Firefox Company Panders to Gay Mafia Declares NO Freedom of Speech for Religious Americans

Yesterday I wrote a piece for about how the gay mafia destroyed the career of the new CEO of Mozilla, the company that makes the Firefox web browser. But in its acceptance of a Stalinist show trial and its elimination of the CEO, Mozilla announced that only gays should be allowed to have free speech.

I noted in my Breitbart piece that even gay rights supporter and well-known blogger Andrew Sullivan has said that this fascist attack on Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich “disgusts” him. This CEO has been destroyed by the company and its fascist gay activist string-pullers because: “tolerance.”

The whole controversy erupted when militant gays found out that new Mozilla’s CEO–who co-founded the company–donated $1,000 to California’s Prop 8 campaign back in 2008 (Prop 8 was a measure to protect traditional marriage). They found out because the state forced the donor lists to the campaign to be made public information.

Since the lists were made public, fascist gays have been using the donor list to destroy people. Not to boycott companies or try to get companies to change their public policies–which is fair game–but to actually destroy individual people for their beliefs.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has already addressed a similar case in 1957 when it said that the NCAAP did not have to release its donor and membership lists to the State of Alabama. There was only one reason Alabama wanted that list in the era of Jim Crow and that was to target individual people for a terrorist attack sponsored by the state.

The State of Alabama wanted to build an assassination list and the SCOTUS put a stop to it based on the premise that releasing the list would have the effect of suppressing legal association and free speech.

In any case, as it slobbered all over itself to appease the gay fascists (can I just point out that a large number of Hitler’s henchmen were homosexuals?), Mozilla announced how “tolerant” it is of all opinions. But, the company was quite stupid in its claims in that it is obviously speaking against free speech and saying that only certain speech will be allowed in its organization.

“Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech,” Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker wrote in a blog post yesterday. “Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”

And so, instead of standing up for free speech, Mozilla pressured their new CEO to resign and to denounce his freedom of speech.

Apparently, believing in a religious position or thinking that single-sex marriage is a bad thing makes you ineligible to work for a living in America today.

Intolerance is the rule of the day and as always all liberals are fascists at heart wanting speech codes and jail—or even death—for anyone who opposes them.

'Enemies of the State': Fox News to Air Repot on Gov't Harassment
Maria Bartiromo Returns to CNBC... in an Ad for Fox Business Network
  • Norman Dostal

    this is hilarious. You can vote or think any way you want. But if you pay for a hate group-that lies about millions and ruins their lives, you will pay a price like this fat slob. Sorry guys-this is America-hatred aint tolerated no more!

    • Hank_M

      What hate group did Eich pay for, to use your terms?

    • alanstorm

      Slowboy, the haters are the ones who drove him out, proclaiming their tolerance all the while. The hypocrisy was thick enough to feel.

      But then, hatred is all the left has to work with now. We can’t expect anything more.

    • jim_m

      So Eich’s support actually was congruent with obama’s public policy so he is a hater? Show us where you were denouncing obama in 2009 dumbass.

      Do you just parrot whatever your masters tell you to say?

      Do you really want a fascist state where your ideas are enough to keep you from earning a living?

      The only hate groups are those calling for Eich to lose his job. When even Andrew Sullivan is saying firing Eich was wrong you are on the wrong side of this argument.

      The biggest hate groups in the country are left wing lunatics that want to put everyone who disagrees with them in prison like Norman Bates above.

    • Scalia

      The irony of somebody who says “fat slob” while condemning hate.

      • magic1114

        They can’t see their hypocrisy. Sad…

    • Jwb10001

      Project much?

      • magic1114

        It’s why he’s known as Abnormal Norman…

    • John

      Make no mistake about it: you are evil.

    • 914

      A lie that ruins lives? Obamacare??

  • alanstorm

    So, let me get this straight:

    Liberals on Hobby Lobby: Corporations can’t exercise personal values

    Liberals on Mozilla: Corporations must exercise personal values.

    That pretty well sum it up?

    • Brucehenry

      Hobby Lobby’s “personal values” are held as a matter of convenience, apparently:

      Anyone in America is free to hold and express any political views they like. But if you’re the CEO of a company, and that company’s shareholders find your expressed views abhorrent, those shareholders are also free to fire your ass.

      • jim_m

        This was not a shareholder action. This was the action of an intolerant board and reflects the left wing attitude that simply getting your way is not enough but you must destroy those who disagree with you.

        • Brucehenry

          Silly me I thought the board was supposed to represent the shareholders. But maybe I’m wrong so let me rephrase:

          If you’re the CEO of a company and that company’s board of directors find your expressed views abhorrent, that board is also free to fire your ass.

          Everyone is free to say whatever he wishes. No one is free from the consequences of their expression, except that the government may not punish them for it.

          • jim_m

            Represent, but it is not the same as the shareholders. Or do you pretend to make the same error that Chico does when he says that the government of the US is the people?

            The board is free to fire you. In many states where the law is employment at will, you can be fired for any reason at any time. And while they are within their rights to fire him they show themselves to be just a intolerant and bigoted as they accuse Eich of being except that he never did anything to actually discriminate against homosexuals but the board has chosen to discriminate against him based on his political (and potentially his religious) viewpoint.

            So if it was his religious cviewpoint are you endorsing that people should be fired for their religious views? Not surprising that Bruce leaps to defend anti religious bigotry.

          • jim_m

            Let me be more explicit: The board may be voted in by the shareholders, but they are only representatives and as such do not necessarily speak for the shareholders unless there has been a shareholder vote and the will of those shareholders has been specifically expressed.

            That did not occur here. The board certainly does not speak for all shareholders.

          • Brucehenry

            Nothing I’ve read says his opposition to same sex marriage was religiously based. It’s not an unlikely assumption, I guess but not a proven one, either, at least as far as I know.

            I just think it’s kind of funny that people who are all for “freedom” and “liberty” and “personal responsibilty” find it so objectionable when a company acts as the board of directors wishes.

            EDIT: I do understand the viewpoint expressed by Sullivan, I just don’t find it all that convincing in this case. I don’t think there WAS much of a campaign by very many marriage-equality groups. It seems that the one boycott threat by OKCupid was pretty much all it took to convince Mozilla’s board it should take this step.

          • jim_m

            They do have the right to dismiss him. However, they portray themselves as intolerant assholes by doing so and demonstrate their underlying hypocrisy in their actions. They demand tolerance but refuse it toward anyone else.

            And those that defend them are equally hypocrites and assholes. (yeah, I mean you)

          • Brucehenry

            I’ll defend to the death your right to call me an intolerant hypocritical asshole, Jim! I got your back.

          • jim_m

            Thanks. And I will stick to my promise not to spit on your grave.

          • alanstorm

            I note you made no promise re: any other form of…liquid expectoration. Or solid, for that matter.

            An oversight, I’m sure.

          • jim_m

            Certainly, but then I am not part of the OWS movement.

          • alanstorm

            Intolerant hypocritical asshole!

            Sorry, just practicing…

          • Brucehenry

            Hey now, it’s one thing for Jim to say it. You don’t know me that well.

            Jim’s kind of my pet wingnut, you see.

          • jim_m

            No permission is needed for people to tell the truth.

          • Brucehenry

            Down boy!

          • alanstorm

            “Nothing I’ve read says his opposition to same sex marriage was religiously based”

            Nowhere is his basis stated. Note the use of the word “if”.

            So? He doesn’t need to base it on anything at all. After all, liberals routinely base there opinions on absolutely nothing.

          • Brucehenry

            That was in response to Jim’s suggestion that I’m OK with his free speech being quashed if he’s religious. I’m not, but the point was he may have other reasons for his position, as far as I, and you, and Jim, know.

          • alanstorm

            So, if his opinion is religiously-based, he should not have been pressured?

            If so, why is religion necessary as a defense?

          • Brucehenry

            If, if if. We are talking about hypotheticals. Now you want to discuss hypothetical hypotheticals.

          • alanstorm

            You evading the question again. You aren’t in politics, are you?

            I digress..

            Jim said “So if it was his religious viewpoint are you endorsing that people should be fired for their religious views?”

            Your answer, AFAICT, was “That was in response to Jim’s suggestion that I’m OK with his free speech being quashed if he’s religious. I’m not…” which strongly implies, if not outright states, that a religiously-based objection is a “saving roll” in your opinion.

            Why is it necessary for his objection to be religiously-based in order to be credible?

            The questions will only get harder from here on out. You expressed an opinion, now justify it.

          • Brucehenry

            I didn’t say it was. Jim’s use of the word “if” was in an attempt to frame his strawman argument. He uses it to pretend that I have said something I didn’t say.

            Your air of superiority is amusing but quickly loses its effectiveness when it becomes obvious you ain’t superior.

          • alanstorm

            You’re still evading the question.

            I suspect it’s because you can’t answer it.

            Not sure how you perceive an “air of superiority” out of that, unless you posses a felling of inferiority. I’ve been accused of condescension before, but I just don’t see it in that comment.

          • Brucehenry

            “The questions will only get harder from here on out.” Snark about “reading comprehension” when it is you, apparently, who can’t keep straight who is saying what. That’s how I perceive that, Alan. But no matter.

            I’m not evading any question. I didn’t SAY his objection to same-sex marriage has greater merit, or less merit, if it is religiously based. Jim was trying to IMPLY that’s what I was saying so he could formulate a classic strawman argument. For someone with such impeccable reading comprehension you sure are struggling with this concept.

          • alanstorm

            “Snark about “reading comprehension” when it is you, apparently, who can’t keep straight who is saying what.”

            You are incorrect. I stated the exchange between you and Jim clearly.

            “”That was in response to Jim’s suggestion that I’m OK with his free speech being quashed if he’s religious. I’m not…”

            The above says, plainly, that YOU believe religious belief is a factor. You stated that you were not OK with his speech being quashed if his objection was religiously-based. Are you disowning it? If not, please explain your belief. These ARE the easy questions. All snark aside, either:

            A) You didn’t mean to say that, so you need to explain what you meant;

            B) You DID mean to say that, so you need to explain what you meant;

            or C) You have no idea what you meant to say, which certainly accounts for your dodging.

            I’m betting on C. It’s pretty standard for liberals to blather along and then claim they were misquoted.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m not OK with his free speech being quashed REGARDLESS of his motivation. I’m saying here it’s NOT BEING quashed, because only the government can quash free speech. Anything else is the marketplace of ideas. Freedom, baby!

            I didn’t say, and don’t see how you can think I did, that I think religion is or isn’t a factor, or that it should matter if it was or if it wasn’t. Comprehend THAT, Alan.

            Seriously, dude, you’re twisting yourself into pretzels because you have misread what I wrote. If I wasn’t clear, I’m sorry, but I’ve repeatedly attempted to clear it up and you keep returning to a point you KNOW I wasn’t making. DAMN.

          • alanstorm

            So it’s “C”, then. Just as I thought.

            I did not mis-read what you wrote. You put words to paper, so to speak, and then tried to weasel out of it. If you expressed yourself badly, then it;s your job to re-phrase it to get the idea across better.

            Instead, you weave and dodge and whine “That’s not what I meant!” while refusing to say what you DID mean. You haven’t attempted to clear up anything, you simply complained that you were misunderstood.

            Now, finally, you came out to say “I’m not OK with his free speech being quashed REGARDLESS of his motivation.” Good to know you don’t think he should have been pushed out. Or are you expressing yourself poorly again?

            re: “…a point you KNOW I wasn’t making…” I am flabbergasted.” How the bloody #%^& am I supposed to know what your point is unless you express it clearly? I’m sure you THINK you are, but that isn’t the case.

          • Brucehenry

            Whatever. Whether I expressed myself poorly or you misunderstood, you are being a tendentious pain in the ass and you know it. You imagine you have a gotcha and you’re worrying it like a fucking terrier.

            I don’t care whether or why he was pushed out by the board.That’s their call. If a company’s board wants to fire a CEO because he donated to a PRO-gay marriage group I’m fine with that, too. My point about Eich was that it wasn’t a First Amendment issue. His free speech rights are intact. His employer’s right to hire and fire at will are intact as well. All I was saying about him.

          • jim_m

            It’s not that you express yourself poorly. It’s that your ideas suck.

            But I agree with you. It isn’t a 1st amendment issue. It is an issue of hypocrisy and the fascist left. The left has become what it claimed it hated. The reality is that the left never really hated fascist power, in only ever coveted that power for itself and is now using its power accordingly.

          • jim_m

            No strawman argument. I said that they discriminated based on his political (and possibly religious) views.

            That’s pretty straightforward you jerk.

            I then posed a separate question directly to you on whether you would accept discrimination against people who had religious views that you disagreed with.

            I take it that I was correct in assuming that you do approve of such discrimination based on your desire to weasel out of any direct answer.

          • Brucehenry

            I’ve learned that when you ask a question of me you are making an accusation. How you roll. Don’t pretend otherwise.

          • jim_m

            Aha! Then it isn’t an argument at all but an accusation. So I am still correct.

          • alanstorm

            “Everyone is free to say whatever he wishes. No one is free from the
            consequences of their expression, except that the government may not
            punish them for it.”

            True, except for two things: Mozilla was claiming AS THE NEWS CAME OUT that they were inclusive and tolerated everyone, and that no one should be pressured for their opinions. They lied.

            Also while the letter of the law says only government is prohibited from infringing on your free speech right, it violates the spirit of the law when a company acts in this manner. ESPECIALLY when they do it while proclaiming their tolerance and open-mindedness.

          • Brucehenry

            So what you should do is boycott Mozilla NOW I guess.

            It doesn’t violate “the spirit of the law” when a company insists everyone toe a company line, Einstein. Anyone who wishes not to toe said line is free to seek employment elsewhere.

          • jim_m

            Yep already downloaded Chrome. As much as I hate Google I hate leftwing asshats like you Bruce.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m right fond of you, Jim.

          • alanstorm

            What company line are you referring to, dolt? The one that says they tolerate all opinions?

          • Brucehenry

            “The law” of which you say Mozilla is violating the spirit is the First Amendment, which is directed at the government and proscribes ITS actions and no one else’s.

          • alanstorm

            What company line are you referring to, dolt? Having reading comprehension issues AGAIN? I thought we’d been over this little problem of yours already.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh god. The “company line” is sometimes hard to pin down.

            For instance, in the company I work for, a kind of mindless cheerfulness, positive-thinking on steroids, anything-that comes-down-from-on-high-is-a-great-idea type of thinking is mandatory. There’s no policy that explicitly says everyone must pretend to be Joel Osteen all day long every day, but yet we must. And if we don’t, sooner or later we are forced out. And we ain’t CEOs.

            This Eich guy misread the zeitgeist. Shit happens. If I were on the Mozilla board I wouldn’t have voted to fire him, but I’m just here explaining how (maybe) it happened and how it’s not a First Amendment issue.

          • alanstorm

            OK. I disagree with your assessment, but you did finally provide an answer.

          • jim_m

            No, Eich donated to an organization that was supposed to have a private donor list which apparently was illegally released by the FEC. The whole point of the release of that list was to go after people who disagreed with gay marriage, Eich was not the first person that they have gone after and he won’t be the last.

            Funny how asshole lefties like to complain about the Hollywood blacklist and how commies couldn’t get a job but now they are rushing to out do the anti communists by doing the very same thing to anyone who ever associates in any way with any cause that is taboo for the left.

            It isn’t just one thing, they demand that you abide by the entire lefty fascist cannon.

          • Brucehenry

            “Canon.” One n.

            I don’t know if the list was illegally released, but your blacklist comparison a fair point, as is Warner’s analogy of the NAACP Alabama donor list.

            So, point to you, Jim.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, but you should notice how you rush to defend these fascist tactics before you laugh at how we keep pointing them out and them reluctantly admit that we have a point. You do that a lot lately,

          • Brucehenry

            Gee I thought that was the point of a discussion, to make progress in persuading the other guy. Why would you complain when I espouse a position and then modify it in response to your argument?

          • jim_m

            That was not a complaint. Rather it was prompting you to think about your behavior in light of your admission. It is inviting you to take the next step.

          • Brucehenry

            Thanks Pa.

          • jim_m

            Just trying to lead the ignorant into enlightenment.

          • alanstorm

            You are far more patient than I.

          • jim_m

            Nope. I just have really low expectations

          • alanstorm

            May they be met!

      • alanstorm

        Doesn’t answer the question. Nice dodge.

        If HL KEEPS those investments, then you might have a point. I don’t know every facet of every stock I own – I wouldn’t expect HL to know either. Are YOU aware of everything that might be attached to any of your investments?

        • Brucehenry

          Did you read the Forbes link, genius? Asked and answered in it.

          Do you really think a company who was filing a lawsuit because they were horrified about “abortifacients” wouldn’t know Bayer made them? And that their 401k was invested in Bayer? Even I know enough to at least skim my statements.

          • alanstorm

            No, I didn’t yet, asswipe. A little earlier to start on the personal attacks, even for you, isn’t it?

            I’ll go read it now.

            (read it)

            Nowhere does the article say anything about HL’s knowledge of what their investments fully entail, although the author, who states clearly that he does NOT support HL, claims that they should. So you quote two sources (one actually, as the Forbes article is clearly derived from MJ) hostile to HL and claim victory? Not the same thing, asswipe.

            Are you going to argue, or insult?

          • Brucehenry

            Three months AFTER Hobby Lobby filed this lawsuit it held $73M in investments in companies that produce “emergency contraceptives” and the like.

            From the article, in which your vaunted reading comprehension skills failed you:

            “You may be thinking that it must have been beyond Hobby Lobby’s reasonable abilities to know what companies were being invested in by the mutual funds purchased for the Hobby Lobby 401k plans — but I’m afraid you would be wrong.

            “Not only does Hobby Lobby have an obligation to know what their sponsored 401k is investing in for the benefit of their employees, it turns out that there are ample opportunities for for the retirement fund to invest in mutual funds that are specifically screened to avoid any religiously offensive products.

            “To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs — or products such as alcohol or pornography — religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen out companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research.

            “Apparently Hobby Lobby was either not aware that these options existed (kind of hard to believe for a company willing to take a case to the Supreme Court over their religious beliefs) or simply didn’t care.”

            You didn’t see that?

            Yes it says they “should have known” not that they DID know. But MY point is that it creates a strong impression that these so-called “sincerely held personal religious values” seem awfully CONVENIENT: a reason to throw a monkey wrench into Obamacare. They didn’t seem to care so much about these abortion drugs when they were invested in them — FOR YEARS– until they became a club to bash Obama with their faux “I’m being oppressed” act.

          • alanstorm

            My reading comprehension is fine, as I will now demonstrate. The only relevant line there that impinges in any way on whether they are hypocrites or not is this one:

            “Not only does Hobby Lobby have an obligation to know what their
            sponsored 401k is investing in for the benefit of their employees..”, which you misread.

            The only obligation they have towards that investment on the employee’s behalf is that it fulfill their goals (capital appreciation, income, etc.) and be reasonably safe, given whatever constraints arise from the investment goals.

            Nowhere are they required to investigate the moral purity of the companies they invest in, although I will grant that it sure looks bad. however, if they divest immediately, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

            Also, pigeon-boy, keep in mind this is written by someone who OPPOSES HL’s position. IOW, consider the source.

            My reading comprehension is not in doubt. Can’t say the same for yours.

          • Brucehenry

            But they didn’t divest immediately. They owned the stock 3 months after they filed the suit. This story blew up days ago. It may have been published somewhere but I am unaware of a report that they have divested YET.

            Yes the Forbes writer has a POV. But I happen to agree with it, which is my point. His point is made, convincingly, in the last 3 paragraphs of his piece.

            A company that feels SO STRONGLY that these products violate their beliefs should have done their due diligence, don’t you think? That was my point in posting the Forbes link, and the point the writer was making.

  • jim_m

    Even gays like Andrew Sullivan are denouncing this action. Eich and everyone has a right to his opinion. There is no evidence that he EVER discriminated against homosexuals. This is a thought crime and the left has gone over the line to persecute people for their ideas.

    The next step is them demanding that Eich go to prison for his thoughts.

    • Brucehenry

      And that last sentence is where you veer off, as usual, into boy-who-cries-wolf territory.

      • jim_m

        It is the end game for many on the left, whether you choose to admit it or not. Fact of the matter is that you would turn a blind eye to it until it happens and then pretend it isn’t happening rather than admit you were wrong, once it does happen.

        • Brucehenry

          Well if you say The Voices told you so, I guess that’s good enough for me too.

      • alanstorm

        How so? There are already calls for climate non-cultists to be jailed. I don’t see a huge jump there.

        • jim_m

          Just as there have been calls by dem governors to suspend presidential elections but Bruce maintains that no one on the left desires a fascist dictatorship.

          • Brucehenry

            ONE call, by ONE governor, who claimed it was a joke. But she was very stupid and a terrible stand-up comedian and didn’t even run for re-election in the election you think she didn’t want held.

          • jim_m

            Who claimed it was a joke AFTER the outrage of the public was made known. She didn’t run for governor, which was not the election she wanted suspended dumbass.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah she was my governor and as stupid as the day is long and what a dumbass thing to say.

            But there was no serious proposal to actually suspend the presidential elections. And there wasn’t a lot of public outrage, just kind of a big ol’ WTF.

  • jim_m

    Question for Mozilla:

    Since homosexuality is illegal in India, when are they going to shutter their India operations? Or are they every bit the intolerant fascists that we suppose them to be?

    • alanstorm

      Using logic and reason? You KNOW that’s a “hate crime”.

  • jim_m

    Here we now see the hypocrisy of the left. We cannot go after fascist dictators who murder their own people because they say that we should go after all of them and not just single one out.

    and yet…

    other tech firms, substantially outscored Mozilla in pro-Prop 8 contributions attributed to their employees. That includes Adobe, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, and Yahoo, as well as Disney, DreamWorks, Gap, and Warner Bros.

    Thirty-seven companies in the database are linked to more than 1,300 employees who gave nearly $1 million in combined contributions to the campaign for Prop 8. Twenty-five tech companies are linked to 435 employees who gave more than $300,000. Many of these employees gave $1,000 apiece, if not more. Some, like Eich, are probably senior executives.

    Why do these bigots still have jobs?

    and even further

    According to Wikipedia, 7,001,084 people voted for Prop 8. Why do any of those people still have jobs? Shouldn’t they all be forced to resign?

    Lefties like Bruce and Chico will stand up against the US doing anything to oppose the oppression of millions because we won’t go after EVERY dictator in the world, yet they will defend going after individuals selectively on account of their political and religious ideas.

    Hypocrites all. Come on lefties. Stand up for the logical extensions of your arguments. You cannot support going after one if you do not support going after all of them. If Eich deserved to lose his job they all do. Get to work at having all these people lose their jobs.

  • jim_m

    It’s getting worse for the fascists on the left:

    Using the LA Times’s trusty blacklist database, Nate Silver ran the numbers on donations from people who work at Fortune 500 Silicon Valley companies… At Intel, 60 percent of employee donations were in support of Proposition 8.

    Better start swapping out your computers for AMD machines.

  • 914

    The Breitbart site has been having connection issues all of a sudden.. Wonder why?

  • LiberalNightmare

    uninstall firefox.

  • jim_m

    Best comment on the Firefox feedback page –

    Shame on you Mozilla. I have uninstalled Firefox and will boycott all of your products – even your corn oil.

  • yerfakkingmammy

    Gays are miserable, hateful people who silence ALL speech that disagrees with them…for example…usually men and women…shape a sound ideal…

  • yerfakkingmammy

    Gays are miserable. An honest gay will tell you that there’s really no such thing as marraige in the gay world. Spiteful, lonely -my career is in ruins thanks to the gay mafia. The lavander lobby silences ALL speech that disagrees with them…sick, twisted subhuman-beings…

  • Irv Spielberg

    Gays are found throughout history. For the first time ever – finally – they’re almost worldwide! Wow!

    This global gaydom is even foretold in the Bible – predicted by Jesus
    (see “days of Lot” in Luke 17 and compare with Genesis 19).
    the Hebrew prophet Zechariah (14th chapter) says that during the same
    gay “days” ALL nations will come against Israel and fulfill the “days of
    Noah” at the same time (see Luke 17 again) – a short time of
    anti-Jewish genocide found in Zechariah 13:8 when two-thirds of all Jews
    will die.
    In other words, when “gay days” have become universal, all hell will break loose!

    Shockingly, the same “days” will lead to and trigger the “end of days” –
    and when they begin, human government will quickly wind down in just a
    few short years. For the first time in history there won’t be enough
    time for anyone to expect to live long enough to be able to attend
    college, have kids and grand-kids, save for and enjoy retirement, etc.
    One final thought. The more we see gays “coming out,” the sooner Jesus will be “coming down”!

    (For more, Google or Yahoo “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up,” “Jesus Never
    Mentioned Homosexuality. When gays have birthdays…,” and “FOR GAYS
    ONLY: Jesus Predicted…”)

  • Constitution First

    I guess those “Free Speech Zones”the government made-up don’t extend very far?