You overestimate the moral integrity and underestimate the greed of the average American.

Dante would not agree with you. Standing up to power IS betrayal--betrayal of your sovereign lord, which is one of the categories of betrayal Dante specifically listed.

You may disagree with that equivalence, but your parent is right. Standing up to power lands you in the deepest circle of hell, according to Dante.

Try telling that to Scientologists. Or Mormons. Or Seventh Day Adventists. Or, for that matter, Catholics. All of them were invented at one point in the recent (or not so recent as the case may be) past.

The only thing that makes a church "legitimate" is that it has enough "followers" to be politically influential. Anything else is just post-facto rationalization.

What's wrong with a question mark? OR DID YOU WANT TO SHOUT?

This Post is a Choose-Your-Own-Post Post!

For Cheeky Sarcasm goto 10.
For Argument goto 20.
For Abuse goto 30.
For Mouthbreathing goto 40.

10 I knew Denmark had been going downhill, but I didn't know it was that bad over there.
20 [Citation Needed]
30 Stupid git.
40 *pant* *pant* *pant* *drool*

But who is going to bribe the politicians to pass employment laws?

...sometimes you have to start as the bottom.

Where did you learn to punctuate!

The point is that it isn't retaliation. Calling it that is disingenuous. Refusing to work for someone is not retaliation. Torching their car is retaliation. Harassing them at home is retaliation. Refusing to work for them is not retaliation.

Why is that so complicated to understand?

Says the guy with the anger management problem.

Because he wasn't the boss. If my colleague was a Klan member, I would just avoid them personally. It becomes very different if they're my boss.

Or are you really suggesting that people don't have the right of free association?

What I take personally is the constant, unending, pig-headed suggestion that because I hate (and I mean hate) Obama, I wasn't complaining about Bush when he did similar things.

I was.

And I actually voted for Obama, once.

But the constant parade of water-brained team players who come out to claim 'BUT THE OTHER GUY" every time another one of Obama's constitution-shredding sprees comes to light destroys productive conversation and helps ensure that nothing is done about the problem.

And I'm fucking sick and tired of it.

And I find it utterly infuriating when people like my parent post assume that if I criticize Obama (for being a lying, murdering, totalitarian prick) that it must mean I used to support Bush. I actually voted for Obama, once. I never voted for Bush. The auto-response that I "wasn't complaining about the same things when Bush was in office" is offensive, pig-headed, and only serves to derail productive discussion of the problem--hence the proposed addendum

No. The people who consider it unacceptable now considered it unacceptable then. They just didn't know about it then.

Nothing was used against him. People decided they did not want to work for or do business with someone whose beliefs they find distasteful. They have that right. He was not fired--the board knew about his beliefs and hired him anyway. He chose to resign because he would have been unable to run the organization anyway--because so many people refused to work with him. Again, they have that right. Suggesting they don't is to suggest that his free speech trumps their right of free association.

To use the good ol' reductio ad absurdum, if I found out tomorrow that my boss was making sizeable donations to the Klan, I would in fact start looking for new employment too. I don't want to associate with someone like that, and I don't want someone like that in the position of recommending or not recommending me in the future.

In other words, shunning is a perfectly legitimate response to bigotry. Which is all that happened in this case.

The fact that some "Non-profits" are corrupt doesn't change the meaning of the term.