by stupidity. I am not at all sure of that.)

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#18724 Apr 8, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Scientific progress.
Like our knowledge of sexual orientation.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes it does.
What specifically does it contradict, and which religious scripture?
If sexual orientation is innate as science says and everyone, including gays, is made in God's image, then why does Leviticus forbid sex between men if that's how God created them? Why does Leviticus not specifically forbid sex between women (even though many still interpret Hebrew scripture otherwise)?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Modern science isn't that old, nor is there science in scripture.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatr...
Not all Christians believe as Father Coyne nor are all Christians even Catholic. Have you really not encountered the Christians in Topix that think the Genesis creation story is scientific fact and evolution is simply the work of the devil?

And despite your claim of there being no science in scripture, it didn't stop the Church from punishing scientists like Galileo or posthumously condemning the heliocentric theory of Copernicus for heresy against Church religious doctrine.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Take off the rainbow colored glasses.
I'm not wearing any.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So don't then.
I'm not.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ahhhhh.....the disclaimer, "generally".....I suppose if it works for you....
It obviously works better than what you've tried.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18725 Apr 8, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously? Of all the stupid denials you've mad over the last several thousand pages, this actually surprised me. Apparently, you need to take a trip to the Creation Museum.
Let me give a few examples:
The earth is 7000 years old.
On the third day, God created two great lights (usually assumed to be sun and moon): One to rule the day, and one to rule the night. But anyone who observes the moon would be aware that it is around during the day as much as in the night. So either there is some unidentified great light, or the Bible is wrong.
All of the sea creatures were created on the fourth day
All of the land creatures (including man) were created the next day.
The sun spins around the earth.
The earth has four corners.
We could go on ad nauseum, but I have no need to further embarrass you.(If you are capable of being embarrassed by stupidity. I am not at all sure of that.)
Clearly you've lost it. The only person you've embarrassed is yourself.

Judged:

17

17

16

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18726 Apr 8, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Like our knowledge of sexual orientation.
What knowledge is that? Have science proven "sexual orientation"? Found clear and convincing evidence?
If sexual orientation is innate as science says and everyone, including gays, is made in God's image, then why does Leviticus forbid sex between men if that's how God created them? Why does Leviticus not specifically forbid sex between women (even though many still interpret Hebrew scripture otherwise)?
First, science disagrees on whether or not "sexual orientation" is innate. Second, "gays" are a modern creation. Third, Leviticus forbids male SSSB, and this is my opinion on this, because it is not potentially procreative, and it violates accepted standards of masculinity in Jewish culture of the time. Again my opinion, as I have not researched the possible reasons. Lastly female SSSB wasn't prohibited, because I think of the status of women within Jewish society. Whether or not it was common, that I don't know.
Not all Christians believe as Father Coyne nor are all Christians even Catholic.
Agreed.
Have you really not encountered the Christians in Topix that think the Genesis creation story is scientific fact and evolution is simply the work of the devil?
Oh they're out there, and put there. Gotta agree with you on that.
And despite your claim of there being no science in scripture, it didn't stop the Church from punishing scientists like Galileo or posthumously condemning the heliocentric theory of Copernicus for heresy against Church religious doctrine.
Did u watch Bill Maher "Relgious"....or something like that? Watch this....it'll explain things...just a couple of minutes.

http://m.youtube.com/watch...

Judged:

17

17

16

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Jorja Fox

Vesuvius, VA

#18727 Apr 9, 2014
Bottom line is he's done and doesn't want to work there anymore.
threat of sanction comes from social disapprobation. People will often refrain from making public statements because they fear the ridicule and moral outrage of others.
This leads to the conclusion that we can attempt to regulate speech, but we cannot prevent it if a person is undeterred by the threat of sanction. The issue, therefore, boils down to assessing how cumbersome we wish to make it for people to say certain things
is more to be gained or lost by moving to curtail it?”

worried by the use of social pressure as a means of limiting speech. Chapter III of On Liberty is an incredible assault on social censorship, expressed through the tyranny of the majority, because it produces stunted, pinched, hidebound and withered individuals:“everyone lives as under the eye of a hostile and dreaded censorship…[i]t does not occur to them to have any inclination except what is customary”

This is exactly what happened to Eich and it happens here-anyone who disagrees with the "mass" is either wrong, stupid or a moron. The minute someone expresses a different opinion they are bullied into submission. If you want to discuss principles, the principle your detractors are arguing for is not "no consequence free speech", but just "free speech". If there were a large group of people in a town that ostracized someone for holding an opinion and threatened that person's lively-hood, then brushed it off by saying, "you can think or say whatever you want, but you won't get by with it" would be a type of "free speech", it just wouldn't be very useful or serve much civic purpose. Not protecting political speech can lead to mob-ocracy by preventing dissenting but valid opinions. Unfortunately for you, and something you don't understand, or don't want to is that not all dissenting opinions are popular or valid, but they still need protection from direct retaliation (economic, social, and physical) because the whole point of expressing opinions is not to be right or wrong, it is to point out that alternatives exist. You cannot have discussion without dissenting opinions or new information, and labeling things as good or bad to justify removing dissent, or information just turns whatever discussion into an echo-chamber.
What we have here though is a personal attack, at a CEO for holding a private political stance that he didn't enforce through his company, nor on his company, nor involve in the functioning of the company. Not only that it was initiated by another company as a smear tactic that may directly materially benefit other companies.
A bully is an entity that is punching down, and based on what I have seen here, a crowd versus an individual it really does seem like the crowd is punching down.

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gay Kentucky man loses bid to challenge GOP cle... 10 min Frankie Rizzo 7
News For Some African-Americans, Meghan Markle Is Ca... 29 min Negroes are animals 5
News African-Americans hail royal wedding's nod to b... 34 min Barros 7
News 'The blackest moment in global pop culture sinc... 37 min Lori899 1
News Guess who's coming to Windsor? Royal ceremony w... 1 hr Stormy days ahead 8
News Al Sharpton: Royal Wedding Shows 'Last Breath' ... 2 hr Plastic Surgery ASAP 180
News Church Of Scotland To Draft New Laws Permitting... 23 hr Gremlin 4