Intolerance by Gay Liberals in San Fransisco

I don't know. Wesson is an oil, which makes sense for the regional squabble.

I also know what we were taught, JL, but God ain't in charge no more. You're as foolish as the hillbillies. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

When did he give up being in charge?

So the "liberals" on this board believe that a black baker should be FORCED to service a Klan rally, an environmentally minded photographer should be FORCED to cover a demo derby, an atheist must be FORCED to cover a religious Easter ceremony even if they object? I see who the fascists are but they see themselves.

So the "liberals" on this board believe that a black baker should be FORCED to service a Klan rally, an environmentally minded photographer should be FORCED to cover a demo derby, an atheist must be FORCED to cover a religious Easter ceremony even if they object? I see who the fascists are but they see themselves. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

JD, should the Muslim ER room doctor be obliged to do a trachiotomy on a Jew? Should a Klan owned electric company (the only one in the town) be required to provide electricity to a black church?

JD, should the Muslim ER room doctor be obliged to do a trachiotomy on a Jew? Should a Klan owned electric company (the only one in the town) be required to provide electricity to a black church? Originally Posted by Old-T

Those are a little different than a miserable cake that you can get anywhere. Medical personnel are governed by a higher calling than baking a cake, and a license to own a monopoly means you love all, serve all - kinda like The Hard Rock Cafe.

Those are a little different than a miserable cake that you can get anywhere. Medical personnel are governed by a higher calling than baking a cake, and a license to own a monopoly means you love all, serve all - kinda like The Hard Rock Cafe. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

You and I have discussed the point before, and I don't think we are that far apart on it.

I am wondering how rigid JD's mind is on the topic.

And as always, the difficulty is where to draw the dividing line between allowable choice and higher obligation. I know I don't know where to draw it, but I do think it is somewhere in between ER rooms and photographers.

When did he give up being in charge? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

You mean SHE, right?

LMAO @ fucking hypocrites



http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014...ti-gay-firefox

OkCupid's CEO Donated to an Anti-Gay Campaign Once, Too
—By Hannah Levintova| Mon Apr. 7, 2014 4:00 PM PDT
902

OkCupid co-founder Sam Yagan Anthony Behar/Sipa USA/AP Images


Last week, the online dating site OkCupid switched up its homepage for Mozilla Firefox users. Upon opening the site, a message appeared encouraging members to curb their use of Firefox because the company's new CEO, Brendan Eich, allegedly opposes equality for gay couples—specifically, he donated $1000 to the campaign for the anti-gay Proposition 8 in 2008. "We've devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together," the message read. "If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we've worked so hard to bring about would be illegal." The company's action went viral, and within a few days, Eich had resigned as CEO of Mozilla only weeks after taking up the post. On Thursday, OkCupid released a statement saying "We are pleased that OkCupid's boycott has brought tremendous awareness to the critical matter of equal rights for all individuals and partnerships."

But there's a hitch: OkCupid's co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan once donated to an anti-gay candidate. (Yagan is also CEO of Match.com.) Specifically, Yagan donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004, reports Uncrunched. During his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions.

He's also voted for numerous anti-choice measures, earning a 0 percent rating from NARAL Pro Choice America. Among other measures, Cannon voted for laws prohibiting government from denying funds to medical facilities that withhold abortion information, stopping minors from crossing state lines to obtain an abortion, and banning family planning funding in US aid abroad. Cannon also earned a 7 percent rating from the ACLU for his poor civil rights voting record: He voted to amend FISA to allow warrant-less electronic surveillance, to allow NSA intelligence gathering without civil oversight, and to reauthorize the PATRIOT act.

Of course, it's been a decade since Yagan's donation to Cannon, and a decade or more since many of Cannon's votes on gay rights. It's possible that Cannon's opinions have shifted, or maybe his votes were more politics than ideology; a tactic by the Mormon Rep. to satisfy his Utah constituency. It's also quite possible that Yagan's politics have changed since 2004: He donated to Barack Obama's campaign in 2007 and 2008. Perhaps even Firefox's Eich has rethought LGBT equality since his 2008 donation. But OkCupid didn't include any such nuance in its take-down of Firefox. Combine that with the fact that the company helped force out one tech CEO for something its own CEO also did, and its action last week starts to look more like a PR stunt than an impassioned act of protest. (Mother Jones reached out to OkCupid for comment: We'll update this post if we receive a response.)

Update April 8, 2014, 12:30 p.m. PDT: OkCupid CEO Sam Yagan provided a statement to the SF Chronicle this morning clarifying the intentions behind his donation to Cannon and his stance on gay rights. Here it is in full:

A decade ago, I made a contribution to Representative Chris Cannon because he was the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that oversaw the Internet and Intellectual Property, matters important to my business and our industry. I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular; I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today. However, a contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues has no equivalence to a contribution supporting Prop. 8, a single issue that has no purpose other than to affirmatively prohibit gay marriage, which I believe is a basic civil right.

This is were the progressive media's ability to control the language and message is hurting the Republicans.

Being "anti-gay marriage" is not being "anti-gay." But the MSM will sell it as such, just like "the Republican's War on Women."

Obama ran for election in 2012 opposing gay marriage - perhaps he should be impeached?

This is were the progressive media's ability to control the language and message is hurting the Republicans.

Being "anti-gay marriage" is not being "anti-gay." But the MSM will sell it as such, just like "the Republican's War on Women." Originally Posted by gnadfly

A large part of it is the Reps haven't figured out what "their message" is. They left the Thumpers confuse the fiscal message and turn off a lot of people who would otherwise agree with them. Look at the Putin "family values" babble. Some "conservatives" are letting the gay rights part trump Putin's oppression, etc.

And the Reps have picked ked some pretty un likable spokesmen.