This is the beginning of the Inquisition. And the sad thing is they don't even see the irony and the hypocrisy in their words.
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? Let’s go get them.
So, the Spanish Inquisition really never stopped. It just changed its name and its cause.
Yeah! Let's BLACKLIST THEM!! And let's not stop there! Let's PASS LAWS and ban them from using normal restaurants the rest of us use! Make a LAW that makes them use their own restaurants or even bars for their "own kind"!
Let's not stop there. Let's PASS LAWS that ban them from using the same public restrooms like the rest of us use! Make them hold it on or set up a separate bathroom. for them so I don't have to associate with them!!
Wow, I could never ever marry one of THEM. How disgusting! I would never let one of MY kids ever marry one of THEM!!
Yep! Just like Democrats that established Jim Crow laws and "separate but equal" we see the REAL FACE OF DEMOCRATS and Leftists. THEY ARE THE REAL BIGOTS.
And where did this start? WHERE DO YOU THINK? CALIFORNIA!
WSJ has an article about this:
Thomas's argument rested heavily on the facts of the Proposition 8 campaign, and it's worth quoting at length (we're omitting legal citations and shortening and adding links to news-media ones):
Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result. They cited these incidents in a complaint they filed after the 2008 election, seeking to invalidate California's mandatory disclosure laws. Supporters recounted being told: "Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter," or, "we have plans for you and your friends." Proposition 8 opponents also allegedly harassed the measure's supporters by defacing or damaging their property. Two religious organizations supporting Proposition 8 reportedly received through the mail envelopes containing a white powdery substance.
Those accounts are consistent with media reports describing Proposition 8-related retaliation. The director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater gave $1,000 to support the initiative; he was forced to resign after artists complained to his employer. The director of the Los Angeles Film Festival was forced to resign after giving $1,500 because opponents threatened to boycott and picket the next festival. [John Lott and Bradley Smith, The Wall Street Journal] And a woman who had managed her popular, family-owned restaurant for 26 years was forced to resign after she gave $100, because "throngs of [angry] protesters" repeatedly arrived at the restaurant and "shout[ed] 'shame on you' at customers." [Steve Lopez, Los Angeles Times]. The police even had to "arriv[e] in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob" at the restaurant. Ibid. Some supporters of Proposition 8 engaged in similar tactics; one real estate businessman in San Diego who had donated to a group opposing Proposition 8 "received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee threatening to publish his company's name if he didn't also donate to the 'Yes on 8' campaign."
The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. Before the 2008 Presidential election, a "newly formed nonprofit group . . . plann[ed] to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions." Its leader, "who described his effort as 'going for the jugular,' " detailed the group's plan to send a "warning letter . . . alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives." [New York Times news story]
These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements. But amici [friends of the court] present evidence of yet another reason to do so--the threat of retaliation from elected officials. As amici's submissions make clear, this threat extends far beyond a single ballot proposition in California. For example, a candidate challenging an incumbent state attorney general [in West Virginia] reported that some members of the State's business community feared donating to his campaign because they did not want to cross the incumbent; in his words, " 'I go to so many people and hear the same thing: "I sure hope you beat [the incumbent], but I can't afford to have my name on your records. He might come after me next." ' " [Kim Strassel, The Wall Street Journal]
Thomas's conclusion (quoting an earlier opinion of his own): "I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in "core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection. "
So now we read that CA passed a law requiring the database of contributors to be made public.
But what the Pro-Gay crowd doesn't understand is that this cuts BOTH WAYS. Next, we will start seeing who contributed to groups running AGAINST the ban on gay marriage will start to be targeted.
And when that happens, guess what? There will then be an outcry that the information should be reverted to being confidential again!