Yesterday Brendan Eich was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla, and leave the company he co-founded.
Because in 2008 he donated $1000 to an anti same-sex marriage campaign.
It is ludicrous that in a supposed democracy which trumpets the virtue and right of free speech, a man can be forced to resign for expressing an opinion.
An opinion that is shared by a significant percentage, in some areas, a clear majority, of the population.
An opinion that has been the dominant opinion on which the legal, philosophical and natural laws of marriage have been based for thousands of years.
An opinion that has nothing to do with his ability to perform his role as CEO. It could be argued that as a man with the courage of his convictions, it enhances his role.
Another example of political correctness gone berserk, the dark side of social media exposed.
Why is it that a serving US President did not have to resign after the sordid details of an affair with a junior employee made him the subject of international ridicule. Nor after his earlier denials of the affair brought his integrity into question.
I am not suggesting he should have been forced to resign over the affair itself, that might have established a precedent that could have decimated the ranks of politicians and corporate executives.
Denying it is another matter. Both errors of judgement infinitely more serious than Mr. Eich making a small donation to a legal and popular, cause. A cause that was supported by 7 million Californian voters.
Why can celebrities, fading stars and members of the lunatic fringe be not only forgiven, but in liberal circles, celebrated for unpatriotic comments and actions against companies trying to reduce the cost of energy and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.
I don’t recall a single case of a celebrity being asked to resign for making ridiculous allegations against, for example, Canadian Oil, GM crops or gun control.
Some of the attacks on national companies and institutions would have been judged as treason not that long ago.
The answer of course is that the liberal left has hoodwinked the media and many people who should know better with it’s campaign of take from the successful and give to those who want it all without having to exert any effort to produce themselves.
Just as some heterosexual couples do not get married, it is logical to assume that a significant number of homosexual relationships would not result in same-sex marriage.
Therefore, whichever estimate of the number of homosexual couples, reduced by any further estimate one chooses to use, of those that would not want to enter into a marriage, results in a very small part of the general population.
Why should such a small minority dictate to the majority? Why can a CEO be hounded out of his job for expressing his opinion on a matter that has no bearing what so ever on the company he runs?
Why have the majority of solid, ordinary citizens been cowed into silence by the radical left who cannot accept that there are other opinions in this world?
Why do corporations and worse, local governments aid and abet these views abandoning any backbone they may have had by, for example flying the “rainbow” flag over town halls during the winter Olympics? A direct insult to the majority of taxpayers.
Why do some corporations take it further and try and capitalise on this trend by organising boycotts? OK Cupid allegedly blocked any users of Mozilla’s browser, Firefox, from using it’s website until Brendan Eich resigned.
Because socialist propaganda has convinced too many good people that the tail can wag the dog.
For a group that whines continuously and vociferously about the unfairness of discrimination, it is bizarre that it should be the weapon of choice to be used against any one with a different opinion.
My personal philosophy is one of live and let live, I have as little interest in any one else’s sexual habits or preferences as I have in publicising my own.
I believe that those involved in same-sex relationships can be protected without a “marriage” of the same status as that for ordinary marriages between a man and a woman.
That’s my opinion and I could assemble pages of facts to support it. Just as proponents of same-sex marriage can raise compelling arguments to support it. It is my right to disagree with that opinion as much as it is theirs to disagree with mine.
Neither of us have the right to destroy the other’s careers, businesses or even lives because of that disagreement.
I have a great interest in fairness and minimal interference in the private lives of others by both government and mobs of social media vigilantes flying a liberal flag.
This mob violence – digital or real – may well come back to bite the hands that feed it. Already there is at least one counter boycott from a Christian group blocking Mozilla users.
What will be the next cause these vigilantes adopt? It might be directed against you or the values you stand for. Will you have the fortitude to resist it?
We had better hope that enough of us do find the courage otherwise we will soon realise that we no longer live in a democracy, mob rule will have triumphed. Anarchy will prevail.