What was claimed in that Eich's opinion on gay marriage in 2008 was the same as the opinion of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton.
Which is true.
You choose to say that because neither Obama or Clinton donated to the supporters of Prop 8, it means there is a huge difference between the two senators and Eich.
Because Eich took "actions" in support of his belief.
Which means the issue has nothing to do with free speech-- its all about silencing opposition (believe what you want- but don't dare try to stop me). Which is not an exercise in free speech. Its an exercise in tyranny.
It just seems that progressives love to degrade anyone who doesn't share their politics and will do everything in their power to destroy them.
Remember these are the same people who insist on "fairness" when they're nothing more than bullies and to some extent no different the the little ****s from "Lord Of The Flies."
The amount of tolerance I have for their intolerance is mind boggling.
2.) yes people have the right to boycott others on this list if they want
3.) yes they are all factually bigots by definition
4.) what they did isnt illegal they dont need punished, Please again your failed strawmen are never going to work. Can you quote me sayign they need punished? nope its a lie you made up lol
5.) i have no idea what this sentence even means but all people have the right to free speech and NOBODY has lost their rights in this case.
6.) maybe people will
your post fails again, sorry you dont like free speech and equal rights. Maybe try russia?
"One could be forgiven for throwing one’s hands up in despair at the sheer audacity of it all. A fortnight ago, as the federal government took to the courts to defend a rule that deliberately burdens the consciences of America’s more religiously devout entrepreneurs, the professional Left adopted the position that companies do not have consciences, griped that a harsh separation of the public and the private spheres was a recipe for the suffering of unpopular or put-upon individuals, and insisted that any links between the activities of an employee and the deeply held beliefs of his boss should be thoroughly shattered. Today, the opposite case is regnant. Defending the appalling hounding of Brendan Eich, progressives seem to have suddenly got the message: reminding critics that there exists no legal right to be the CEO of a non-profit; insisting correctly that this sordid and alarming little affair does not in any way implicate the First Amendment; and acknowledging that, the doctrine of at-will employment being what it is, a man may resign from his job for whatever reason — up to and including harassment.
Well, comrades — which is it to be?
The answer to this question, one suspects, is “whichever suits the moment.” Which is to say that the Eich affair is ultimately about power, not principle — the latest in a series of plays contrived to show who is in charge. Convenient as it might be to pretend otherwise, the Left does not truly believe that private companies may behave as they wish to, but that private companies may behave as the Left wishes them to — whether instructed by government or not."
"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan
1.) you are welcome to that opinion and i may even share it but that doesnt change the fact that all people did was operate within their rights
2.) nope its factually free speech by definition, nobody was lynched
3.) hey look another posted lie
your post fails again and facts win again