RALEIGH, N.C., April 8, 2014 /Christian Newswire/ — Faith Driven Consumer™ — the group behind the recent IStandWithPhil.com movement which played a leading role in Phil Robertson’s return to Duck Dynasty and the ongoing Year of The Bible Movie campaign, which is tracking the commercial viability of major Hollywood films courting faith audiences this year, continues to advocate for tolerance and respect for the views held by 46 million Faith Driven Consumers who spend $1.75 trillion annually. Following the firestorm at Mozilla over its recently dismissed CEO, Faith Driven Consumer has launched its #OpenZilla campaign in an effort to encourage a company famous for open source solutions and inclusiveness to extend openness, tolerance, and respect to those who hold a biblically-based view of marriage.
“While the firestorm surrounding Mozilla’s recent actions has focused largely on the company’s former CEO, we remain deeply concerned about faith-driven employees at the company as well as those who may apply to work there. In the short-term, we are concerned about the rights of employees to continue to hold to their personal biblical views on marriage without being discriminated against or bullied. In the long-term, we are troubled by LGBT advocates who are calling for a ‘glass ceiling’ for faith-driven employees, suggesting that companies may hire such people but should not allow these employees to assume leadership roles if they hold a biblical view of marriage,” said Chris Stone, a Certified Brand Strategist and Founder of Faith Driven Consumer.
“In order to directly raise these concerns, Faith Driven Consumer contacted Mozilla yesterday to ask for clarification regarding corporate diversity policy. We also launched the #OpenZilla campaign to spark a broader dialogue about the need for tolerance, true inclusiveness, and respect for diversity in the workplace. We are asking Mozilla to address our questions, and have asked the Faith Driven Consumer community to engage with the company as well.
“Last week’s troubling events raise serious questions about the commitment by many members of the LGBT community to practice what they preach. As LGBT activists ask us to tolerate and respect their viewpoints on one hand, many are advocating — on the other hand — for intolerance, discrimination, and bullying toward people of faith, people who an essential part of America’s rich rainbow of diversity.”
Faith Driven Consumer’s #OpenZilla campaign asks three specific questions of the company:
Will faith-driven employees be discriminated against and forced into the closet for their personal views on marriage?
Is there a “pro-gay marriage” litmus test for working at Mozilla?
Will the next CEO be required to openly express support for gay marriage as a condition for being hired?
Why is it that the Democrat Party, Republican Party, the media, homosexual groups like GLAAD, pro-abortion groups, and all other liberals who spout vile things about the TEA Party and Christians never have one word of criticism about Islam????? A Christian can’t decline to bake a cake without national outrage but homosexuals being hanged for “aberrant sexual behavior” in Moslem nations bring no response. If I called a homosexual any “defamatory name or term” such as “teabagger” I would immediately be inundated with the harshest of criticism but Moslems glue a man’s private parts closed and fill him with food and water until he is about to explode then hangs this same person and not a word is heard from the left wing homosexual crowd.
Phil Robertson expresses his views that homosexuality is a sin, and according to the Holy Bible they won’t go to heaven, but that he bears them no malice if that is how they wish to live their lives. He is immediately pounced on by the twerps at GLAAD and every other Christian hating group under the sun. Robertson is “suspended indefinitely” for his transgression. I hear Moslems regularly calling for the murder of homosexuals, and actually see pictures of homosexuals who have been hanged or beheaded for homosexual activities. I’m sorry GLAAD; I don’t recall your outrage at the “intolerance” of Moslems!! I don’t recall a national outrage at this or the barbaric murder of Christians by Moslems in foreign nations. Cat got your tongue????? Where is the homosexual lobby outrage over Alec Baldwin and his continued verbal abuse of “faggot” reporters????? Continuous homosexual slurs from Baldwin and not a peep out of those so outraged by Robertson’s innocuous comment.
Moslems hate America for its acceptance of pornography yet I never hear any liberals call them closed minded bigots. Christians and Moslems both disapprove of the immodest way American women often dress yet it is the Christians who are taken to task and called names by liberals. Why don’t these same liberals call Moslems closed minded prudish bigots for demanding women wear a burkha????? Nudity and sex in movies and on television are just as unacceptable to Moslems as Christians, yet Moslems are not called “intolerant”. I guess the difference is that Christians allow others to live their lives as they see fit. Moslems kill those same people. Who is it that is intolerant again????? Maybe GLAAD should change their organization name to COWARDS!!!!!
And what about the “war on women”, allegedly being waged by conservatives?? Moslems either hang or stone a woman to death for adultery or the heinous crime of being raped. Often it is a case of gang rape and when they are done, these savages murder the woman for “allowing herself to be defiled”. And what about the genital mutilation of girls as young as six years old, or old men “marrying” an 8 year old and sexually abusing her to the point of her death? When is the National Organization for Women going to denounce these practices????? Oh, sorry, they are busy denigrating Sarah Palin who is also being denigrated by the Democrat Party, and of course, the politically correct Republican establishment crowd.
Now we have NAMBLA (National Man Boy Love Association) claiming that pedophilia is just as much a valid sexual persuasion as homosexuality. Christians who call this activity child sexual abuse are smeared once again as closed minded bigots determined to deny the civil rights of others. Of course, on this one the Moslems are right there with NAMBLA. Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death unless the self-righteous Moslems are the ones defiling the young boys in the name of “allah”, at which time homosexual activity is quite acceptable.
So, GLAAD, why do you call a national boycott and file lawsuits over a man declining to bake a cake or take a picture based on his personal religious beliefs yet say nothing about people actually murdering homosexuals? Why do you demand Phil Robertson be destroyed for expressing his opinion yet say nothing when Ahab the Arab hangs your kind for homosexual activity? Take your dancing debauchery of “gay rights” parades to say, Tehran or Mecca. See if they call you names or hang you!!!!! Selective tolerance once again????? Cowardice maybe????? As far as I see you are tolerated a great deal by all of us “bigots”. TEA Party Christians aren’t your enemies, Moslems are your enemies. You are fighting the wrong people.
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
Tolerance is a virtue. But to be a positive force in a nation, or a community, it must be applied universally, not selectively. Definitionally, it denotes not only forbearance of behavior, but of opinions that are disagreed with. Yet the degree of intolerance shown to those who oppose the radical homosexual agenda is immensely disturbing, especially coming from those who are such ardent advocates of toleration.
Those who oppose the leftist agenda are often subjected to threats, obscene anonymous phone calls, character assassination, and disturbing mischaracterizations in social media for having the courage to express their opinions.
A courageous couple, Ralph and Rochelle Lillig of Pocatello, ID, have felt the wrath and intolerance of the radical left. And what is the heinous injustice the Lilligs are guilty of? They have the chutzpah to suggest the citizens of their town exercise their right to vote on whether to accept a proposed “anti-discrimination” ordinance that criminalizes any perceived discrimination against homosexuals or transgenders. Encouraging democratic involvement is fundamental to the American tradition. The Lilligs should be lauded for advancing the notion that their community should actually have a direct voice in the laws the citizens are beholden to, rather than just leaving it in the hands of elected officials, some of whom have proven susceptible to coercive pressure from a small yet vocal minority.
There is a local group that calls itself 2Great4Hate, which is supporting the ordinance. They are exercising their freedom of speech to advance their agenda. They are not being vilified for doing so. So why do they display such intolerance to the Lilligs for exercising their freedom of speech? It would appear that the left’s version of tolerance is very selective and exclusive. I was unceremoniously ostracized from their Facebook group because I failed to comport with their selective concept of “tolerance.” Apparently it’s not enough to simply oppose any form of discrimination, but one must accept the entirety of their narrow, codified version of it, regardless of the unintended consequences.
The left’s version of tolerance obviously excludes social conservatives who have the temerity to support the nuclear family, and broad exercise of freedom of speech. This was made painfully clear by their reaction to Chik-Fil-A last year when the company CEO revealed they were supportive of the traditional nuclear family. The left’s reaction evidenced a selective tolerance disorder, where it’s not enough to merely advocate treating others the way you want to be treated, but you have to buy into their precise agenda of forced acceptance of aberrance, deviancy, and codified enforcement.
As a principle, and a characteristic to be aspired, tolerance is antithetical to ideological conformity. If tolerance is publicly demanded of behavioral and ideological aberrance, it should likewise be extended toward people of contrarian values. Freedom of speech and expression should be absolutes for all citizens and groups, not proscribed for those who believe differently. Applying a common aphorism, if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.
It’s disconcerting when the primary means of advancing a particular agenda is verbal guerilla warfare of intimidation and personal attacks against those who have the audacity to disagree with them. It smacks of a fascistic tyranny of the minority by attempted intimidation of nonconformists.
I was critical of Attorney General Eric Holder when he claimed that we’re a “nation of cowards” for not addressing racial issues to his liking. But it’s no wonder we’re becoming a nation of cowards, since whenever someone has the courage to exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech and it doesn’t conform with the left, they get vilified and publicly excoriated. That doesn’t seem very “tolerant” to me.
Christopher Hitchens, the secularist and author of “God is not Great” said in a New York Post interview, “More and more I find that those people are the real enemy intellectually. There’s no dishonesty like liberal dishonesty, just like there’s no intolerance like liberal intolerance. There’s nothing they won’t excuse and no excuse they won’t deploy. Their piety is a big aspect of that.”
The ultimate hypocrisy is to claim adherence to a standard of behavior yet fail to hold oneself accountable to that standard. If tolerance is a noble virtue to which our society must aspire, it must be applied universally, not just demanded of those who believe differently by those who have so little to spare. The bigotry and churlish behavior exhibited by the left on these kinds of issues should be sufficient to give any sentient person cause to spurn not only their conduct, but their agenda.
Tolerance is “the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.” It doesn’t mean we have to agree, but it does require civility and mutual respect, in spite of perceived differences. It’s a worthy virtue to aspire to collectively as a society. But to have any collective efficacy, it must be applied universally, not selectively.
AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at [email protected].
Georgetown University participates in a program called the Community Scholars Program which provides scholarships to GU for disadvantaged youth from across the country. The students attend a 5-week summer intensive on campus to prepare for fall courses. One workshop they were required to attend was an LGBTQ(when did the Q get on there? Seriously folks, are you going to use the whole alphabet?) “sensitivity training”, as seen on this exclusive video. Jarrett Roby from Chicago, IL was one of the lucky attendees, but when he was told he had to attend the training or risk disciplinary action Roby chose his religious convictions over program policy and refused to attend. A debate ensued and Roby (young and black and yes, that may be unfortunately relevant here) was accused of making the residential assistants feel “physically threatened”. Here is the story in Roby’s own words and you can find more information and exclusive coverage at kiradavis.net.
I’m just greatly saddened about the situation. Officially, the program directors will say I was dismissed from the program because I left 3 of the RAs feeling physically threatened. However I never mentioned anything remotely violent or did anything violent. Also I am confident that all of my peers would support the fact that I have never showed an ounce of violence and any such claims are flawed. The directors of the program who dismissed me said that their reasoning may not be fair, but they were not going to ask for a general consensus of me. Considering this, I believe I was asked to leave the program because I took a conservative stand against a liberal ideology and liberal group of people who are in charge of the program. Every scholar apart of the program was signed up for an LGBTQ seminar for Monday (July 23). I decided this was a seminar I would not attend. I am a devout Christian so I have no animosity in my heart toward any man whether he is gay or straight. I am required to love all people and I try my best to do so. I have no problems with homosexuals because it is the natural and God given right to be with whom they want to be with (Freewill). I do not support Gay rights, but as a supporter of the US constitution I do tolerate them. Because I have an established view point on LGBTQ I did not think it was necessary for me to go to the seminar. I approached a RA privately with my appeal on Sunday and it was automatically shut down and I was told I could expect to be written up if I did not go to the seminar. I held my peace and persisted with the idea of not going. Later that night other students got wind that I was not planning on going to the seminar. I was automatically attacked and deemed “closed-minded” and “ignorant”. In the mist of this rising confrontation I began to speak up to try and explain to other scholars how I was not trying to be intolerant. During this discussion the same three RAs that decided that they felt physically threaten tried to stop the conversation and send everyone to their rooms before the established curfew. I once again spoke up in protest of the early curfew and with an appeal that everyone calms down and back off. As the intensity died down it was clear that the RAs had personal biases toward LGBTQ and were against anyone who spoke against it. I heard the RAs say negative things about me but I didn’t respond because once everything died down it was curfew and I did not want to turn a political debate into and emotional onslaught. The next day I was called in by the program directors and told my actions during the informal debate had reassured the RAs feeling of being threatened. I was told that there had been a meeting with the RA’s and it was decided that I could not stay because 3 RAs were scared for the safety. I believe a true injustice was done to me. I am not looking for revenge, but I am trying to help stop injustice. – Jarret Roby
Here is exclusive video from my YouTube page taken by a student in the training session.
I received an e-mail a few days ago with a story about a lady who owns a bakery in Des Moines, Iowa. She declined to bake a wedding cake for two lesbians, which has resulted in calls for a boycott, and the usual name calling, from homosexual groups. Victoria Childress, owner of Victoria’s Cake Cottage told the couple that she is a Christian and would not violate her Christian beliefs to provide them with a cake. When interviewed about the incident, Ms. Childress said:
“I was straight-forward with them and explained that I’m a Christian and that I have very strong convictions. I chose to be honest about it. They said they appreciated it and left. That was all that was said.”
Childress said her decision had nothing to do with discrimination or the lesbian couple, and stressed this fact by saying:
“It doesn’t have anything to do with them – it was about my convictions. They can get their cake anywhere.”
Childress said money is not the issue, adding:
“I’m being attacked because of my beliefs – my convictions to their lifestyle. I was not rude. I was not condescending. It was matter-of-fact. I told them, ‘I’m sorry, I just can’t do that.’”
The lesbian pair released a statement calling the Christian cake baker a “bigot” and are contemplating filing a discrimination lawsuit against Ms. Childress. More on the discrimination issue later in this piece. The couple ran to the media and started calling a citizen, who I thought had freedom of choice also, a bigot. They threaten legal action, and make a big scene because someone doesn’t want to bake them a wedding cake. How thin skinned can anyone get? They are offended? I am offended that they think they have a right to demand service from any business owner. I am offended that they think a Christian doesn’t have a right to decide who to do business with. If someone doesn’t want my business I just take it elsewhere.
Unfortunately, this reaction is typical of special interest groups, any special interest group. It seems everyone has a “right” to their views, and to be pandered to, except Christians. I wonder what would happen if these same women walked into a bakery owned by a Muslim. Would the owner bake them a cake or chase them out of the shop with a barrage of rocks, or simply hang them for their blasphemy? Stoning, in case you aren’t aware, is one of the penalties for homosexuality in the Muslim world. Hanging also seems to be a popular punishment.
Would these women go screeching to the media about Muslim bias against their “lifestyle”? If they did complain, would anyone make a big fuss or would they just keep out of it for fear of “offending” a Muslim business owner? I hope their next stop is at a bakery owned by a Muslim. I would really like to see the result of that visit. That situation would put the media and all of the “minority” groups in a tizzy. Who would they side with?
Where does this nonsense stop? Why is it that everyone has to bow down to the homosexual lifestyle, or Islam, or the NAACP, or any other “minority” group? Does freedom only apply to those with “issues”? I always thought freedom applies to all of us. Does “diversity” of thought include the thoughts of Christians? Does “diversity” of expression include Christians? Does “freedom of speech” include Christians? Apparently not!!!!!
I am also a Christian who believes homosexuality or heterosexual relations outside of marriage to be wrong. Does being against heterosexual couples living together and engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage make me a bigot also? What does one call that bigotry, heterophobia? Do Christians not have a right to live according to their firmly held religious beliefs? We are certainly expected, by Muslims and many judges and politicians, to allow Muslims to practice their religious beliefs and customs, even the parts that call for stoning of adulterers or honor killings.
Like most other Christians, including Victoria Childress, I don’t condemn others for their lifestyles, I simply disagree with them. Ms. Childress didn’t say anything tawdry about the couple, according to the article. Ms. Childress just expressed her views politely and let it go at that. Also mentioned in the article was a comment from another bakery owner who would be more than happy to bake the cake. Why is this a problem? It isn’t like these two can’t get a cake anywhere, others are happy to have their business.
Read the next couple of paragraphs very carefully and think about the point they make. Find the irrationality of those calling for a boycott of Victoria’s Cake Cottage. As far as a boycott, what will that accomplish? Ms. Childress seems to be boycotting homosexuals, yet that is unlawful according to homosexual activists. Homosexuals are going to boycott a business that doesn’t want their business. Does anyone besides me see the irony in this? I really can’t help but chuckle at this point.
If it is permissible for homosexuals to boycott Victoria’s Cake Cottage why isn’t it permissible for her to boycott homosexuals? Isn’t a boycott a boycott? Shouldn’t this cut both ways? Aren’t these homosexual groups practicing discrimination against Victoria’s Cake Cottage? They claim she is discriminating against them so they turn around and call for a boycott. If they don’t boycott every bakery equally isn’t that the definition of discrimination?
One of the biggest problems faced by this nation today is this very attitude of “tolerance”. We are told we must accept illegal aliens, who have a “right” to be here. We are told we must accept Islam and Sharia Law, because Muslims have “rights”. Christians are told we must accept a lifestyle that goes against our beliefs because these people have “rights”. I find it problematic that the “tolerance boat”, built by Christians who came here looking for freedom of religion, no longer has room for the Christians who built it. What about the rights of Christians to live our lives according to our beliefs? What about our “rights”?
If we are to be a truly tolerant society the tolerance has to go both ways, and it currently does not. If true tolerance were to be enforced, illegal aliens would be required to understand and “tolerate” my views about immigration. In a truly tolerant society homosexuals would be required to “tolerate” the fact that Ms. Childress and I disagree with their lifestyle and would rather they take their business elsewhere. A truly “tolerant” society would say the Congressional Black Caucus is required to admit white members of Congress. Muslims, in a truly “tolerant” society, would be required to accept that America has a Constitution and that Sharia law is unacceptable as it violates nearly every tenet of that Constitution. Muslims would have to “tolerate” our Constitution, and its Judeo-Christian basis, in a truly tolerant society.
If tolerance is not a two way street then it isn’t tolerance it is bullying. Whites are bullied by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on a regular basis. Christians are bullied by CAIR and homosexuals, among other special interest groups. American citizens are bullied by the ACLU, LaRaza and like organizations. Proponents of Right to Work are bullied by unions every day. Tolerance must be equal or it isn’t tolerance. If Victoria Childress and others like her are not allowed to live their lives according to their beliefs then tolerance isn’t anything other than brute force being used against someone these groups disagree with. Isn’t that the definition of bullying? Isn’t that the very thing they are fighting against? Can you spell HYPOCRISY?
I salute Ms. Childress for the way she handled this situation. She was forthright about her stand and refrained from making a big deal out of the situation. She did not “chastise” the couple; she merely chose not to participate in something she finds objectionable. From what I know of this situation she handled herself in a Christian manner with courage and firmness, yet with “tolerance”. She didn’t run to the media, she merely responded with the truth of her beliefs.
I hope that everyone reading this piece will show Ms. Childress their support. If you live in Des Moines or nearby, visit her shop. If not, go to her website and give her words of support. If possible, order something from her bakery and reward her for this stand for freedom of religion. If you live outside of Des Moines order some cookies or something that can be shipped. Let her know you appreciate her courage and her willingness to stand by her values and not be intimidated into surrendering her values or her freedom to live by those values.
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
November 26, 2011
The first thing the lesbian couple did was run to the news media, where they knew they and their whining and crying, “woe is me”, “I’ve been victimized” story would be coddled.
After years of denial or dismissal from the left, the mask of Hollywood has finally come off. However, it is not something that I imagine the “elite” of Tinsel Town really expected.
In interviews with what they thought to be a liberal reporter (because, come on- any “good” reporter worth sitting down with is liberal, right??) several Hollywood producers used words such as “idiots” and “medieval minds” when referring to conservatives.
In reality, all it takes is a baseball cap with a liberal college logo- Harvard- and the fact that the reporter’s last name is “Shapiro”, and you have the perfect scene for the latest expose’ of the liberal agenda.
Mr. Shapiro conducted the interviews for his book, Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV, which was just released this past Tuesday.
In reading what these executives had to say in the interviews with Mr. Shapiro, what I find more than just a little bit amusing is how in this day and age where you can find out anything about anyone with just a few keystrokes on a computer, it does not appear that very many, if any of the 39 Hollywood executives interviewed bothered to “google” the name Ben Shapiro. As Mr. Shapiro states,
“Most of them didn’t Google me. If they had, they would have realized where I am politically,” he said. “I played on their stereotypes. When I showed up for the interviews, I wore my Harvard Law baseball cap — my name is Ben Shapiro and I attended Harvard, so there’s a 98.7 percent chance I’m a liberal. Except I happen not to be.”
So it doesn’t look like the elite know so much after all!
One thing that I find quite interesting is how these people who claim to be so “tolerant” of others show their true colors! The truth is they are “tolerant” of people that have the same views as they do, but as soon as someone comes along who does not agree with their agenda they are not so tolerant after all.
Just more proof of the hypocrisy of the left.
In another quote from the article about Mr. Shapiro’s book:
Another video Shapiro will release shortly has producer-director Nicholas Meyer being asked point-blank whether conservatives are discriminated against in Hollywood. “Well, I hope so,” he answers. Meyer also admits his political agenda for “The Day After,” a TV movie he directed for ABC that was seen by 100 million people when it aired in 1983.
Wow! I’m guessing Mr. Meyer was not counting on that statement being made public!
I also find it very interesting that liberals have no problem at all pushing their agenda, yet if we conservatives- especially God-fearing, Bible believing, gun-toting conservatives just so much as breathe our beliefs or want to make a movie about our beliefs we are called bigoted, racists, extremists, and any other derogatory name they can think of.
The bottom line comes down to this: if you are a conservative with dreams of becoming a Hollywood star, you would do best to keep your mouth shut about your political beliefs or just find another dream to pursue.
Or, another idea: I say the conservatives in Hollywood ban together and revolt against this leftist agenda! In the modern age of the Internet, Netflix, and other options who needs the left? Who needs the network TV stations? And for that matter, who needs Primetime TV? There’s very little that comes out of Tinsel Town worth watching at all anymore anyway! On the rare occasion that something decent DOES come out it is canceled after half a season, or a complete season at most!
The leftist agenda has indeed taken over what is produced for TV. They have completely “dumbed down” what once was quality entertainment. Just like everything within the leftist agenda it’s been a slow process. But the slippery slope that began forty years ago has been quite successful. We are now left with “reality shows” and we call that entertainment.
I say let the leftist liberals continue their agenda on Primetime TV. Let Hollywood continue the downward spiral into the abyss they seem to crave. We conservatives can put our money- advertising funds, production funds, funds for conservative actors- whatever it takes- to create a conservative entertainment outlet. What that is I don’t know- I am a writer, not a movie or TV producer. But I know with the collective minds of the conservative movement the answer is out there!