Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay blogger Andrew Sullivan: I’m disgusted the gay community has forced Brendan Eich to quit Firefox

  • Valksy

    Really? Well, I am disgusted by this kind of whelpish snivelling apologism.

    This was never about opinion, Eich was (and still is) perfectly welcome to not like us, not approve of us, not welcome us into his private spaces. No one has taken his beliefs away from him. What he did do was give money to facilitate direct acts of harm and injury to LGBT people. Both in the State of California, by helping fund specifically targeted bigotry and now by making it so those who see some gaps in the law have to hurry to marry, before (as happened in Utah, for example) that gap is closed. These people are denied the weddings they want, the dignity and choice of having friends and loved ones around, the things heterosexuals take for granted.

    And we are to apologise and grovel to those who would make the lives of our international brothers and sisters just that little bit harder than they have to be?

    No more than anyone should be contented, apathetic or passive when someone like Eich funds a certain pointy-hat wearing brigade (mention of which might not pass moderation) if they decided to lobby against mixed race marriage. That is no different, the same arguments were offered by the same sorts of people, and no one but NO ONE would expect those who would be harmed to simply put up with it. So why on Earth should we? What is with the instinct that some have for appeasement? We don’t need them to like us, just get out of our damned way.

    Sullivan can lick the metaphorical boots of those who would do us actual harm – who would castigate those who say that the bully is no longer allowed to bully (and the victims are entitled to restitution) – I bloody won’t.

    • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

      Well put. I wonder what affect the SCOTUS decision yesterday that makes money speech will have on his donation. Hate speech, seeing as to how he used it against the Gay community… Sullivan is despicable for his nonsense rant in favour of this bigoted homophobe, Eich…..

      • gregipoh

        Yes- Valksy- very well put- Eich wasn’t just expressing an opinion and his speech wasn’t exactly free- he PAID for a group to try to force his opinion on others and later had no regrets about doing so, unlike the Chick a fill (whatever) guy. If you’re to be CEO, in these days of an educated populace, you can’t drag your company into partisan politics- it’s bad enough that companies and individuals expect something back from political donations- that’s almost like the “cash for questions” ethos, and I question whether the USA is the true “democracy” which they repeatedly declare it as because of this.

        Even Souter of stagecoach seems to have gone quiet with HIS previous sponsorship of anti-gay propaganda recently.

    • Keith Patrick Murphy

      Very well said. Here here!

  • Pablo

    I just KNEW he was going to be a white cisgendered gay man.

    • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

      If there is one word that really annoys me it is this invented word “cisgendered” It is bullshit!. In what way does marriage equality or lack of it have an affect on trannies, pray? Countdown to the screams of transphobia. 5 4 3 2…

      • http://www.pariss.info Pariss

        What the hell is ‘cisgendered’?????

        • Sammie Luke

          Cisgendered means you identify and agree with the gender you were assigned at birth.

          • http://www.pariss.info Pariss

            Ah, thanks
            Can’t really see why we need a specific word for it, but hey ….

          • Sassafras

            It’s because when trans people talk about their experiences, they need a neutral way to refer to everyone else. Otherwise people use terms like “real woman” or “natural man” or “genetic woman” that all imply that trans people are fake or freakish. It would be like if instead of “gay and straight” we had “gay and normal”.

          • arcoiris

            You couldn’t say “gay and normal” as these words are not antonyms. Gay and non-gay perhaps; just like the possibility of trans and non-trans. The artificial and clumsy construct cisgendered (just because the “cis” prefix implies something in contrast to “trans”). The Latin preposition cis translates as ” on the same side as” – I don’t see the relevance.

          • Nualaan

            Exactly! Thank you.

          • Silly Old Bastard

            Otherwise people use terms like “real woman” or “natural man” or “genetic woman” that all imply that trans people are fake or freakish.

            I don’t know how to put this without upsetting people, but…

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            Try my approach, which is to point out reality, like it or not!!

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            But they are fake or freakish. If a trans “man” is dug up in a hundred years time and “his” DNA sequenced, it would discover that in fact the person in the grave is a woman or were it a trans “woman” a man. No amount of hormones or mutilation will ever change the DNA of a living organism from that which it was born to the DNA of something completely different. Many many trans people have found out this to their cost after going through the whole process just to find out that they feel no different when they were a man or woman. Even more ironic is to go through the whole process only to discover that in fact they were just Gay all along!!

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            No, agreeing with my gender means, looking in the mirror and calling myself a man,something no amount of hormones or mutilation can ever change, period. No stupid made up names for me, thank you!!

      • Brooks Austin

        All words are invented you bigot.

        • Rehan

          I think not. At least not in the sense of a newly-coined, deliberately made-up word, which is what was meant here. Some words – ‘mother’ being the most obvious – go back so far it’s impossible to do more than guess at its development from prehistoric sounds.

      • nixiotemba

        trannies??, please wash your mouth out moron

      • Sammie Luke

        The screams of transphobia are coming probably because you’re transphobic. You used a trans* slur. Marriage Equality affects everyone, simply because it is equality for all. Cisgendered is not bullshit, it is simply the opposite of Transgendered.

        • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

          No I used a term used by thousands of Trans people all over the world including on telly. I watched a trans person use the term on British television only three weeks ago. What exactly is wrong with the word?. It is a short term for someone who has or is transitioning; nothing more or less. It is a real word and can be found in most dictionaries. The made up word “Cisgendered” is not in the dictionary!!

          • Armozel

            FYI, words evolve from other words or their misspelling. If you think the modern English language came to our living generations intact from before Shakespeare and Bacon, then you’re really are ignorant of languages.

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            I don’t need a lecture on the evolution of languages, thank you, much less from an American of the US hue, who have made such a mess of the English language, that the resultant gobbildy goop, laughably called US English, is no longer fit for purpose…. As for you comment about how words are made up or evolve, they usually evolve along lines of understandability or relevance, which “cisgendered” does not. The only part of the word that makes sense is “gendered” The “cis” part is nonsense and merely means “opposite to” Opposite to what? …..

      • Sassafras

        Seriously? Figuring out how marriage equality affects trans people SHOULD be a no-brainer. Since many states refuse to acknowledge trans people as their transitioned gender, they are then prevented from marrying a partner if the state considers them same-sex. Further, many trans people ARE gay in their true gender and would still like to get married.

      • Silly Old Bastard

        Good show Paddy. Cisgendered is a disgusting word.

        • saintlaw

          You’re a moron.

          • Silly Old Bastard

            Must you resort to abuse?

          • saintlaw

            It isn’t abuse. It’s description.

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            That is all they have. If you don’t like the company amont the GLB community then piss off and start your own group. We don’t need hangers on who are constantly whining about how we refer to them. It makes the breeders think Gays are never happy. Don’t you have more important things to whine about? I say dump the spurious alphabet from the end of GLB now!!

          • Silly Old Bastard

            Calm down Paddy, I’m with you. Being neither psychiatric case nor rare freak of nature. That covers it then. There are no other tranny situations.

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            Sorry, that wasn’t for you as is obvious I think….It is for the whiners on this sort of thread!!

      • Pablo

        Invented? All words are invented you idiot. Tranny is transphobic.

    • Roger

      Err can you imagine if someone typed ‘I just knew this would a trans person’. Check your own priveledge and prejudices!

      • Pablo

        What the hell are you babbling on about? Cisgendered people have privilege that trans do not. Not hard to grasp.

        • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

          There is NO such word as cisgendered. It is a nonsense word and is just as insulting to us as you say the real and common word trannie is to you, although you seem unable to point out why it is insulting. Many trannies use the term!

          • Pablo

            Yes, there is such word as cisgender, look it up. How is it insulting? It’s not even a slur, you idiot. Trannie is a slur, it’s not the same thing. I’m not even transgender, so I don’t know why you’re directing it to me. Pathetic.

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            I didn’t say you were trans. You are defending a nonsense and that’s why I discussed it with you. You still have not said how Trannie, as short for someone who has or is transitioning, is a slur…. Cisgendered is a nonsense and a slur because it assumes different or opposite to. I am opposite to nothing.I am a gay man and proud of and happy with what Nature handed me and I will not be defined by cobbled together nonsense. Words evolve from common usage, and cisgendered is not in common usage or even close to it. It is a made up word used by a couple of dozen disgruntled people at most….In all the years I have been commenting on Pink News I have read it maybe ten times and that is being very generous….

  • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

    Hold on a cotton pickin moment there, Sullivan. He was not forced out for his free speech but for actively paying money in order to deny a section of the community their civil and human right to happiness; end of. To try spinning it into something else entirely shows that you have a very tenuous grasp on the Constitution you are so fond of quoting. As of yesterday the SCOTUS decided that money is speech so technically he could be accused of Hate speech by his “donation”

  • Yesh U R

    Well not the sharpest knife in the box our Mr. Sullivan is he? So, standing upon the 1st Amendment the extrapolation in his mind is that it is perfectly fine to deny other Constitutional Amendments to people who do not fit the “moral” map of people such as the now ex CEO of Firefox. I don’t insist on him being made to sit in the stocks or heap ash upon his head, but if he where to go and visit the homeless shelters for LGBT teenagers who are the victims of his particular brand of delusional prejudices that might be a start. Or he could go and talk to people who have had violence done to them simply because of who they are, and then come back and tell us all about his religion of brotherly love.

  • SteveinDC

    “Freedom of Speech” and “Doing one’s job properly” are apples and oranges. Sure, in the USA we all have the right to our own opinions, beliefs, and prejudices as long as we follow the laws. That does not translate to the workplace.

    An individual that holds a management position at a company and who publicly declares their opposition to a particular group of people can be held liable for their opposition if it affects someone in some aspect of employment and results in discrimination. As a CEO, you are the public spokesperson for the company, and your views impact the entire organization as well as the public’s perceptions of that company.

    Public perceptions can make or break a company. Companies like Chik-Fil-A or Barilla are willing to chuck those perceptions to the wind and still survive, although they both took a huge hit financially and to their brand when their CEO voiced opinions about LGBT people. It just is not in the best interest of a company to alienate any group of people because of the narrow mindedness of their CEO.

    I agree that demanding that a CEO step down because of their intolerant views is extreme, but putting pressure on a company that supposedly prides itself on taking on a progressive world view is a completely different matter.

  • Michael Walsh

    We’ll count you out, then. Moron. Denying civil rights to an entire swash of society because of religious belief is NOT freedom of speech. Any American who doesn’t understand this doesn’t understand how lucky they are to live under the constitution and owe it to themselves and their countrymen to study up.

    • Steven Gregory

      Absolutely AGREED, well stated.

  • @Mike-uk2011

    “Gay activists”? Sounds like typical right winger speech. He should be a shamed of himself for defending bigot activists.
    This wasn’t just some bigot with homophobic views, this guy, like Orson Scott Card, used money to influence laws that deprive same sex couples, equal rights.
    And the people fighting against this bigot’s position, aren’t “gay activists.” they’re straight, bisexual, AND gay people who had a problem with this nutjob’s appointment.

    • mesocyclone

      But, of course, it’s okay to deny people their religious rights, isn’t it. Because that’s what gay activists are doing today. And year, “activists” is a correct term, not “right winger speech.”

      BTW…. I assume you include Barack Obama as a past bigot, since when he ran for election, he was opposed to gay marriage.

      It used to be that, in America, we could disagree with each other about laws. Now, to the “progressives”, anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot or some other pejorative noun. Progressives and gays are all about suppressing rights. Ironic, since they do it in the name of “rights.”

      Guess what: there is no right to state recognized marriage. It’s a choice of society to make laws doing so.

      And guess what else: gays are in denial. They are so far gone that they imagine that there is some “equality” between marriage and “gay marriage.”

      Whatever else gay relationships are, marriage is not the right term. No matter how much Stalinist brain washing is applied, it won’t change biological reality.

      • Truth

        Sorry – I just cannot make out where you’re coming from. Are you gay? If not, why are you frequenting a website specifically for gay people? If you are gay – you’re obviously a self-hater. Get some therapy and learn to love yourself ….

        • mesocyclone

          Not gay. Followed a link.

          What I have to say may be of interest to gays, or maybe not. If gays aren’t aware of how the actions of some activists are inciting resentment and resistance against gay activist goals, they should be. Many of us, initially sympathetic to gay causes, have been turned off by the viciousness and intolerance turned our way. The Mozilla issue is just one example. It means that whatever sympathy I may have had is rapidly disappearing. You should care about that, if you care about the agendas.

          If you mean that only gays are welcome on this site, well…

          • Steven Gregory

            That is your point of view, but opinions worldwide, and specifically across the U.S., are growing in support equal human and civil rights for gays and lesbians. The tide has moved steadily in a supportive direction.

            Those who are opposed have become increasingly shrill and unreasonable in their arguments, and they’re on the wrong side of history.

            Every social movement in history has activists who caused upset. No social movement has ever brought about awareness or change through being polite and passive.

          • mesocyclone

            No, it is the proponents who are becoming more shrill, even as they are winning. I hear a lot less shrill arguments in opposition than I did in the past, because the shrill arguments have been squelched.

            It is quite a bad sign for civil discourse and liberty that the winners are now succeeding in intentionally harming their opponents. It is one thing to advocate, it is another to actively damage your ideological opponents. The idea that, because you believe you are right, your opponents lose the right to freely object, is objectively anti-freedom. It is Stalinist.

            At least in the US, gays are no longer the target of legal harassment. Ironically, they are responding by using the legal system, and other means, to harm those who oppose them.

            And that behavior is leading to a backlash. And that is my point.

            When I hear people mouth “equal human and civil rights” while defending Stalinist behavior towards their opponents, I have a lot of trouble crediting their characterization.

            It is, in my opinion, a *right* of gays (or anyone else) to form whatever forms of unions they want, as long as it doesn’t objectively harm others (i.e. rape or whatever).

            It is most certainly not a “right” – at least in the American sense – to have a law created for your cause. It may be the right thing to do. It is certainly your right to advocate for it. But legal recognition of gay marriage is not a right, and framing it in the “rights” and “equality” language is an affront to logical thinking. Of course, it’s an effective tactic.

          • Steven Gregory

            Hogwash. You can stamp your feet and wave your fists, but gays and lesbians didn’t launch suit against anyone in the pursuit of equal marriage rights. You sound stupid characterizing the response as Stalinist, and show how little you know about Stalin.

            As for having a law created for the recognition of marriage between gays and lesbians, you’re mistaken: all efforts are to repeal hastily thrown-up laws to deny equal rights.

            You have chosen the side of stupidity and bias, and it’s boring going through these explanations when you have chosen to ignore them thus far. Your intransigence makes you a pitiful bigot.

            Have the last word, you can’t say anything further to which I need respond.

          • mesocyclone

            Well, I guess I’m not surprised that you choose to respond with unsupported facts and a bunch of insults.

            I haven’t been calling you names. I haven’t called you a bigot. But that’s your response.

            And, you failed to address any of my assertions.

            And you accuse *me* of stupidity?

            “all efforts are to repeal hastily thrown-up laws to deny equal rights.”

            Gays are successfully advocating for new laws defining marriage their way, in direct contradiction to thousands of years of history, and basic biology. Either that, or you are arguing (somewhat successfully in the legal system, if not in society) for a magical redefinition of the long understood meaning of marriage – in terminology and in practice.

            Gay “marriage” is an oxymoron, unless one removes from marriage it’s fundamental meaning: the procreation of the species via natural heterosexual intercourse, and the creation of circumstances for the rearing and protection of the resulting young.

            You know that. I know that.

            But you cannot admit that you want something new – a redefinition of marriage.

            And, sadly, you don’t even need that redefinition. You could achieve almost all social goals with what I advocated way back before it was acceptable: civil unions – legal protection for couples of any kind giving them official recognition, medical rights, inheritance, etc.

            Dressing things up with terms like “equal rights” and “stupidity” and “bigot” doesn’t clarify anything. It merely shows the failure of your side to use reason, and it’s willingness to use vicious tactics against opponents.

            The Stalinism is the insistence that this is something other than what it is – the Orwellian doublespeak, combined with a totalitarian treatment of dissenters. It is totalitarian to insist that a new definition is the right one, and anyone who disagrees is… let’s see “stupid and biased”

            As to Stalin, I use the terminology advisedly. I was listening to Soviet propaganda before most people on this board’s parents were born. Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot… all used redefinition of terms, backed by constant big lie propaganda, and vilification of and direct harm to their opponents, to achieve “good” goals (by their claims).

            A victory won by these tactics is hollow. And, if you’ll see my reasoning for bringing this to this board – it was
            to point out that these tactics are becoming counter-productive.
            Fascist ( yep – it’s very close to Stalinist) tactics work for awhile, but they always spark a backlash.

            It has moved me from sympathetic to the gay cause to actively hostile. Not to gays, but to any legal initiative pushed in their name. And that’s happening all over the place. People get tired of being pushed around (gays should know this – they experienced it). Sullivan knows this. Listen to him if not to me.

          • saintlaw

            Did anybody read that crap?

          • Steven Gregory

            If you didn’t and I didn’t, I think that makes it unanimous.

          • mesocyclone

            “but gays and lesbians didn’t launch suit against anyone in the pursuit of equal marriage right”

            Tell that to the wedding photographer sued for refusing, on religious grounds, to work a gay wedding.

            I guess you’d be happy if a gay artist was sued for not taking a commission for a Catholic Church painting? It’s equivalent.

          • Steven Gregory

            You are simply choosing to not understand.

            That lawsuit wasn’t about equal marriage, it was about fair business practices. The photographer couldn’t marry them any more than a baker or florist can; but fair business practices already exist for licensed business operators.

            As soon as the Catholic Church sues a gay artist, you’ll have an argument. Until then, you’re simply waving your arms in the dark making up crap.

          • mesocyclone

            I’m not making up anything. It should be obvious that the codification of gay “marriage” into law will increase the viability of such suits.

            As to “fair business practice” – I guess in your mind, anyone should be able to force any businessperson to provide services to them. I don’t call that “fair” – I call it indentured servitude. You say we have to wait for the Catholic Church to sue before we can assert this probability? Hah!

          • Steven Gregory

            Post links LIAR

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            It would only be “indentured servitude” if the gay person refused to pay for a service also available to the breeders. Do try using terms you understand if you are going to keep coming to a gay news site. Most of us here are fairly well educated and don’t suffer fools gladly.

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            Oh I understood. It is you that is not understanding my point and you have not cited a Gay business or indeed gay organisation that exists for the sole purpose of denying a group of people their Civic and Human Rights,. Your analogy is rubbish because the chance of a Gay businessman turning down business just because he didn’t like some trait of the church is ridiculous and you know it.

          • Steven Gregory

            I beg, truly beg your pardon. For some reason my reply above was directed to you in the email, but if you look above it is directed at mesocyclone. We share closely similar points of view on this issue, as well as religion. I greatly appreciate your insights.

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            Why would a Gay artist not take a Church commission? How is it equivelant. We don’t cherry pick an old book of fables when we interact with our fellow man. Neither do we agitate to get laws passed in order to deny some right, human or civic, to our xtian neighbours or indeed anyone. You make a nonsense analogy because in reality there is no parallel to equal the hatred and homophobia of the so called christians for gay people…….

          • David Loehmann

            Your attempt to hide behind “I used to be supportive” is completely transparent. Obviously, what you really want is for us to say: “Oh, please, sir, please. Allow me some freedom to be with the person I love.” You are a liar, among many other things. You never have nor will you ever be supportive of anything but your own self-interest. Even when that isn’t at stake, you still ram your vicious tongue lashing down everyone’s throat. We should be aware of what it is we’re doing. Indeed! We should be aware of liars such as you.

            You definitely have your own agenda buddy and nobody is fooled by your ‘let me advise you on how to handle getting your human rights’ bullshit. Mozilla is a corporation, not a person. They have a stated policy of inclusion. All employees, including Eich, are required to follow it even when they are not on the clock. It is a job requirement. By doing what he did, he broke the company’s policy and dragged the corporation into the mess he created not only for himself, but now the corporation as well. HE WAS MAKING A STATEMENT!!! And the corporation didn’t like it. PERIOD!

            If he had done his contribution anonymously, none of this would have happened. But his own ego got in the way and decided, on the corporation’s behalf, to include them in it without their approval.

            You are a liar, pure and simple. You twist the facts, blur the lines between what is really going on and your false realities, and attempt to sideline meaningful discourse for one reason only. You are a mole, brother. You hope to cause us to question ourselves. Well, it didn’t work. You are as transparent as glass. Take your ‘sympathy’ and place it somewhere it is needed, like a soup kitchen, homeless children shelter, there are many good things you can do.

          • Psychologist

            MESOCYCLONE – Your argument is entirely flawed !
            What you seem to be BLIND to is this:-
            What EVERYONE wants (black, gay, women, disabled, whoever they might be) is to be EQUAL !!!! To be treated equally, with equal legal rights of protection, equal status, and equal respect in society !
            Sadly, many sections of society (including gay and black people) have been DENIED all of those rights for many, many years ….. by people LIKE YOU ….. who can ONLY see that YOUR VIEWS are correct, and use them as DISCRIMINATORY TOOLS with which to disadvantage other sections of society !
            Stop being so bloody self righteous and arrogant, that you consider ONLY YOUR views to be correct …. because they’re NOT ! They are discriminatory, as they lead to other people’s basic human rights being eroded or denied.
            You can believe in whatever mumbo-jumbo superstitious rubbish you like (religion) – NO ONE is saying you can’t !
            But the moment you attempt to USE those beliefs to discriminate against the basic human rights of others is when you will RIGHTFULLY be challenged by those you seek to oppress and discriminate against ! The sooner you wake up to that FACT .. the better !
            Put simply, so even YOU can understand:-
            If you use your beliefs to attempt to deny others the same equality as everyone else, then it WILL BE YOU who is challenged by those you attempt to do that to !
            This is basic human psychology, and ALL social groups throughout history have done the same (including black people) who have had to FIGHT back with those who would oppress them !
            So quit whinning about how gay people are fighting back at being denied equal rights – and a more productive use of your time would be spent in trying to answer …WHY ARE YOU SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF OTHER PEOPLE ?

            Additionally, your rather obvious, but feeble attempt to try to get gay people to stop fighting homophobic and bigoted based discrimination, is really rather pathetic ! Not to mention BLATANTLY TRANSPARENT !

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            How did they not have the rigght to freely object taken away and by whom. What you really mean is that their assumed right to to object without any comebacks has been taken away. Eich paid his money specifically to try deny a group of people their civil and human rights; rights he himself enjoys, and the people, including Mozilla employees, didn’t like his bigotry and spoke with their feet by abandoning Mozilla. He resigned in order not to do his future career any more damage. I cannot imagine who will hire him now. I hear the WBC are looking for a replacement for the now dead vile Fred Phelps……

          • Psychologist

            MESOCYCLONE – You said “It means that whatever sympathy I may have had is rapidly disappearing” !
            Really ? You can shove your “sympathy” ! Who needs SYMPATHY ? How patronising are you ?
            What YOU need to understand is this :-

            One’s sexual orientation is as fixed as the colour of one’s skin/eyes etc …. It is therefore a “birth right” – thus should have the HIGEST level of priority in terms of equality/human rights.
            However, religious belief is NOT a “birth right” (as some claim) …. it is merely a product of heavy-weight “operant conditioning” ….. as such, any belief or behaviour based on that conditioning is simply “learned” !
            “Learned behaviour, and conditioned beliefs” should NEVER be given priority over something which is innate in us, such as sexual orientation, or colour of skin.
            Religions, and especially homophobes & bigots, have got away with blatant discrimination towards gay people for way too long. Gay people have every right to stand up and fight against homophobes, bigots, and simply stupid people, who would promote, support or finance laws which contain discrimination against them.
            Religious beliefs are NOT a right to discriminate against others – You can BELIEVE whatever you want to believe – but the point at which you attempt to USE those beliefs to discriminate against others, and rob them of their human rights, is the point at which religious beliefs are being USED to LIGITIMISE someone’s homophobic agenda. That must never be allowed to happen ! Increasingly in society, that is no longer acceptable. Your views are becoming as extinct as the dinosaur. THANKFULLY !

          • Steven Gregory

            Perhaps the best response I’ve heard was from “Dear Amy,” who responded to a parent in a very religious home whose teen son came out as gay and refuses to stop being gay. Amy replies, “Why not show him how easy it is to change one’s sexual orientation: stop being straight for a year. Perhaps you’ll argue that your sexuality is an intrinsic part of your being. Then you should realize the same is true for him.”

          • Psychologist

            Yes, STEVEN, an excellent way of viewing this.
            Can I also add that …. you appear to be in USA …. where you say the tide of opinion towards LGBT rights and equality is growing rapidly now. great !
            I’m in UK (England) where those same views have also been taking place over many years now, thanks to many people simply no longer falling for the big “con” of religion, and instead, thinking for themselves.
            In England UK, the new law took effect (on Saturday 29th March) over a week ago, which now allows “same-sex-couples” to be legally married. This is a further step forward from same-sex civil partnerships, made legal almost 10 years ago.
            These old bigots and homophobes are rapidly becoming dinosaurs !

          • Steven Gregory

            I am in the US.
            There is an intriguing interplay between American religious bigotry and equal marriage in Europe. The National Organization for Marriage (NORM) spearheaded anti-gay measures for nearly two decades in the US. In recent days they have largely disbanded, conceding defeat as anti-gay measures enacted by individual states fall one-by-one. The final blows came when Kentucky’s Governor and Attorney General announced they would not defend their one man/one woman law against a federal judge who had pronounced it unconstitutional.

            So NORM went overseas, invited to France by the Catholic church. Behold the bizarre freakout protests against equal marriage.

            Why did this not happen in the UK? First, the Anglican church did not invite NORM, and then NORM members were denied visas due to a provision against outside agitators.

          • Psychologist

            STEVEN – Thanks for that info. We in the UK haven’t had an entirely smooth journey altogether. We are governed by our elected parliament based in London in “The Houses of Parliament” However, We also have a ridiculous institution called “The House of Lords” which is full of Bishops and religious leaders, and hereditary peers/lords who NO ONE has ever voted for ! Many of the religious leaders (many Catholics) in the House of Lords objected to the equality processes many times, but they lost to common sense in the end.

          • Steven Gregory

            Thanks for that concise and easily understandable explanation of UK government. It certainly explains the stunning morons in the House of Lords. I’m surprised that in this day and age there is such a blatant vehicle of moneyed privilege in UK government. In the US, our “Lords” tend to fly under the radar and purchase their seats in government.

            Speaking of which: the five conservative prats on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS, sounds somewhat testicular to me) passed a ruling that essentially equates “money” with “free speech,” and allows millionaires and billionaires to contribute as much money to as many candidates as they please, unrestricted. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion that “money does not wield undue influence.” What a naive moron.

            The Supreme Court Justices are appointed by presidents, not through legal channels.

          • Psychologist

            STEVEN – Thanks for the info USA side of the waters.
            It’s interesting to see how other countries go about legislation on laws.
            Many in UK wish to close down the UN-ELECTED house of LORDS completely. By doing so, it would remove most religious interference in the process of governing, and law making ! Wouldn’t that be good ! :) Yes, it is a mystery to many UK people too, as to WHY this medieval institution is still allowed to exist !
            We watch it on TV, and it even looks like something going back in time hundreds of years ! They even wear all those ridiculous red robes and old wigs too, it’s really quite hysterical (if it wasn’t so damaging).
            This is a psychological trick to visually give VALIDATION AND CREDIBILITY to what they say !
            Sadly they have the power to block proposed changes in laws which our ELECTED government in the Houses of Parliament propose. Ridiculous !
            However, it is interesting to see that both UK and USA are both moving in the right direction now, in respect of equal rights for LGBT people. We now not only have equal marriage for same-sex couples (from last weekend) but we also now have many “anti-discrimination” and equality laws too. So things do improve, but more to do yet.

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            There are no Catholic bishops in the House of Lords,. That is reserved for the UK theocracy and State religion , the Church of England. There are Catholics in the Lords but no Catholic leaders, just as there are Jews, Muslims,
            Sikhs and others including Atheists…..

          • Steven Gregory

            “Many of us, initially sympathetic to gay causes, have been turned off by the viciousness and intolerance turned our way.”

            Really? Have you ever considered giving up bigotry? There are many non-gays who are infuriated when gays, lesbians, transpeople, handicapped, ethnic minorities, elderly, financially disadvantaged and non-religious are targeted for abuse and exclusion.

            Just what “viciousness” and “intolerance” have you personally endured?

      • David Loehmann

        Here’s me exercising my right to free speech: STFU! How do you compare denying religious freedom to freedom of expression? ‘It used to be that, in America, we could disagree with each other about laws.’ Really? How was that possible when, in many states, homosexuals could be committed to an insane asylum simply for being homosexual? How was discussion possible when being chased down by a bunch of neo-nazi skinheads wielding baseball bats? How was discussion possible when the pastor who knew you to be gay, ejected you from the church at a time when you needed love and understanding?

        Now that we disagree with laws that deny us human rights, and we’re offering our opinion on it, you resort to claiming denial of your right to freedom of religion. How typical of your ‘type’. The only reason why you feel threatened, and you obviously do feel threatened, is that we are no longer going to silently accept your hatred.

        As far as biological reality is concerned, we can and do have children. And not just children abandoned and thrown away by people who don’t want them.

        Nobody has, thus far, suppressed your right to be an arse. Take comfort in that, because you really are one.

        • Steven Gregory

          And it’s not just we gays and lesbians who vocally challenge laws against us and those who support them: a great many of our allies who were once complacent about the issue have found their voice and do not hesitate to pronounce it wrong.

      • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

        The POTUS Barack Obama said at the time he was opposed to Marriage Equality but that he was evolving on the matter. He then announced his support after “some reflection”. That is good enough for me and 99.99999% of Gay people. However xtians have not evolved and have actually regressed since most of the sane and free secular world has moved on and are making marriage Equality available worldwide. It is only in the backward, ill educated, religious bigotry ridden America that the is a problem. Grant it enlightened parts of the US, like New England they have evolved and are moving along with the rest of the sane world, but there are still a lot of States mired in Hatred, Homphobia and religious bigotry, and the modern world is passing them by and they will unfortunately slide further and further into poverty, and hatred as large companies shun them and their medeival hatred………

      • Steven Gregory

        Nobody has been denied their religious rights. You know that is correct, but you attempt such a lie anyway.

        As for Barack Obama: YES, I include him as a past bigot and hypocrite. During his initial campaign he spoke about including “our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters,” and then changed his tune to oppose gay marriage. However, he did “evolve” and his justice department has made great strides toward striking down “defense of marriage” laws and constitutional amendments state-by-state.

        As for disagreement: cross a conservative and you’re asking for death threats.

        F-cough.

        • mesocyclone

          And you don’t think opponents of gay marriage aren’t getting threats, and actual attacks on their property? Proponents of Proposition 8 in California have been threatened, their property has been defaced, and (as in this case) have lost their jobs. All for exercising the right to vote – to cast a vote with the majority.

          Today, the definition of a bigot is anyone who doesn’t go along with the gay agenda. I’ve got a message for you: gay marriage isn’t about being able to live with whom you want – you’ve already got that right. It is about changing the definition of marriage – repealing it’s millenia old meaning that was based on natural law (i.e. it’s purpose was to harness sexual drives into productive procreation, in a structure that protected children). Gay marriage simply is not that,.

          • Steven Gregory

            Of course you wouldn’t post anything you can’t back up:
            Post links — at least one for each of your claims: threat, defacing, and a lost job, since you pluralize — or you’re simply a lying @sshøle.

      • @Mike-uk2011

        Religious rights? And what rights are those – that gay activists are denying them?

        Can they attend church? Yes

        Can they choose their beliefs? Yes

        Can they pray and/or own their chosen scripture? Yes

        Can they choose who marries inside their church? Yes

        Can they impose their primitive views on the state and individuals? No

        When Obama opposed gay marriage is he was in the wrong. and opposing it for bigoted reasons. Yes.

        “Now, to the “progressives”, anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot or some other pejorative noun”

        You’re not just opposing laws, you’re trying to remove or prevent groups of people from enjoying the same rights as you. Very different from views on the economy or taxes etc.

        “No right to state recognized marriage.” Sorry, but many states and nations clearly disagree with you.

        No matter how much Stalinist brain washing is applied, it won’t change biological reality.

        Marriage has nothing to do with biology. It’s a social construct humans invented eons ago. Thousands of years before any current religion was around. A tribal invention, later adopted by various religions, when women were regarded as stock and nothing more.

        The definition of marriage has changed and evolved throughout the ages. And it will continue to do so.

        The earliest known written account of a same sex wedding took place in 65 A.D. Before the first gospels were invented and written. And gay couples will still be marrying long after the Christian religion’s died like every other mythology before it.

    • Steven Gregory

      Good point about the “Gay activists” statement. Sullivan is a “gay blob,” a noisy gay slob.

  • @Mike-uk2011

    Not about free speech. The bigot didn’t just spout hate. He spent money trying to influence laws that would discriminate against same-sex couples.

  • Roger

    Sullivan is wrong. Eich has all his first ammendment rights intact and can say what he wants. But if someone in charge of a global brand like that shows such significant prejudice to such a section of society then that brand will suffer as people vote with their wallets. He’s damaged the brand and had to go. It’s a good thing as it shows businesses it’s not acceptable to discriminate against LGBT people. Sullivan is a a Republican I think so clearly favours money and business above human rights. What’s new?

    • Steven Gregory

      It’s so tiring to hear him snivel and groan about liberals while TRYING to embrace conservatives; but then cheer advances in equal human rights for gays and lesbians which conservatives have nothing to do with and actively oppose. He is childish in his defense of conservatism for the sake of celebrity. He only earns hatred from the right and eye-rolls from the left.

  • Owen Williams

    A business offers a service to make money. One can always evaluate the business then choose to politely decline to use it, and point out why.

    Sometimes homophobia is not profitable.

    • Steven Gregory

      Good point. Eich’s past actions, stupidly lame public statement, and reservation of the possibility he might again contribute to anti-equal-marriage efforts, ran against public standards of fairness, and that of Mozilla employees and board members.

  • David

    Who cares!

  • bobbleobble

    Perhaps Sullivan can point out where in the first amendment that freedom of speech should be without any kind of consequence whatsoever. Only the government is prevented from curtailing the freedom of speech of another, not corporations and private individuals.

    Also, aren’t those objecting to his appointment also exercising their first amendment rights? Or do you only get those if you’re against gay people?

  • dazzletag

    This guy is an idiot. No one has argued that Eich should be arrested or that he didn’t have a right to say what he did or for whether or not it was for religious reasons.

    The first amendment prohibits government from creating a law restricting free speech or respecting an established religion, so there was absolutely no threat to anyone’s rights.

    There is no protection however for consequence-free speech. It is absolutely right that consumers can choose not to use or support a product for any reason they please. If these companies have power then that power must be held to account.

    This also wasn’t Eich merely expressing an opinion, it was him actively seeking to oppress the rights of others. He suffered no harm from resigning, which was entirely his choice.

  • ian123

    Surely people are entitled to discontinue using firefox or resigning from Mozilla in protest just as much as people are entitled to help fund anti gay causes or express anti gay sentiment? Is it supposed to be just one way traffic?

    • Yesh U R

      “People are entitled to help fund anti gay causes or express anti gay sentiment?” Then LGBT people would be “entitled” to oppose them and describe the sometimes fatal harm those anti-gay causes and expressed anti-gay sentiments are responsible for, and by the vocal espousal of them the responsibility falls upon those people too.

    • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

      The difference is, of course, that us boycotting FireFox doesn’t strip anyone of their basic Human rights and their equality, based on religious dogma,

      Prop 8 did exactly that.

      Seriously, it’s like trying to explain algebra to three a two year old.

  • Truth

    … and if Mr Eich had contributed to the KKK …? Andrew Sullivan strikes me as a self-hater – brainwashed, probably by religion, to accept second-class citizenship for himself. Get treatment for your inferiority complex, dear. (And if that sounds patronising, it’s not half as patronising as being told we should not fight against ALL forms of homophobia!)

    • Psychologist

      Yes TRUTH – I agree with you. I come across this regularly in therapy sessions. Andrew Sullivan appears to be suffering from “Internalised Homophobia” (ie he has absorbed and fully accepted the anti-gay homophobia from certain sections of society (religions mainly) – thus INTERNALISED it as being OK) IT’S NOT ok !
      He should be CHALLENGING homophobic attitudes .. NOT CULLUDING with them ! It is not bullying to fight for one’s equal rights, that people like Mr Eich would deny gay people.

      • St Sebastian, the Humanist

        Agree absolutely. Ask yourselves if the comments had been race related, how big would the furore have been? All you have to do is change the ‘gay’ for ‘race’ discrimination and you get a clear idea just what is going on. If Eich had donated to a fund that stopped particular races from marrying, the howls of objection would have been even louder and more widely accepted. Race and sexuality are biological characteristics over which no-one has a choice and should not therefore be subject to discrimination.

        • Psychologist

          St Sebastian – Yes, indeed you make an excellent point. One’s sexual orientation is as fixed as the colour of one’s skin/eyes etc …. It is therefore a “birth right” – thus should have the HIGEST level of priority in terms of equality/human rights.
          However, religious belief is NOT a “birth right” (as some claim) …. it is merely a product of heavy-weight “operant conditioning” ….. as such, any belief or behaviour based on that conditioning is simply “learned” !
          “Learned behaviour, and conditioned beliefs” should NEVER be given priority over something which is innate in us, such as sexual orientation, or colour of skin.

    • Steven Gregory

      Andrew Sullivan loves all that despises him and his homosexuality, but it is his claim to prominence and income. If he were to change his tune, he would lose his place.

  • colonelkira

    Bravo Mr Sullivan! A sane voice amidst the barrage of childish fanaticism!

    • Yesh U R

      Oh! Do sod off with your mindless trolling. Take your crucifix and shove where the sun don’t shine mate.

      • colonelkira

        I am a gay atheist so why would I have a crucifix? Thank you for proving my point about knee jerk fanaticism for me. …………it is people like you who are doing so much damage to our community under the guise of self righteous indignation.

        • Yesh U R

          The crucifix you are carrying on behalf of Sullivan who by the way is a Catholic and that’s the basis for his self abnegation. Drop the bullsh1t mate. Feel free to join the anti-gay brigade if you wish to don’t try to pontificate that your motives are in support of “our community”.

          • colonelkira

            Nice try, but we all know what you meant. The irony is that while you had the Thesaurus out in a valiant yet fute attempt to appear smart all you have done is proved how ignorant, rude, arrogant, self righteous and damaging to our community you are. You call for equality yet refuse it to other people.

            The fact that you are even unwilling to entertain another viewpoint, one that differs from your own, and that you met that differing viewpoint with a rabid spewing of venom and bile proves what a hystrionic hot mess of a human being you are.

            I dont hate you. I pity you. I am truly, truly, sad for you.

          • Yesh U R

            Bore.

          • Truth

            Sorry, but who are you to judge what is ‘damaging to our community’? That is an unbelievably arrogant statement. I don’t believe in your ‘community’. I believe in my in alien right to be treated equally under the law and I will fight and fight and fight for that, your self-loathing notwithstanding.

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            I agree as I cannot imagine what the outside world has to do with his “community”;
            a secure ward somewhere in the Home counties is hardly a community, but then that’s delusion for you … !!

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            I do believe you are serious. i thought you were trolling at first, but then…. You are about the saddest speciman of being i have ever come across. If you had been kidnapped and held against your will we would cite Stockholm syndrome. However you are a whole nother tyhing altogether and I’m sure psychologists are no doubt studying your type which to say the least is strange. The closest i can think of what ails you would be a morbid masochism. The self hatred a self loathing evident in your comments, indicates someone who needs to be supervised 24/7 for their own safety and more importantly that of others….. I pity you and those who are burdened with your care……

        • Truth

          That’s right. We must never push for equality, must we? We should know our place. Throughout history, we have been told we are second-class citizens and second-class citizens is what we must remain …..

  • http://thenakedgeek.shawwebspace.ca/ Barry William Teske

    And another blogger learns that fighting hate with hate is the prime vector of infection.
    Go with LOVE people.

  • James

    “we are also within our

    rights to boycott businesses who bankrolled the initiative”

    Andrew Sullivan on Proposition 8 in 2008 (specifically, he was explaining why he thought it was wrong to try and overturn it through the courts). To me, he just comes across as a professional troll.

  • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

    And what a surprise, there’s no ability to comment on his thoughts and opinions!

    The guy clearly ignores one thing – this is not about the guys religious beliefs, this is about a religious group attempting to inflict their demands on the rest of society. The Prop 8 shame was comparable to the Taliban lobbying to remove the rights of girls to be educated.

    It was a sick and twisted religious bigotry and despotic attitude that led to Prop 8, not democracy, not the “freedom of opinion”. It was one group of of religious nutters inflicting their insane demands on the rest of the public.

    Sullivan should be ashamed of himself for not being able to see the difference.

  • johnflondon

    Perhaps Mr Sullivan ought to take on board the fact that in about half the states in the US your boss still has the right to fire you if you are gay. So he ‘gay activists’ as he calls them/us still have a way to go. And Mr Eich was giving money to finance direct acts of bigotry.

  • eltoca21

    Is the first amendment a one way thing? Seems to me “gay” folks also expressed their first amendment right to say they were unhappy with the CEO.

    • colonelkira

      Exactly.

    • Truth

      And, in a market economy, people are perfectly entitled to shop where they like …..

  • kenthomes

    Screw Sullivan…I have always hated this tool. He is a “Catholic” gay person, which means he is a religious kook who loves his oppression. He does not speak for me or 95 per cent of the gay community. He is a traitor pure and simple.

    • Rehan

      In fairness, I don’t think Sullivan has ever claimed to speak for anyone other than himself.

    • Truth

      I didn’t realise he was ‘religious’. That completely explains his internalised homophobia. He has been conditioned from an early age by the church to hate himself for being gay. That is why he is defending Eich’s despicable anti-gay action rather than condemning it. It’s amazing just how many gay people are homophobic ….. self-haters… for precisely the reasons I have outlined. Oh yes. Religion has much for which to answer ……

      • Psychologist

        TRUTH – Yes, precisely that !
        There is much “social homophobia” in society, largely as a direct result of religious conditioning. Once “anti-gay” religious conditioning is “absorbed” (internalised as though it were correct) it leads to an inner-fear of one’s OWN gay sexual desires, as they would be IN CONFLICT with the “it’s wrong to be gay” conditioning.
        In someone who is really gay, but are in denial, this will result in homo-PHOBIA (an irrational fear of one’s OWN suppressed homosexuality). However, homophobia can also be (and often is INTERNLIASED by even openly gay men too, where, although the gay feelings are being openly expressed, embraced and acted upon (as opposed to being denied in order to conform to the conditioning, which reduces the “inner-conflict”) the NEGATIVE anti-gay conditioning is ALSO present too. This explains why many (even openly) gay men appear to “collude” (accept, resigned to) social homophobia.
        Homophobia should NEVER be accepted – it should ALWAYS be challenged.
        When I deliver therapy to gay men, I often have to firstly work on undoing the negative religious-conditioning, before anything else, as this “conditioned inner-conflict” can manifest into low self-esteem, under-confidence, and low sense of self worth. (as well as collusion with social homophobia – allowing people to treat them as somehow “second class”, just for being gay).
        This is why Andrew Sullivan appears to defend Eich – because Sullivan is suffering from “Internalised homophobia”, so he COLLUDES with homophobia, where as he SHOULD CHALLENGE it !

  • Rehan

    Andrew Sullivan can sometimes write really well, but at other times you can’t help but feel he’s being perverse or contrary just for the sake of it.

  • Jayson Killingsworth

    He was then and is now still free to spew his beliefs. He donated money to keep our rights away from us. We stood up and said NO MORE! If you plan on being in business where your workforce and clientele are as diverse as most Internet companies are, you must realize your “speech” has actionable consequences. It’s a service provider, and the customers have a right to complain about the direction it might have gone. Why are you defending someone who thinks your love life is wrong ?

  • Brett Gibson

    Both Andrew and Brendan should be hanging their heads in shame when they walk through the streets. The former more so than the latter.

  • Kathleen Stoughton-Trahan

    I think this author forgets that freedom of speech does not mean freedom of criticism for what you said. People of every side of any issue have the right to boycott, speak against, or ignore the issue. Your voice and your pocketbook are the only tools we have. I for one think mr Eich chose to give money to a cause that has now bitten him in the ass. So be it. If he had given money to an anti African American cause the result would be the same. Equality means just that EQUALITY.

    • colonelkira

      Bravo!

    • Gerry

      Exactly ! He wasn’t ‘hounded out’, it’s simply that he had disqualified himself some years ago but this didn’t come to light until after having being appointed Mozilla’s CEO.

  • lit per

    He’s not gay, he’s a naty right-winger homophobe!

  • Mark Y

    A gay guy defends a Man who defends a homophobic organisation. It would be a like a black guy defending a racist – what an idiot.

  • wickedeggs

    Huh, indeed. He had his first amendment right, and the market responded. It’s not as if anything happened that was not expected.

    Stupid Andrew Sullivan. The free market works this way… I fail to see the problem.

  • Cal

    Sullivan is wrong to assume that Gay activists brought about this result. Eich had a nasty skeleton in his closet which got him some bad publicity. Three board members resigned and he dug himself into a hole with his follow-up statement. Now he’s gone. Get over it. My God, if somebody was heard to use the ‘N’ word in their past they are out the door quick as a flash. Bit harsh maybe but that’s how it goes!

  • Gerry

    Eich has every right to speak out against Same Sex Marriage and to contribute to organisations that wish to prevent SSM becoming lawful. Similarly, he would have every right to advocate that black people should be have segregated facilities, housing and education if that were his viewpoint. He’s fully entitled to his freedom of speech and shouldn’t be prosecuted for speaking out or donating in this way.

    HOWEVER… supporting anti-gay policies shows that he would be very unlikely to treat all of his staff fairly. The consequence of his open prejudice is that many Mozilla staff would feel diminished and that a significant number of people (not necessarily all LGBT) would be deterred from joining and staying with Mozilla.

    Therefore Eich’s actions have shown that he is clearly not the best person to be chosen to be CEO, so he should be replaced by someone whose record shows that they are more suitable to take on all these responsibilities. QED.

    Shame that Sullivan isn’t clever enough to work this out.

  • Bearlicker

    Sullivan you are an arse. Indeed anyone has the right to free speech, but they also have the responsibility to deal with the consequences of what you say. If you are going to contribute to a homophobic campaign then you have to understand that many organisations are going to want you to work for them, particularly if that organisation prides itself on its ethical principles. The fact that so many people had publicly uninstalled their products citing his appointment as the reason, the resignation of three other board numbers and threats from numerous staff to resign, shows that the appointment was badly judged. Perhaps Mr Eich will review his beliefs now that it has cost his a high profile appointment.

  • Colin

    Well I think it was the right decision for all. The company is clearly a modern thinking inclusive and diverse employer. Those principles are very important and are rare in business. I know I’ve sat in Board rooms with Lord’s talking about the breasts of woman. I’ve lost two jobs for being gay.

    The world is changing but this company is at the leading edge and that is why the issue is important. His actions show that he is not ready to embrace equality in mind and spirit.

    • Truth

      Really sorry to hear you have been victimised in your employment. That is why it is vital that we challenge each and every instance of homophobia no matter how trivial or inconsequential it may appear. We are entitled to our civil and human rights and it seems to me that only religion and bigotry stands in our way to achieving them. We have all been conditioned to be self-hating. But we have to fight those insecurities. If we do not challenge homophobia, we are colluding with it and, I suppose, deserve all we get. If we truly believe we are ‘good as you’, we cannot allow ANYONE to be homophobic and remain unchallenged.

      • Colin

        Thanks. Got over it eventually but it did affect my self esteem for a while.
        One door closes and another one opened.

        Many people who are followers of religion agree with us. Their churches official line does not so we have a quiet population who will support us as they are just good ordinary people. They get it.

        We must fight for ourselves, to change attitudes, to become an inclusive society and to get human rights into business and the United Nations. And we really must protect the self esteem of our young.

        Go well mate

  • Jeremy Hodder

    Well Andrew Sullivan I hope you’re ready for a little backlash yourself. We had to work hard enough to get heteros to see us as human beings, and yet we are still in fighting and have guys like this working against our rights movement. I hope he gets the same treatment as Brendan Eich.

  • Sparkyu1

    This is the man who got Baldwin kicked off (and rightfully so). But he’s against us campaigning against Eich? Wow, go check the mirror Sullivan, your hypocrisy is showing

    And why does HIS free speech to remove the rights of LGBT people – actually putting money into campaigning against us – need to be treated as inviolate, but the speech of LGBT people just SPEAKING is somehow beyond the pale? None of us fired him. None of us twisted Mozilla’s arm. We criticised. We spoke. We complained. But THAT free speech isn’t ok?

  • David Greensmith

    Bullying? Not at all. Just as Eich was free to fund and support an initiative that acted against the interests of gay people, those of us who deleted Firefox from our technology are just as free not to support those who support causes geared towards the oppression of gay people. That’s not bullying, it’s ethical shopping.

  • Christopher in Canada

    “No better than anti-gay bullies”? So??? Being better than them has only gotten many of us injured or dead. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Sometimes you WANT John Wayne to sock the bad guy in the jaw!

  • kevski

    ” expressing his right”, ” gone too far”? interesting comments. if say it’s much more about gaypeople finding support for their rights. if this guy had announced that he had funded the EDL for their moral take on the world I wonder if he’d have thought the same… yes, a crass statement but still by far the most effective benchmark by which to respond to internalized homophobia

  • T.A. Crawford

    Sullivan’s comments are disgusting and misguided. It is despicable how hatemongers hide behind the U.S. First Amendment. The First Amendment was designed to allow for free speech, yes, but when your speech is followed by tangible contributions to organizations aligned to oppress others you are flouting the meaning of the First Amendment.

  • Keith Patrick Murphy

    Oh what a tool. I’m not disgusted at all. Why support a bigot? The tech industry is reserved for the intellectuals not the idiotic.

    And nobody put a gun to this fools head, so he was not forced to do anything he didn’t want to do. We just gave our opinions on an a solfish man who did a selfish thing. That donation was his way of paying for discrimination.

    And who cares anyway, it’s only Firefox. People only use it just because it’s slightly better than internet explorer. The world wouldn’t have ended if we stopped using Firefox (not that I use it much myself, as it’s interface is ugly)

    I prefer Safari and Chrome.

  • HangEmHigh

    How about Companies start firing people because they are gay?
    We don’t dislike you because you are gay, we dislike you because you are bullies.

  • common sense

    well I agree with Sullivan and I am pretty sure I am far from being alone despite the prevailing shrill shrieking of the Pink News commenterrati would indicate.

    What next, are we going to run every Catholic, Muslim, Pentecostalist, Mormon or Orthodox Jew out of public life because they donated money to organisations that campaigned against equal marriage?

    Is that really what you want because the implications of what has happened to Brendan Eich suggests that there is a lobby that wants precisely that.

    Not in my name!

    • JackAlison

      For years gay ppl. had to put up with terrible suicide inducing discrimination on every level. Outside the EU take a look at Africa. Im sorry but I have zero sympathy for discriminators.Furthermore gay rights are NOT a given they were hard one and fought for. Ppl. like Eich bath in the luxery of living in a straight world where he would never give it a second thought to have some impediment to his marriage or being denied housing a job and a myriad of other things because of who he is. If gay ppl. are sensitive YAH , YOU BET. NOT GONNA TAKIT ANYMORE

    • common sense

      an eye for an eye and you’ll make the whole world blind.

      Look we should be better than this surely? Spiteful retribution just makes us as bad as them

      • colonelkira

        YES!

    • colonelkira

      Another sane person! Who knew?

    • Colin

      My pennies worth.

      This is about human rights. When someone actively supports a group who stop others enjoying what they take for granted then that to me is wrong. I will at that point do what I can to name and shame that person or organisation.

      I am an athist so religion to me is odd. I read many of the submissions when equal marriage was going through the UK Parliament. Doctors, professors learned people wrote some sick horrendous stuff in the name of religion, trying simply to stop 6% of the population to have a more equal life. That is about respect, acknowledgement and equality of opportunity.

      After turning around 8 companies in different countries I was sacked as Finance Director simply because the Chairman did not like gays. How do you fight that one, how do you reason, how do you get change. Where in the law am I protected? And it took me two years to recover my self esteem. I did nothing wrong.

      On this occation the gay community including myself acted to highlight a change in policy in Firefox. By speaking out thankfully the business went back to it’s values.

      You either believe in human rights or you don’t. I want future generations of gay people to wonder what all the fuss was about. For any right thinking person human rights come first.

    • Truth

      I think you’ll find Christian lobby groups have been trying to do exactly the same thing to pro-gay businesses for years. Surely you cannot object now that the boot’s on the other foot? That would be unbelievably hypocritical ……

    • Elena0411

      What next, are we going to run every Catholic, Muslim, Pentecostalist, Mormon or Orthodox Jew out of public life because they donated money to organisations that campaigned against equal marriage?

      With the exception of Muslims, yes. That’s the plan.

  • Steve Cheney

    Since when is OKCupid “the gay community”?

  • Steve Cheney

    And isn’t this the standard right-wing shtick? When the free market is making them and their chums rich, that’s because it’s a wonderful moral expression of freedom; when the free market means that the rich can be held to account by the majority, then that’s bullying, because apparently the masses owe them their custom and how dare they fail to spend their money the way they are supposed to?

  • one.second

    And I am disgusted by Andrew Sullivan. Someone gets rightly deserved fire for choosing hate over human rights and you say you are disgusted by people who stick up for the discriminated, marginalised and mistreated.
    How can someone be so shallow and cynical?

  • Melinda Hailey

    Here’s how I see it…..He donated to anti-equality efforts, Mozilla hired him based on their assessment of his credentials and ability to perform the functions of the job. Then they promoted him. I choose to make certain not to use Mozilla from now on because whether the company holds the same beliefs as this jerk or not, they failed to notice his screaming bigotry during the vetting process. I didn’t ask for his resignation, I just spoke with my dollar. I do not think it is fair to say the activists did this to him. They just told me what kind of company I was sporting with my business. I chose to stop supporting the company. I bet I’m not even close to the only one!

  • JackAlison

    Yes thats right Andrew.You would know (having suddenly forgotten your UK roots)that judges in California are not unknown to dole out unusual punishments…perhaps instead of THE SCARLET LETTER he could be made to wear a PINK “B” for bigot and be made to walk up Santa Monica Blvd in West Hollywood with all the queens throwing their used cocktail cherries and lemon rinds at him and b+tch slapping him like Oscar Wilde was made to endure over a hundred years ago when it was encouraged that if u saw poor Oscar in the street allowed to slap him.

  • Paul – Canada

    It’s so tiring making the ‘black’ argument over and over again. To all the dumbasses out there who don’t get it, here’s a dummies guide:

    1. Complete the sentence: “I want to do X because I believe *gay* people should Y”

    2. Change the word “gay” to “black”. If it sounds racist, then it’s discrimination, not freedom of speech. Simples.

    3. Forget your freedom of speech fantasy – our rights are more important than some bigots droll.

  • Dermot Mac Flannchaidh

    In the United States (and suspect in most developed Western countries as well), freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism or freedom from boycott. Eich’s own actions alienated the user base and provoked both criticism and boycott, severely damaging Mozilla. Eich’s resignation may have saved Mozilla. Eich was legally entitled to his actions and views, but Mozilla is not legally guaranteed customers.

    • colonelkira

      Exactly! Thats the point! What he did was something that revolts me and is unthinkable to me, but he had the right to do it!

      If people chose to boycott Mozilla and its products because of what he did then they have the right to do that as well!

      I think a big part of the message that has been corrupted by the right wing is that he CHOSE to step down, HE WAS NOT FIRED! Mozilla in fact supported him, and thats what I would have done as well.

      I dont have to like him, or his politics, or his donations but if he is the best person to run my company then he gets the job! The unfortunate reality in his case is that it turned out he may have been the best candidate for the job but he was not the best person for the company since he was hurting their bottom line!

      I do think its a bit of a stretch saying that him stepping down might have “saved” Mozilla though. They would have taken a hit but thats all.

  • Steven Gregory

    Andrew Sullivan can’t make up his mind: he stated on Real Time that the hearings should be open and not secret, and those who testify in favor of Prop 8 should face the consequences of their actions. And donors shouldn’t?

    Just when he starts to make sense, he suffers another attack of self loathing.

    • Truth

      Precisely! Religious conditioning is extremely insidious and manifests itself in lots of different ways …. none of them good.

  • Rumbelow

    There are consequences for those who manifest their anti-gay bigotry, it’s a lesson that some anti-gay bigots have taken a long while to learn.
    I’m pleased Eich was outed as an unapologetic bigot who is happy to finance the denial of equal rights to gay people and I’m pleased he was forced to resign from Firefox because of his unpopularity.

    • Truth

      Eich is probably a self-loathing closet case. I will refuse to attend his coming-out ball ……

      • Elena0411

        Who are you kidding? You’ll be there wearing your feather boa and hooker heels.

  • Silly Old Bastard

    Well done Sullivan for taking on the thugs…

    • saintlaw

      Except he lost. We one.

      • Silly Old Bastard

        ‘one’?
        It’s ‘won’, you illiterate @rse

        • saintlaw

          It’s dyslexic @rse.

          You gibbering turdgobbler.

          • Silly Old Bastard

            You think you’re dyslexic? They’re saying there’s no such condition. It was coined by child psychiatrists to gently explain to concerned parents that the reason their child was failing in school was because they were a combination of lazy, ill-disciplined and lacking in academic ability. You do nothing to suggest that idea is wrong.

            Still, it’s a handy term to explain to others why you are a loser. So you hang onto it.

          • Silly Old Bastard

            What am I doing. You’re barely literate so won’t understand any of what I’ve put, with the possible exception of ‘lazy’

  • snoopsister

    Go Andy! The vast majority agree with him and bill maher

  • snoopsister

    Keep barebacking boys

    • saintlaw

      Says chemsex pig.

  • mesocyclone

    I wish gay people would recognize that the Stalinist, take-no-prisoners approach to dissent from their goals is creating many, many enemies. Long ago, I was in favor of government recognizing relationships for many legal purposes – back when that was a generous and unusual position.

    Today, I will fight every gay initiative. Every one. The movement has become anti-liberty. It is about crushing anyone who doesn’t believe that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones (manifestly and obviously, they are different). It is about destroying Christianity, because Christianity (except vague watered-down “mainstream” dying protestant churches) follows it’s long held sacred beliefs.

    When LGBTxxx’s can use state law to penalize a photographer for refusing, out of religious conscience, to photograph a marriage ceremony, it’s obvious they have gone too far.

    Decades ago, gays faced real oppression. That’s gone.

    But it’s not enough. Approval is required. Absolute acceptance is required.

    Sorry – nobody is due approval and acceptance.

    It’s called freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom from slavery.

    Sullivan is right about this case. How can I consider to support Mozilla when they are willing to get rid of someone for making a donation to a cause which *won* a fair election in one of the most liberal states in the union?

    The precedent is now clear: you can fire someone for their beliefs. I guess corporations should fire Democrats if customers so desire, right?

    Grow up, gay community. You’ve become just as nasty as the folks who forced you to stay in the closet decades ago.

    • saintlaw

      “Today, I will fight every gay initiative.”

      The overweening self aggrandisement in your post is lolarious.

      “The precedent is now clear: you can now fire somebody for their beliefs.”

      Alas no. The bigot was given the shove because the company he worked for realised his financial support of a campaign whose sole purpose is to deny gays their civil rights would hurt their business.

      Or are you really too thick to grasp that?

    • common sense

      totally agreed. When did we become so shrill? Why do we rage against tiny missteps and perceived injustice all the time? Its as if there are elements in the community who just cant cope with not being victims any more now that most of the developed world is a tolerant place to be.

      What worries me is that all of this energy against injustice is being thrown at people who with a little encouragement could become allies while real and potent injustice in the world just goes on unchecked.

      • Truth

        That’s right. We must never push for full equality because, after all, we ARE second-class citizens and must be happy with that. (Didn’t Uncle Tom say something similar ….?).

        • Elena0411

          You have equality. You don’t have a right to force others to validate your sexual acts.

          • Armozel

            And you don’t have to right to violate contracts (marriage is a contract) for which you’re not a party. So, why not just buzz off, k?

          • Elena0411

            I don’t normally argue with twelve-year-olds, but here goes: You don’t have a RIGHT to be a party to a marriage contract to 1) someone of the same sex (for what?) 2) a close blood relative (makes more sense than same-sex, but the kids stand a small chance of inheriting bad genes) 3) more than one person of any sex (don’t really know why, as long as they can procreate). And no, I’m not a mormon. I just don’t care who does what with whom as long as they don’t demand the benefits of marriage extended to them by society for performing whatever acts they choose. K?

          • Armozel

            Age-ism is still a fallacy even though I’m likely older than you (hint: I remember actually owning the first generation of Cabbage Patch dolls lol damn!).

            And you still don’t seem to know your history, do you? As late as the 800s CE there were SAME SEX MARRIAGES where two men were bound as “brothers” usually for the purpose of securing inheritance from one family to that of another. That as one example of same sex marriage illustrates that ‘tradition’ doesn’t apply. Also, the fact you’re mad that contract rights like those dealing with hospital visitation, inheritance, and etc are not up for you or others to decide. If me and other party(or parties) are willing to join together it forms a valid contract per the requirements of contracts (sound mind, able to complete the services/goods of the contract, and the like).

            Until you can prove that a same sex couple cannot fulfill the definition of a contract of marriage (you can’t reference infertility since we offer marriage to infertile couples of different sexes all the time, so that argument is negated by that problem) you need to stay out of the way, k? Just like the 2nd amendment, the right to contract is not a mutable right. It is the very basis of the US Constitution. If you violate the contract clause you violate the very essence of our civil legal institutions. So, buzz off if you can’t keep up with the basics of constitutional law or contract law.

    • Truth

      Oh my! How much early-life homophobic conditioning have you suffered to be such a self-loather …..?

      • Elena0411

        YOU are heterophobic. I’m making that happen.

    • Psychologist

      MESOCYCLONE – You said ….. “When LGBTxxx’s can use state law to penalize a photographer for refusing, out of religious conscience, to photograph a marriage ceremony, it’s obvious they have gone too far.”
      WRONG !!!!!!!!!! Here’s why :-
      Religious belief is merely CONDITIONED

    • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

      You ain’t seen nothing yet, Mary. Get used to it, because we have only just begun. There are a lot of long years of hatred abuse and then all the deaths and suicides because of xtian/breeder homophobia and we will have what is owed to us and we will have justice, like it or not!!
      ….

  • Dmontano

    You all disgust me. This man is right. Why is it that people only allow tolerism to go one way. I believe in Jesus Christ and based on my understanding with what the bible says about homosexual behavior, I am against this behavior. Now, having said this, I have to admit wholeheartedly that I don’t really understand the feelings or the drive towards this behavior. But I do believe that every single person has the inalienable right to make whatever choices they want to make. And just because somebody views something different doesn’t mean that they carry prejudice views about others lives. You all are just assuming that because he doesn’t bow down to the gay movement that he is automatically prejudice.

    I was a general manager of restaurants and I didn’t care what the person was personally, I only cared if they were the best person for the job. I have several friends who are gay and that is just fine by me. I accept their views and they accept mine. This is the way things should be in a democratic country like ours. But there will always be people who think that if someone thinks differently then they automatically are intolerant. Shame on you all. If you believe that strongly in your cause, then fight for it, but don’t destroy others in the process. What a sad world we live in folks. Very sad. You cause had no right to destroy this man’s career. NO RIGHT!!!

    • saintlaw

      You lost. We won.

      Suck.It.Up.

      • Elena0411

        For now. Backlash could be a b*tch.

        • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

          Backlashes have a nasty habit of turning on the backlashers….. We may be queer but we are no longer cissy nancy boys, and those who oppose us would do well to remember that and curb their threats. We are not without power, not least our economic power which I am sure you know by now is substantial….

          • Elena0411

            You are a tiny, although extremely vocal minority. Keep that in mind. We normal people, are fed up with your “equality” bullish*t. Take a look at the comments on Mozilla. Last I saw there were almost 30,000 normal people expressing their displeasure.

            I take every opportunity to let others know how horrifying homosexual activities are, as most normal, yet brainwashed, human beings are unaware of the disgusting practices you engage in. So before you start bullying normal society into accepting your sick activities, keep in mind that people are waking up to your filthy acts.

          • Armozel

            I find it amusing that folks like yourself are more concerned about what we do in our lives than you are with your own. Perhaps you’re just a tad bit obsessed, yes? I think you should get a therapist to work out that obsession, okay? :)

          • Elena0411

            Keep it to yourselves, don’t try to equate your pathology to my family, and I wouldn’t give you a second thought.

          • Armozel

            I keep it to myself, but you lose all right to interfere in my contractual rights (which includes marriage). Got it, jesusfreak?

          • Elena0411

            I have only secular reasons for opposing the “marriage” of homosexuals. By the way, what sex are you? Is it clear-cut? Would I be baffled if I saw you in person?

          • Armozel

            Your secular reasons are very flawed probably such as appeals to tradition, unbacked claims of “better child rearing” (note that there’s been longitudinal studies on the matter that show same-sex couples do equally well in this respect), and reproduction (doesn’t apply anymore since infertile heterosexual couples can legally get married, thus consummation is not a valid legal requirement anymore).

            So, you need to get with reality and accept that gay people are not going to let you folks steal their largesse (tax them) while you treat them as less than human in employment, housing, and so forth. Get use the fact that we’re going to be incorporated into society or we’ll just take our money to the black and grey markets (easier today than ever). :)

          • Elena0411

            Take yourself with it and it’s a deal. So you’re a tranny…hmm. I guessed right! Oh, and look up the meaning of “largesse” before you use it.

          • Armozel

            I don’t have to take myself anywhere. I was born in this country, therefore equal protection applies to me as a citizen. Being transgender has no bearing on this matter since I prefer women (biological or otherwise). Finally, who cares if I misused a word, that doesn’t invalidate my point which you’re AFRAID of challenging. You just simply want to say “Gays are icky, therefore I have the right to bully, harass, steal from, and murder them…” Sorry, that doesn’t hold per SCOTUS’ own decisions on the matter. DEAL WITH IT, bigot.

          • Armozel

            Ultimately, you’re just another bigot that wants the right to hurt people physically and/or emotionally. I’m glad I can just block you and that I live in a state that’s a SHALL ISSUE CCW state. :)

          • Elena0411

            That should read “who wants the right,” not “that wants the right.” And as far as “physically hurting” you, bear in mind that you are a man (albeit one in heels and a dress) and far stronger than any woman. Besides, I wouldn’t touch you with a ten foot pole.
            For a native-born citizen, your grammar is lacking…

          • Psychologist

            Frankly – you seem baffled with LIFE !

          • Elena0411

            I can’t imagine why you would think that…

          • Psychologist

            Surprisingly, no everyone who is homophobic is religious. The reason for homophobia, such as you clearly display, is the fear of one’s OWN suppressed homosexuality !

          • Elena0411

            Repressed homosexuality? Not a chance. Ever since I was a wee little girl, I’ve seen other girls (even my good friends) as potential rivals. When women are being honest, they’ll admit the same. Guys, however, no matter how annoying they were, got a pass. Why? Because I like men. Never had a doubt. And I’ve never understood the whole “late-in-life lesbian” thing. Anywho…Girls are icky. See? No repression. But if that gets you through the night, dream on.

          • Psychologist

            I don’t need your validation, or anyone else’s to “get me through the night” thanks.
            I merely point out this FACT:- It is the VERY REASON you say “No chance (in a repulsive way) and “Girls are icky” (again in a repulsive tone) which actually confirms that you are in total denial of being a lesbian !
            Here’s why:-
            I come across this many times during therapy.
            TRUELY straight people (men or women) are INDIFFERENT to same-sex attraction … because they are NEITHER repulsed by it, nor attracted to it !
            The REASON for the REPULTION to it (such as YOU display) is as a direct result of DEYING THE ATTRACTION TO IT !
            THIS IS CLASSIC HOMOPHOBIA (from which you clearly suffer) and deploys a psychological defence mechanism called “REACTION FORMATION” along with denial, and delusion.
            You needs serious therapy to undo your homophobia !
            However, I’m not sure if there’s a cure to treat your stupidity !

          • Elena0411

            You need thorazine. And spelling lessons.

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            You seem particularly obsessed for someone who doesn’t give a second thought. I am just surprised you have Thought, period. Your type usually don’t think for themselves and just follow what ever garbage your local preacher spews in order to extract more money from your pocket book. One presumes you don’t have children. If You do I hope none of them are Gay. Bad enough having a parent like you without being Gay and have to deal with that as too……

          • Elena0411

            I do, indeed, have children. And no, they are not homosexuals, :) And they feel just as I do (although they call it “disgusting”). And I do not have a “preacher.” I’m not a protestant.

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            No doubt you have some sort of charlatan in a dog collar brainwashing you. As for whether your kids are gay or not, You certainly won’t know and it is unlikely they know if they are under six ir seven years old. Just because if the bigited homophobic atmosphere in your home would be enough to scare any child into at best denial, or tragically as in a lot of cases with young teens suicide. I suggest you watch the linked video, then tell me about your hatred!! http://youtu.be/U4f8mqQ844w

          • Psychologist

            Elana0411 – You say “Don’t try to equate your pathology to my family” ….
            YET YOU are here, on a gay website, making comments on gay related issues ! I’ve dealt with many people in therapy over the years, who have the same OBSESSION with homosexuality – along with a heightened level of homophobia. They are ALWAYS gay and in denial of their TRUE sexual orientation. Which is clearly YOUR problem.
            You’re in serious need of therapy.

    • Truth

      Oh please ….. get a life …… preferably a real one and not one of childish self-delusion.

    • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

      You cite Jesus Christ as your gawd. Can you tell us how many times or when he/she/it spoke or preached on “homosexuality” or what ever they called it in those days. The word “homosexuality” is a nineteenth century word… I don’t want to hear it is in the buybul. I want to hear when JC condemned same sex unions and why he/she/it saved the sight of the Roman centurions male lover without saying anything about their relationship. BTW, why at 33 was he/she/it not married and ran around with a bunch of wife deserters and suspiciously single men?…. hmmmm!!

    • Psychologist

      Dmontano – You said … “I was a general manager of restaurants and I didn’t care what the person was personally, I only cared if they were the best person for the job.”

      Ok …. that’s great !

      So you’re saying that the BEST person for the job of CEO of a major International company, is a bigoted homophobe who would deny gay people’s equal human rights, by financing, and supporting a law which would discriminate against gay people ???????

      REALLY ??????? ….. I would have thought that a belief in EQUALITY for ALL would have been a pre-requisite for such a role !

      It’s amazing how all you religious people can spout out all this rubbish and discriminatory, homophobic, bigoted bias, yet with absolute total arrogance, seem to think you’re right !

      Your first daft comment was … “I believe in Jesus Christ” !

      …. that says it all ! People who claim that … have always given up the ability to THINK FOR THEMSELVES … as they are conditioned to believe that every answer is written in a book of fairly stories from 2000 years ago.

      Crazy people !

      You are living in what is called “The AGENTIC state” …. which simply means you don’t live by any emotional reasonable response from within YOU, you just respond to everything in YOUR life as an AGENT of some fictitious “SKY GOD” !

      How sad !

      Worse still, your “apparent disgust” is actually driven by YOUR OWN HOMOPHOBIA !

      EXPOSED !

      • Dmontano

        You sir are an idiot. First of all you have no proof that this man was a homophobic. You just spout off words so you can be heard. Doesn’t matter if there is truth in them or not. Second of all I think quite clearly for myself. God has sent down HIS Word, but its for us to take it in and use it wisely. What people do and what people are are two different things. We all make choices in our lives. And the reality is that I don’t care whether you believe the bible, or in God, that is your choice. But you will come to a reality in your eternal life. You spout off all these charges against this man with absolutely no proof other than he made a charitable contribution to a cause he believes in. Again, this was the whole point to my statement, that tolerance only goes one way, your way. No room to allow other to believe differently. People don’t have to agree with being gay, that doesn’t make them automatically bigoted. This sir is why you should stop talking and spouting your hatred.

        • Psychologist

          ha ha ha – Dmontano – The fact that you say “You can think for yourself -” Yet claim next to say “”God has sent his word” is in itself an obvious conflict !

          You seem to REQUIRE a “word from someone else” (some fictitious sky god) to have an opinion, rather than work things out for yourself. Which is ONE of the reasons you are so psychologically messed up !

          As a highly trained psychologist, and very experienced psychotherapist, your extremely feeble attempts at obvious deception are highly transparent to me!

          For example – you claim that EICH made a “Charitable contribution to a cause he believes in” IT IS NOT charitable when the cause you believe in is discriminating against other people ! THAT is the actions of a bigoted, religiously brainwashed homophobe !
          Get you facts right before you dare argue with me .. you’re the IDIOT !
          If you don’t agree with being gay .. then simple …. then don’t Fxxk someone of the same sex ! But you DO NOT have the right to discriminate against anyone, based on some ridiculous out-dated religious belief system !

          The arrogance of you people !

  • JJJ PPP

    Andy is wrong.

    It’s not about what most of the world believes.

    It’s about the qualities that make for a good leader. Bigotry is not among them.

  • biker650

    A few years ago I lived in Manchester, and at the time there was a local news story about a guy called A- S- who posted a comment on his personal Facebook page to the effect that Gay Weddings in church were an equality too far. His employers took offence at this and demoted him, with a corresponding drop in salary.

    Peter Tatchell, when notified about this, said that the punishment was unduly harsh
    since the guy had not been speaking on behalf of his employer, and had not made
    any offensive or derogatory comments about any gay individuals or gay people in
    general.

    Should we not make an effort to show tolerance and compassion, as well as enthusiastic judgement?

    • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

      A-S didn’t pay money to help deny civil and Human rights to Gay people. That is the difference!!

  • Poor_Richard

    It would seem that you are trying to justify aberrant behavior by having it licensed and shoving it into the front pages of the liberal press. Doesn’t make it right and never will.

    • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

      Get used to it, Mary! We are queer we are here and we are winning. Suck it up!!

  • jlvnv

    “The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society.”

    Uh, no the only part of this episode that is disgusting is for quasi-moralists like Sullivan whining for the bigots who have made our lives hell for centuries. He’s becoming the Anne Coulter of the gay set more and more. He needs to get some real cojones!

  • Bobby Mozilla staff

    My name is Bobby. I am an employee of Mozilla. I believe Andrew Sullivan is wrong and his argument is severely flawed. With freedom of speech comes responsibility. Was it acceptable for Nazis to action their beliefs? Brenden was right to step down. His actions caused a lot of ill feeling in the company, the company we are very proud to work for. LGBTI rights are human rights.

    • Psychologist

      Bobby Mozilla staff – Yes, THAT is the right reason, and correct response.
      In these enlightened times of less discrimination, oppression and bigotry, having an openly bigoted homophobe appointed as a CEO, is entirely inappropriate, as it sends out entirely the wrong message.
      Sullivan is just plain WRONG !

  • Paul

    Discrimination should NEVER be tolerated under any circumstances!
    Religion is not an excuse anymore too!!!!!

  • Tetchy

    Why don’t you just shut up Andrew Sullivan and stop giving Brits a bad name in the US. I am disgusted at your choice of spectacles and your revolting facial hair but I have to keep looking at it, as your picture is continuously attached to the drivel you write

  • Dan

    Christ Andrew, your thinking is so BONKERS that you make me want to loose the will to live!

  • Timothy-Allen Albertson

    Prop 8 was not struck down, as you say, the US Supreme Court. It dismissed its grant of certiorari with instructions to the 9th Circuit to vacate its decision holding Prop 8 unconstitutional for lack of jurisdiction by either it or the 9th Circuit. That leaves the District Court decision in tact. The Supreme Court decision in this case is not precedent.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all