Let’s stop pretending that America believes in free speech. I know we all want to believe we still believe in it, we want to scream desperately from the roof tops that America still practices and believes in free speech. The truth is that we don’t.

If America believed in free speech former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich would still have a job. He shared his opinion on the topic of marriage via a monetary donation, a form of speech, and was ousted. Eich “let his voice be heard” by contributing to a cause he believed in and Mozilla, along with the most intolerant and hateful gay activists demanded that he be fired.

If America believe in free speech Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, would not have been banned from the NBA and fined $2.5 million for making racists remarks. Sterling simply shared his own personal views and as a result a media firestorm and public outcry has been overwhelming against him. Some have even demanded the NBA force him to sell the Clippers. (How exactly do you ban an owner of a team? How do you force someone to sell something they own?)

Before anyone gets the impression I’m defending racist comments let me be clear: racism is an immoral sinful practice. Oh, you didn’t know it was a moral problem or sinful? Rejecting a person created in the image of God is certainly a moral issue. Open discrimination against such a person is nothing short of sinful. (By the way, why was the NAACP set to give Sterling an award, again, if he had a record of racism?)

The issue here, however, is not the moral repugnance of racism. The issue here is the idea that we are pretending to be a nation built on free speech when we’re not; at least not anymore. What once made this country great is that we actually believed people had a right to say what they believed, even if we disagreed. We didn’t have to like everything people said because we knew what true tolerance was and how to exercise it. No longer, now we demand conformity. Rather than freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and speech, we simply advocate and practice conformity.

Most troubling with both the Eich and Sterling cases is that free speech has been raked over the coals and is now on life support. And let’s not forget privacy. Somehow in all the media furor over the Sterling case the media has conveniently forgot to discuss the fact that Sterling’s comments were illegally taped and his privacy rights were completely violated. Even ESPN commentator Jason Whitlock, a black man, admitted as much:

“A right to privacy is at the very foundation of American freedoms. It’s a core value. It’s a mistake to undermine a core value because we don’t like the way a billionaire exercises it. What happens when a disgruntled lover gives TMZ a tape of a millionaire athlete expressing a homophobic or anti-Semitic or anti-white perspective?”

Wait a minute. Is Whitlock suggesting that anti-gay, anti-Jewish people exist here in America? There’s no such thing as black on white violence, hate, or racism in America? Just ask Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They will be glad to lie through their teeth and tell you racism is a “white thing.” And the media is all too happy to ignore the black on white racism and violence – i.e. the “knockout game,” – in order to tell white people just how racist we are.

Whitlock, whom I disagree with often, is correct in this instance. Just because one person misuses a right doesn’t mean others should have to fear it being taken away. Many people abuse and misuses the freedom and privilege of driving, consuming alcohol, owning firearms, and eating. But no one wants to take those freedoms away. Yes, I know liberal gun-grabbers would like to take our guns away. Unless of course you are a violent criminal or terrorist in another country, then the U.S. would be happy to supply you with weapons.

The point is that just because one person makes a stupid statement his freedoms don’t disappear. And if they do we should all be worried about other freedoms disappearing. If the government or any other entity believes it has the right to violate another person’s civil or constitutional rights, we should all be fearful.

Rush Limbaugh recently speculated that Orlando Magic owner Rich DeVoss will be the next NBA target because of his views on gay marriage.

“So Rich DeVos, Mr. Amway — he happens to be one of the greatest patriots this country has ever seen. Rich DeVos happens to have donated and supported some of the greatest causes in this country, but it doesn’t matter ’cause he doesn’t have his mind right on gay marriage.”

Why not? If the NBA can ban one owner because of his views on race, why can’t they ban another owner for his views on marriage? After all, isn’t that what we’ve been told for years, that race and sexual orientation are analogous? That there is really no difference between the color of a person’s skin and their preferred sexual orientation? So if the NBA is going to ban Sterling doesn’t it have not just a right, but a responsibility to ban Rich DeVos for his “intolerant, bigoted, hateful,” views?

And, if the NBA is going to ban Sterling and Devos for their views shouldn’t it do an inquiry of every coach, player, staff member, janitor, and fan to make sure no one else holds these horrible views? If an owner is not allowed to be part of the NBA for holding these views surely a player, coach, or fan should not be allowed, right?

So tell me, where does it stop? Where do the PC thought police stop their unholy inquisition into the lives of American citizens?

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist, among other things, made an interesting distinction between the Sterling and Eich cases that should be considered. Sullivan wrote:

“If an owner of a business makes baldly racist remarks urging public dissociation from an entire racial group, private sector sanctions – from the NBA or fans or sponsors – are “permissible.” They are always permissible in a free country. That’s why Brendan Eich is out of a job. The second question is whether what is permissible is proper or justified, and that will always depend on the specific case. I think it’s obviously appropriate in the Sterling case – because the remarks are horrifyingly racist. If Brendan Eich had made comments telling his friends to keep away from faggots, if he’d used any such terminology or had ever been shown to have discriminated against gays in the workplace or in his daily interactions, then his case would be very similar. But no such comments are in the public or private record, and there’s zero evidence that he ever acted in the workplace to harm gay employees. Au contraire, which is why gay Mozilla employees were divided about his ouster, with some supporting him. Sterling’s remarks, in contrast, reveal him to be a crude, foul bigot – which is why there is no division at all among African-Americans in the league – or beyond the league – about his fate.”

I, along with others, disagree with Sullivan on one point. He said the African American community was united in their support for the sanctions against Sterling. Jason Whitlock disagrees:

“The conversation revolving around Donald Sterling is unsophisticated, and so was the heavy-handed punishment. They’re driven by emotion rather than logic. It does not serve the greater good of the offended black community. Sterling is a scapegoat.”

But Denny Burke, while agreeing with the distinction by Sullivan, further agreed that the precedent set forth by the NBA will result in the persecution of Christians for their beliefs. Burke said:

“There are many people in America who will not see the distinction that Sullivan is drawing here. And many of those people will cite the NBA’s precedent as a basis for private sector sanctions against Christians who hold a traditional view on marriage. I do not deny that such will probably happen at some point in the future.”

To be fair, Andrew Sullivan, though a gay activist, has excoriated the gay community for their treatment of Brenden Eich and believes they were wrong in the way it was handled. I give him credit for that.

Both Sullivan and Burke are right in their belief that sanctions of some sort against Sterling were needed, but that what the NBA has done will result in the violation of civil and constitutional rights for Christians. The NBA has effectively told Christians that their views on marriage and homosexuality are not permitted. In doing so they have not only violated their religious freedom rights but their free speech rights as well.

Sadly most people have not given this any thoughts. They have not considered the implications of this fiasco for others in the NBA with unpopular views, as well as every day Americans with the same views. What happens when Blake Griffin, an openly Christian man, answers a question and says he supports traditional marriage? Will the NBA ban him for life? If they don’t they will be guilty of a heinous form of hypocrisy. If they do they will be guilty of violating his free speech and religious freedom rights.

This is the duplicitous dichotomy created by liberal “group think” conformist ideology. Suddenly there’s loop holes and exclusions as the liberal elite pick and choose who to punish and why. The Constitution is supposed to apply evenly to every person, regardless of circumstances, but when you make the rules up as you go it’s hard to keep track of what the rules are.