A team of lawyers is being assembled to make sure there are no more cases like that of Brendan Eich, the CEO of Mozilla.
He was forced out of his position for contributing – years earlier — $1,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign in California in which voters themselves decided to define marriage in their state constitution as between one man and one woman.
A homosexual judge later overturned the will of the people, and the Supreme Court let the decision stand on a technicality.
Officials with the Alliance Defending Freedom say enough is enough.
“Alliance Defending Freedom and the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund are jointly offering free legal analysis and possible pro bono representation to anyone losing his or her job or suffering other job-related consequences because of past support for California’s constitutional amendment affirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” the organizations confirmed in an online posting.
“In addition to Eich, others have also been pressured out of their jobs since voters adopted the amendment in 2008,” the team of attorneys said.
“People who exercise their First Amendment freedoms should not be bullied into silence and forced out of their livelihood,” said ADF Senior Counsel Joseph Infranco. “We will consider representing Californians or citizens in other states who have suffered job consequences for their support of marriage through the most American of activities: participating in the political process – a legal activity that is not disruptive to the mission of the employer.”
“California employers should not give in to a handful of intolerant activists who would seek to blacklist their fellow Americans for doing nothing more than exercise their constitutionally protected freedom to support various causes,” added Charles LiMandri, president and chief counsel of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund and one of more than 2,300 attorneys allied with ADF. “No employer should be allowed to ignore their employees’ First Amendment freedoms or their employees’ freedoms under state law.”
The team is inviting people who have such situations to contact them through the Alliance Defending Freedom website.
Newt Gingrich has called such attitudes exhibited in cases like Eich’s an “open, blatant example of the new fascism,” Charles Krauthammer called it “totalitarian,” Pat Buchanan labeled it “the new blacklist” and RedState headlined it as “a fascist purge.”
And it wasn’t just conservatives sounding the alarm. Leftist comedian Bill Maher called the perpetrators the “gay mafia,” and even well-known “gay” media personalities condemned it, Andrew Sullivan saying it “disgusts me” and radio talker Tammy Bruce calling out the “gay gestapo.”
They were referring, of course, to the forced resignation of Eich as CEO of the company he co-founded, Mozilla.
Everyone knows the Eich story – and almost everyone, it seems, condemns it, as though it were a singularly egregious injustice in today’s America.
But, as revealed in the May issue of WND’s acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine, Eich, far from being a unique or especially shocking case, is just one of a growing multitude of Americans whose lives and livelihoods are being intentionally crushed by “THE NEW FASCISM.”
“What could be stranger,” commented Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian, on the stunning hypocrisy of today’s left, “than witnessing the ongoing ‘fundamental transformation’ of America at the hands of people claiming to stand for fairness, tolerance, diversity, free speech and the common man – yet who unfailingly end up taking us, kicking and screaming, in the exact opposite direction?”
The most obvious example, of course, is Barack Obama. Having promised to be the most honest, transparent, post-racial and non-ideological president ever, Obama is almost universally regarded as the least honest, least transparent, most racial and most ideological president in history. Likewise, forces of the left – like the college professor who recently called for the imprisonment of global-warming deniers – grow increasingly fanatical in their intolerance of the basic freedoms of Americans who don’t share their views.
However, of all the various regions of the left, there is no quarter where free speech and diversity are less tolerated – and more viciously persecuted – than in the powerful, well-funded and pervasive “LGBT” movement.
After reading Whistleblower’s “THE NEW FASCISM,” readers will understand why even “mainstream” pundits and personalities from both left and right are characterizing what is now happening in America as “totalitarian,” “gestapo”-like and “fascist.”
Buchanan wrote in his WND column, “What do we do with those who use their freedom of speech to express their view, rooted in religion and history, that traditional marriage is not only superior to same-sex marriage, the latter is a contradiction of the natural and moral law?
“And what of those institutions that teach and preach that outside traditional marriage sexual relations are wrong?
“One such is the 2,000-year-old Catholic Church whose 1976 catechism, ‘The Teaching of Christ,’ describes homosexual acts as ‘sexual vices’ and ‘sexual perversions.’
“Is that just yesterday’s church and yesterday’s belief?”
He notes that up until 2012, even Barack Obama said he opposed same-sex “marriage.”
“In the new dispensation, opposition to same-sex marriage disqualifies you from leadership and may legitimately be used to bring about the ruin of your career,” he said. “This is the new blacklist.”
The California case is well known. There, voters approved the traditional definition of marriage but homosexuals appealed to a homosexual judge who overturned the votes of millions of Californians.
At that time, California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter wrote a minority opinion when the court approved same-sex marriage. He wrote that the bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages “are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy.”
“Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous,” he said.
“Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.”
“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”