Firefox fails the tolerance test: We're free but it may cost us our jobs
Those of us who were and are opposed to same-sex marriage warned that once it was accepted, then those who held to the traditional view that marriage was between a man and a woman, would find themselves mocked, excluded and banned from 'decent' society.
We warned that once the gay rights lobby had achieved SSM they would not rest satisfied with that but would seek further ways to impose their philosophy and views upon the rest of us. People laughed. They said 'don't be ridiculous…this is all about tolerance, liberal values and love'. They were wrong. This week we have seen a classic example of where that non-Christian version of tolerance leads – the sack.
That's it. He lost his job because he supported the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no evidence, nor accusation, of homophobic ill treatment of employees. There is no evidence that Mr Eich campaigned within or through the company. For expressing his own opinion, in his own time with his own money, he loses his job.
This came about because of an internet campaign against him, especially from the dating site OkCupid – a site that facilitates homosexual and heterosexual dating. They urged their 3.5 million users not to use Firefox. And their campaign succeeded. The executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker issued a statement which was Orwellian in its meaninglessness – "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. 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….Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all."
Except of course those who hold to a different position from our absolutist morality. You will note what is being said here. We believe in freedom of speech but if you use that freedom to say something we don't believe in, you are out. We want diversity and inclusiveness and equality for all, except for those who do not believe what we believe.
Apparently some are more equal than others. Thirty years late, George Orwell's 1984 has arrived.
What is even more depressing is to see how the equality, diversity and tolerance brigade manage to twist and turn in order to justify their unequal, monocultural intolerance. Here are some of the tweets I have received from those who rejoice at intolerance done in the name of tolerance. They really do demonstrate the authoritarian and irrational nature of the new 'liberalism'.
"It's a private business with the right to fire and hire within the law"
Our new elitist liberals suddenly seem to develop a radical respect for the law – once they make them. If this principle of 'its legal so it's morally fine' were applied across the board then Martin Luther King's fight against racist laws or Mandela's against Apartheid laws, were morally wrong. The trouble is that the new liberals use freedom to fight against what they consider to be moral oppression and injustice, and then once what they want is 'tolerated' they quickly move from it being permissive to it being declarative. This is why now that SSM is 'tolerated', we find that being opposed to SSM is no longer tolerated, all of course done in the name of tolerance.
"He wasn't fired, he resigned"
I quote this remark only to show the desperateness of those who seek to justify the unjustifiable. Did he jump or was he pushed? Mr Eich resigned because of the enormous pressure he was placed under.
"He wasn't supporting traditional marriage, he was opposing SSM. Very different."
The new liberal absolutist morality is not too strong on logic and does not seem to accept the law of non-contradiction. We have moved here into the post-modern world of the meaninglessness of language. Providing you change the order of the words, include the right 'buzz' words and sound nice, people will just accept what you say. By definition if I support the view that marriage is between a man and a woman, then I am opposed to SSM. The two things are not 'very different'. They are synonymous.
"He hasn't been censured. He can still express his views."
This is the Orwellian version of 'freedom of speech'. You are free to say what you want. You can express your views. It may cost you your job but you are still free. Just as Arbeit Macht Frei (work makes you free) was the motto over Auschwitz, so 'free to speak' is the motto over modern Western (ill) liberal culture.
In a week when the government minister Maria Miller kept her job even though she engaged in creative expense accounting and was found guilty of providing 'incomplete' evidence to the inquiry, it is interesting to see just where society places its ethical values. It seems as though in the echelons of the elite, tax avoidance, expense cheating and adultery are all seen as excusable. Believing that marriage is between a man and a woman is beyond the pale. As Aldous Huxley prophesied many years ago, it's a 'Brave New World'!
What can we do? Mozilla have lost a CEO – they have also lost this customer. Meanwhile we continue to pray, love and proclaim Christ in this darkened and confused world.