{ Voted for Prop 8? You’re fired }

The backlash continues . . . It’s not only coming from the outspoken gay rights activists, No on 8 campaigners, rally-ers and sign holders, vandalize-ers and property thrashers….but now it just may be coming from your employer . . . getting back at people for voting Yes on Proposition 8.  Not just getting back at them, but firing them from their job.

the Pacific Justice Institute reports a growing number of cases where those opposed to the ballot measure have taken out their anger more quietly: by harassing – and even firing – employees who voted for it.

Is this fair? Is it legal? It’s definitely not ethical, or very kind . . . some way to boost employee morale huh? Firing your employees for having political opinions that differ from your “company’s.” That is called discrimination, and some employers are discriminating against employees who voted yes on 8.  The Pacific Justice Institute is supported by Dr. Laura and Bill O’Reilly, and

[It is ] a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. Pacific Justice Institute works diligently, without charge, to provide their clients with all the legal support they need.

I was thinking about this earlier, about companies who supported or didn’t support Proposition 8. A company is an entity folks. It is not capable of having a position on anything. The CEO, the CFO, the board, any person can have an opinion, and state their opinion on behalf of their company, but the company itself doe not have an opinion. I just think that’s strange when spokespeople say that. It would have to imply that everyone in the company felt the same way. I just wondered why the execs couldn’t just say that something is their opinion, instead of trying to pass it off as the “company’s.”

PJI claims to be representing a SF woman, along with other individuals, who were fired from their jobs for voting for Proposition 8. The woman’s name remains confidential to protect her privacy and legal case. I thought that voting was supposed to also be confidential. No one’s employer is entitled to know how they voted.

“Californians have been shocked by the aggressiveness of radical homosexual activists who have ousted several individuals from their jobs and livelihoods based solely on their support for traditional marriage,” states Brad Dacus, president of PJI, on the group’s website. “These tactics of fear and intimidation in retaliation for supporting a lawful ballot measure are completely unacceptable.”

“Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated case,” asserts a recent PJI statement.

It just seems like when people know they are right (like us supporters of traditional marriage and Prop 8 ) they don’t have to be nasty and vindictive in their approach to defending their position.  Gay rights activists and proponents of same-sex marriage appear to still be    grasping at straws, behaving like tantrum throwing 2-year olds and rude, disrespectful teenagers. For some reason they can’t seem to be classy and mature about the issue. They have filed their law suits and they need to just sit tight until their hearings, rather then continue to wreak havoc in the lives of people who don’t agree with them. As far as I’m concerned, they need to be grateful that the traditional marriage supporters haven’t been treating them like they have been treating many of us. Its as if they feel justified in any action as long as they keep associating their cause with terms like “civil rights,”  “fairness” or “bigotry.”

So it seems like employers are firing yes on 8 voters because they feel the proposition discriminates against gays, and therefore their employees are guilty of discrimination, but then they themselves are turning right around and discriminating against their own employees for the way they voted. This is ridiculous logic. World News Daily.com sites the following incidents:

Kevin Snider, chief counsel for PJI, told WND of a worker at a financial company who was asked before the November election how he would vote on the issue of homosexual marriage. The employee gave an evasive answer. Following the election, the employee was asked repeatedly how he voted.

When it was learned the employee had voted in favor of Proposition 8, he was written up for discrimination, Snider reports, and fired within a couple of days.

WND reported earlier of a pair of radio hosts who were fired, they believe, because they questioned on air a local politician’s call to boycott businesses that supported Prop. 8.

“I voiced my opinion,” radio host Marshall Gilbert told WND. “I voted yes on Prop. 8, and I was fired over that.”

There have also been incidents of harassment for individuals’ support of Prop 8.

The Los Angeles Times reported the story of El Coyote, a coffee shop that became a target of protest after the manager’s name was put on a blacklist for giving $100 to support Proposition 8. Mobs of protesters harassed El Coyote’s customers, shouting “shame on you,” until police in riot gear settled the crowd.

The customers, the Times reports, abandoned the once-thriving business, and now El Coyote’s 89 employees, some of them openly homosexual, have had their hours cut and face layoffs if the customers don’t return soon.

Antigayblacklist.com has also appeared online, courtesy of homosexual marriage advocates, as a way to broadcast the donations individuals, churches and business made to the Yes on 8 campaign, and to urge sympathizers not to patronize those on the list.

“I think there’s certain types of jobs where there’s more hostility than other places,” Snider told WND. “I’ve had several college professors report harassment by their colleagues.”

In one instance, Snider said, a professor took copies of nasty emails from his colleagues over his support of Prop. 8 to the lawyers in the college’s human resources department. The professor alleged the emails clearly constituted hate speech, but his appeal was ignored.

Snider also told WND of Proposition 8 supporters who have suffered vandalism, physical violence and even attacks against family pets.

One report included a University of California student whose car was vandalized and who was beaten over her support of Prop. 8.

“It’s inappropriate behavior, and really criminal behavior,” Snider advised, “to do this sort of thing.”

Attorney Karen Milam, full-time director of PJI’s Southern California office, commented on the organization’s website by saying, “We will continue to reach out to Prop. 8 supporters to ensure that threats and bullying do not undermine the democratic process.”

The democratic process and our civil rights (yes, our civil rights . . . gay’s dont’ have an exclusive on those) continue to be distorted by the homosexual agenda. Thanks to the PJI for providing legal services to individuals caught in the nasty aftermath of Prop 8. If you or anyone you know is in need of their legal services, you can find their contact info on their website here.

Source: World Net Daily.com

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “{ Voted for Prop 8? You’re fired }

  1. Wow, that is quite the extensive list of offenses against Democracy you’ve compiled there. I’m certain there are many more unreported incidents as well. In fact, I know of one personally. A friend of mine owns a business and was continuously harassed for her personal donation to Yes on 8. The most ghastly behavior she experienced was when gay rights activists drove by her personal residence as she was leaving with her infant. As she cowered against the recently locked door, fumbling with her key, they screamed epithets in her direction while creeping by. This happened on a regular basis following the Proposition 8 victory. These acts are unspeakable. The idea is to force people into submission through intimidation. I hope more people choose to stand up to these kinds of mob tactics that are fueled by bravado.

  2. Wow, I feel so sad for what your friend went through. It is deplorable. I really wish that donation lists were private. Gay rights proponents have no business knowing what people donated to the proposition 8 campaign.

  3. This reminds me of Nazi Germany where you have to toe the party line or else you are out. It really is full on discrimination. Asking someone what they voted is really out of line.

  4. The intolerance of the so-called “tolerant” never ceases to amaze me.

    I really enjoy reading your blog. Keep up the good work. I’ve just started a new blog that will be highlighting the dangers of the secular progressive movement (pro-gay “rights”, pro-abortion, anti-religious freedoms, etc). Unfortunately, most Christians still don’t know what’s going on out there and the mainstream media certainly isn’t covering it.

    We’re looking to build a solid group of social conservatives who’ll frequent our site regularly and contribute to some good discussions. I hope you’ll check us out!

    If you’ll add us to your blogroll we’ll gladly add you to ours. Just drop us a comment over at our blog so that we’ll know to add you. Our blog is at http://religionandmorality.wordpress.com/

    Thanks!

  5. Pearl, I am truly astonished at this story and hope that your friend recovers from this deplorable activity. It is never appropriate to condemn someone for how they choose to believe. It is truly regretful that anyone should have to endure such behaviors.

    It reminds me of a situation a few years ago when my own state was deciding on amending their own constitution regarding same sex marriage. There was a young man at a local high school who was being harassed by his peers for the fact that he was gay. When it reached a level where this young man was afraid for his safety he approached the Principle for help. The Principle’s solution was for him to just not be gay. When some students heard that he had complained they hog tied him to their truck and drug him through the parking lot almost killing him.

    While I would never condone violence or retaliation in any form you have to understand that the gay community has been demonized, dehumanized, ridiculed and persecuted for a very long time. Prop 8 was for some the last straw. You cannot expect any individual or group to be treated this way and to just keep taking it lying down. Perhaps had there been a little more love, charity and tolerance from the majority the minority wouldn’t be retaliating in the same manner they had been treated.

    After all, Do unto others….

  6. Just because gay activists are tired of being treated as a minority, doesn’t give them a free pass to do as they please when the majority of people don’t agree with them. It seems as if they feel justified in any behavior they choose, simply because they have had a hard time for so long.

  7. I agree that harassing people who voted yes on Prop 8 are out of line.

    However, it cannot be overlooked that voting yes on Prop 8 was highly discriminatory. Our right to marriage was taken away. It is no different than people voting no on interracial marriage 40 years ago. You can argue being gay is a choice, but that is irrelevant. Everyone should be able to choose who they love and get the same tax breaks as others. I chose to try to be straight and married a woman years ago…that was wrong and I was in torment. Only when I came out was I happy. I married my partner of 4 years last October.

    Of course there was a backlash. El Coyote, which SURVIVED on gay business was rightfully picketed and then left to die because the owner betaryed her gay patrons. Why is that wrong? I would NEVER give my hard earned money to a business that forwards my money (even a cent) on promoting stripping me of my rights. That’s like a black man paying for his own noose when lynching covered the south.

    Traditional marriage is not threatened by me and my partner. Your marriage is what you make of it. I pay taxes. I deserve equal treatment under the law. I deserve federal tax breaks as well. Obama will overturn DOMA-one of the most bigoted laws to ever be instituted in our country.

    Gays are the last persecuted muinority-thankfully opinions are changing and this will soon be a thing of the past.

    The biggest problem the bigots (yes-bigots) who voted on yes don’t see is that rights of minorities should never be put up for a vote. Gays were powerless to stop this against the machine of the lies perpetuated by those hideous ads about closing churches, teaching kids…the villains behind those ads preyed on the gullible, religious crowd. Shame on them!

    It is utterly ridiculous that the Moron Church who, not too long ago, rejected blacks as those with “the mark of Cain” and those who had multiple wives are striving to “protect” marriage.

    Lastly, the 22 million the Morons spent could have helped so many people..the poor, the starving…instead, it sent thousands into despair, invalidating their unions…

    Again, I do nto approve of harassing people, but it should at least be understandable that if someone voted to take marriage rights away from straight people, there’d be some anger…

  8. So, you don’t approve of harassing people? Why are you deriding people of the LDS faith by calling them morons? I think you need to check on your harassment policy there.

  9. Amalgate, I would love to respond to your comment and address some of the philosophical points you raise, but unfortunately you expose ignorance and bigotry, which, at this point in the “conversation,” is sort of hilarious.

    Did you really intentionally misspell Mormon as “Moron”? Because I’m not sure what point that serves.

    Can you explain?

    Either explain, or please apologize, and then we can get this conversation back on track and maybe people will start taking your points seriously.

    Also, the idea of the “mark of cain” comes from the bible. And blacks were never rejected from the mormon church. In fact. The first black was baptized two years after the organization. In fact. Some of the mormons’ early persecution was due to the fact that they believed black people had souls and were equals. Their congregations have never been segregated.

    Black Mormon History

    These sites might also be helpful in clearing up your misunderstanding. (they helped me).

    Mormons and Racism

    Mormons and Racism

  10. I have yet to find an activist against marriage who doesn’t resort to name calling and anti-religion to try and make a point. That Amalgamate uses both, including Mormon baiting only proves ignorance and an unwillingness to come to grips with tolerance and free speech. I agree with Ruby. When you can act like a grownup by apologizing and behaving like a grownup, then we can have a discussion. Frankly, I don’t know why Journalista doesn’t just boot your comment, but I suppose someone has to be show what immaturity and true bigotry look like.

  11. TrueBlue said: “Perhaps had there been a little more love, charity and tolerance from the majority the minority wouldn’t be retaliating in the same manner they had been treated.”

    Propositon 22 was approved by 60+% of the electorate in 2000; it reinforced the both-sexed basis of marriage and added the explicit man-woman criterion to settle the matter fairly and openly.

    In the aftermath the state enacted legislation for domestic partnership status. Tolerance galore right there. In fact it provided a protective status and went beyond tolerance. Then the legislative branch rapidly expanded DP to become a localized merger with marriage in all but name. That’s a preferential status.

    It was an undeserved preferential status for the SSMers never did expain its primary purpose of DP nor is core meaning. It was just attached to the hip of marriage. And this was contrary to the premise of the statutory provision for the man-woman criterion.

    The SSMers got an inch and grabbed a mile.

    Next, the legislative branch was urged by the SSM campaign to over-ride the statute. That was a blatantly anti-constitutional move. The Governor recognized it as such as vetoed the attempt to merger DP with marriage in name as well.

    Okay, so who was tolerant there? Who was moved by charity and love, there? Not those who abused the public process whereby the marriage issue had been settled in a fair election.

    The SSM campaign pushed ahead with its courtcentric approach. The Executive branch betrayed the People; it failed to present the strongest argument for the man-woman criterion — an argument that won in other states. Here we see that in the highest court the defense of marriage went unrepresented.

    Generous? Tolerant? Nope.

    The high court then proceeded in haste to impose an outright merger of DP with marriage in name and in all ways for the purposes of state law and social policy. It declared that the Government owned marriage. That’s contrary to the fact that no Government has created nor owns a foundational social institution of civil society. Civil society created and owns Government.

    In other words: The People have a government, not the other way around.

    So the SSM campaign got its day in court and that court imposed gay identity politics into state constitutional jurisprudence. The last time that identity politics was presented as the basis for marriage law, and for constitutional authority, was when the California Supreme Court rejected the identity politics of racism. Somehow this was twisted around so that the court claimed to be furthering the precedent against the anti-miscegenation system.

    Tolerant? Nope. Full of love and generousity? Nope.

    Inflamatory and accusatory rhetoric? You bet.

    The high court hurried to impose the DP-marriage merger and made the political decision, not a judicious decison, to NOT await the result of the upcoming vote on the marriage amendment. This was a constitutional matter, they said, and yet they took it out of the hands of the People whose constitution had empowered the Judiciary to even consider the pro-SSM case. The court should have followed the example of the Hawaii Supreme Court which stayed its decision pending that state’s vote on its marriage amendment.

    So, the legislative branch betrayed Proposition 22. The executive branch failed to defend marriage with the strongest argument. And the judiciary, enabled by identity politics contrary to precedent, gave the NO side in the amendment campaign the advantage of its political opinion. SSM licenses were issued for 5 months which was a stunt to aid the NO side.

    The executive branch, in the form of the AG, rewrote the title of the marriage amendment and distorted its official description. The Governor abandoned the defense of marriage. Thus the judiciary gave the executive an excuse to undermine the Yes side. This, taken altogether, gave the NO side an additional advantage, perhaps 10+% more than no sides typically start with in proposition campaigns.

    Stacking the deck. Defining everything through the lense of gay identity politics. Not tolerance. Not generousity. Nothing short of corrupting the entire process of public discourse and government decision-making. A travesty.

    During the campaign, the NO side squandered its lead. Its anti-Mormon tv ad — and the bashing of Catholics and others of faiths supportive of the marriage amendment — was reprehensible. It was full-on bigotry. But it gave the NO side its last minute boost.

    So the No side approved of all of the above — in the spirit of “love, charity and tolerance”? Okay, if you insist, I guess.

    And now, in the aftermath of the Yes side’s victory in a free and fair election, the NO side goes back to court to challenge the legitimacy of the result. What a crock.

    Then we have the angerfest in the streets. The organized reprisal campaign of individual contributors to the Yes campaign. The leaders of the No side — the officials and the grassroots — say they don’t support violent actions and yet they “understand” and “sympathize” with the displays of rage and the vengance-seeking. They feel the same way as those who’ve made threats; they feel the same way as those who have pushed old ladies, assaulted people on street corners, harrassed people in their homes, and have sought relatiation by organizing to force people from their jobs and means of income for their families.

    The name-calling adds fuel to the fire. It is inflammatory to denounce those who disagree with you as “bigots” and “hate-mongers”. Don’t try to excuse it by some false claim of a “right” that has been taken away.

    Domestic partnership was not up for repeal in the amendment vote. Nothing associated with the localized merger of DP and marriage was “taken away”. Not a whit.

    And talk about tolerance. Why should DP be defined by gayness? Why should gayness be rewarded, at all?

    No, this is not about gay vs. straight. It is about the core meaning of the relationship type that SSMers have in mind versus the core meaning of the conjugal relationship type.

    No amount of generousity can camaflauge the lack of a core meaning for DP — other than gay identity politics.

    And identity politics is ne the most reliable sources of prejudice, bigotry, injustice, and, yes, violence — first in words and then an escalation.

    Marriage defenders typically denounce identity politics. But SSMers revel in it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s