The project head added this CoC with unanimous approval from current contributors.

The right to marry is a different thing than a duty for others to recognize your marriage.

To exercise your right to marry, find your marriage partner and marry them. No outside parties are involved in this process.

Liar. A contract can exist without government recognition and enforcement. Eich did not campaign to interfere with homosexual marriage contracts. He donated to the cause of conserving the traditional legal definition of marriage, which does not prevent homosexual marriage contracts from being formed.

You're not going to like it when you eat those words in the future. You will be hounded from society, because your actions and behaviors have consequences.

Just remember that you brought it on yourself when you used those very tactics on people who were perfectly happy to live and let live.

Point me to the public figure who has been fired for making a donation to a pro-gay marriage organization like Eich. False accusations to create a moral equivalence do not work because they are false.

But since you find it acceptable to fire people because they are personally against gay marriage, I hope you enjoy the future where people are in turn fired for being personally for gay marriage. "Your actions and behaviors have consequences", after all.

There is no right to have your marriage recognized by the state or by society.

There is no justification for the thought policing you wish to impose on Eich.

But that is the way of Social Justice. Point, Shriek, Persecute.

Rule #1 of SJWs - SJWs Always Lie.

SJWs are identified by their behavior, not their skin color or sex. It is quite typical for SJWs to be white males.

Bringing up white and male is irrelevant and your "no indication" assertion is falsified by observed wikipedia editor behavior.

My bad. "Criminal threat" is probably the more appropriate analog.

Bearing in mind that the crime also needs to have provable harm - "someone else might do something bad after they hear you" is a very broad net.

Put another way - it needs to have a clear way to weed out false positives, or it will be abused.

Online disagreement is the exact same thing as criminal charges with associated penalties.

Which Christians are you talking about?

Looking at the history of Islam and Europe, 1000 years ago ...

• 1012: Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, founder of the Druze sect and sixth Fatimid Caliph in Egypt, orders the destruction of all Christian and Jewish houses of worship in his lands.
• 1012: Berber forces capture Cordova and order that half the population be executed.
• 1013: Jews are expelled from the Umayyad Caliphate of Cordova, then ruled by Sulaimann.
• 1015: Arab Muslim forces conquer Sardinia.

The first Crusades don't happen until almost 100 years later, in 1096, after yet more Islamic conquest and expansion.

So 1000 years ago, Muslims were conquering nations and killing unbelievers. Why are you downplaying Islamic violence by creating a false equivalence with Christians?

There's a crime for that already, it's called "assault". (legally defined as credible threat of violence)

Creating new words to describe an existing crime doesn't help to stop it. However, the creation of "hate speech" does set the stage to criminalize badthink.

So go ahead and embrace your actual position - you want thought police.

Funny philosophy you've got there.

You were making some bizarre accusations, so I'm just checking to see if you finally connected the dots or not.

Your choice is incorrect.

What is it with you and your bizarre accusations?

Let me remind you that this was my request:

Do you dispute that the Paris shootings were terrorist shootings?

The Paris shootings don't belong if we only want to look at the effect of US gun law ... see, you can make distinctions when it suits you.

That's not the harm that we were talking about. And you're going to whine about me bringing up Paris as an example of terrorist caused death?

Don't move the goalposts. Compare terrorist caused shooting deaths to the number of innocent bystanders harmed by individuals shooting in self defense.

You don't have the integrity to make deals. When are you going to start retracting the bizarre accusations you made against me?

Not so interested in talking about greenhouse warming now, eh? So now you know - the train is fine.

Your actions are louder than your words.

I don't need to convince you, I'm just pointing out how dishonest and incredible you are to everyone else. No one cares what a dishonest word-twisting illiterate moron like you thinks.

Dishonest liar. You said the harm was the same. I just pointed out that the harm is not the same.

See how he creates a new fantasy where I never brought up the Paris and San Bernardino shootings.

Did I change the subject between 2 consecutive questions, or did you fail reading comprehension?

How do greenhouses work? What mechanics drive greenhouse warming?

So you create your own fantasy where the people trying to stop mass shooters are not on anyone's side, and then use that to say "friendly fire" cannot possibly be used here.

No one cares about your internal fantasies.

Afraid to find out, are you?

Between Paris and San Bernardino, 129 + 14 = 143 innocents killed by terrorists, not to mention the wounded.

In that same time period, "gullible ideologues" in mass shootings racked up a count of 0.

Are those numbers the same?

What is factually incorrect about that statement?

Define "friendly fire" and how the usage is incorrect.

List the number of people shot by terrorists and the number of people shot by "gullible ideologues".

Desperate for attention, eh?

Lie all you want, putting words in my mouth won't make them mine.

I used "friendly fire" as friendly fire. You used "friendly fire" for an event that wasn't.

Doesn't matter. You treat the criminals who use guns to harm others as the same category as citizens using guns in self defense.

You are dishonest with your words. Liar.

A prevented mass shooting is never going to be "conclusive", you mouth breathing idiot.

That's why no one cares about your goalpost shift asking for "conclusive" evidence.

Those aren't examples of innocent bystanders shot by citizen shooters defending against mass shooters. You're too stupid to follow the topic of discussion.