pro prop 8 hypocrisy

[smileyeagle1021]

I found an interesting little tidbit... there is now a blacklist on the internet (antigayblacklist.com) advocating the boycott of businesses and individuals who have donated to prop 8. Prop 8 supporters are saying that this is an attempt to limit their free speech. 2 problems with this, first, they did it first when they tried to blackmail businesses that opposed prop 8 by sending letters saying "either donate to us to or we release your name as a prop 8 opponent" (hey, turnabout is fair play), second the Constitution guarantees free speech, it doesn't guarantee that there won't be any consequences to your speech... and sorry, but passing the first law to ever revoke an existing right (if gay marriage hadn't been allowed before in California this would be a different discussion, but it was allowed whether or not you think it should have been) is something that is going to piss off a lot of people. And as an aside, they have the freedom to express themselves by donating to a cause... those who disagree with that cause are free to express themselves by boycotting them... both sides have freedoms, so sorry that the supporters don't like that freedoms can be costly.

Once again we have a group of people who are pissed because they reaped what they sowed, not much different than the people who were stupid enough to get loans they can't afford and go crying to Uncle Sam when they get forclosed on.

[Rapscallion]

The US constitution only guarantees that the government will not impede the free speech of the citizens of the US. People were quite able to extend their freedom of speech by using their companies and the money thereof to support or campaign against a measure. Likewise, there's no problem with the freedom of an anti prop 8 person giving others accurate information about something that may trouble them and allowing them to act accordingly.

Seems clear enough to me.

Rapscallion

[DrT]

This is a nice example of the old mentality: wanting something but not willing to pay for it.

Freedom ain't free. Actions have consequences, etc.

[AdminAssistant]

I like how Scott Adams explains it, "You are free to be abused for your opinions. But the government will only watch, not participate."

[daleduke17]

One of the questions I have on this is why are people from Illinois, Arizona, Nevada and Utah donating money to an election cause in California?

[AFPheonix]

Because if Prop 8 had been struck down, it would have provided legal precedence to strike down other states' anti-gay marriage laws. That scares a lot of people for some reason or another.

[SorryIsGoodEnough]

It's such a disgusting cycle.

I was looking at PerezHilton.com, and he has so many entries about the LDS church being SO intolerant, and Mormons being SO intolerant, but lo and behold, he brings them down whenever he can. He makes sweeping generalizations about Latter Day Saints...because Latter Day Saints (all of them, right?) make sweeping generalizations about homosexuals.

As a bisexual member of the Church, (and I actually confessed to it, and I wasn't excommunicated...funny that...) I find it brings a sour taste to my mouth.

Good. Boycott those businesses, you hypocrites. I won't be. I don't agree with the passing of Prop 8, but people have a right to believe it should have been passed.


It's freedom OF speech. It's freedom OF religion.

Not freedom FROM them.

[smileyeagle1021]

Sorry is Good Enough, I'm glad to hear that you have a very kind and understanding Bishop... I wish more could be like him. I think if I were to talk to my bishop his response would be along the lines of stay celebate and you're ok... that said, I know 3 people who have been excommunicated, one for being gay, one for getting involved with alcohol and drugs, and one because he lived with people who violated church rules... that's right, he did nothing wrong except associate with the wrong people and he got exed. So please, don't tell me about how people boycotting businesses are hypocrites, because even if they are, it is no where near the hypocrasy shown by the LDS church in it's current dealings (eta, I speak of course of the fact that the Church at least used to claim to have a policy of no interference in politics, and the fact that free agency, which they have effectively denied gay couples, is one of the cornerstones of the faith, and with the people I mentioned being in contradiction to the church's message of love and caring and trying to bring people closer to Christ and instead pushing people away, at least one for no other reason than he had crappy roommates).

edit- FTR, I have no problems with Mormons, or really the mormon church, just the church's current leadership.

[Flyndaran]

It's no secret that I don't like religion. But aside from that, I REALLY don't like religion in my government. Any law based soley on religion should be struck down. Enshrining discrimination of any kind in laws, let alone those based soley on religion is an affront to everything I value and supposedly what this country stands for.
Anyone that wants such laws is a domestic threat to this nation regardless of first amendment rights.

[Slytovhand]

Ah Flyn - how I'd love for that to be true.

Too bad most of the rest of your country folk don't really agree with you. After all, look at all the hoo-ha that was made over Obama apparently being Muslim. Like that was some sort of evil thing.

I'd suggest coming over this way. The vast majority of the population wouldn't even know if our ministers have a particular religion or not (though they may assume... and if they're atheist, not that many would really care... other than the obvious groups).

Of course, we still have that whole gay marriage debarcle here anyway... but that's mere ignorance and intolerance, rather than a religious discrimination... you don't as often hear 'God' get mentioned, nor Bibles.

[anriana]

I think it's a great idea. I already avoid business who display symbols of Abrahmic religion; this is a way to avoid businesses with belief systems I don't want to fund who don't put up symbols.

The references to McCarthyism are amusing. "This website is collecting and displaying publicly available fiscal data so stinky liberals won't give me any more of their business... that is the same thing as improvable accusations of Communism ruining my career and life for the next 30 years! I need to get out of here before Congress summons me to a hearing!"

It's such a disgusting cycle.

I was looking at PerezHilton.com, and he has so many entries about the LDS church being SO intolerant, and Mormons being SO intolerant, but lo and behold, he brings them down whenever he can. He makes sweeping generalizations about Latter Day Saints...because Latter Day Saints (all of them, right?) make sweeping generalizations about homosexuals.

As a bisexual member of the Church, (and I actually confessed to it, and I wasn't excommunicated...funny that...) I find it brings a sour taste to my mouth.

There's a post in the thread about LDS about how the head bishop (prophet?) for the church is very anti-gay.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/...on-of-marriage

This is a press release by the LDS church with several scriptural quotes backing their intolerance of homosexuality and strict gender roles (just reading it pisses me off, ugg). It flat up says that gay marriage would destroy civilization if legalized.

If someone willing defines themself as belonging to a church whose leadership and Scripture proclaims things, then they deserve to be classified as someone who follows that leadership and believes that Scripture. Otherwise what is the point of claiming adherence to that religion? Can I say "Yeah, I'm Mormon, but I don't agree with anything the leadership says, most of the moral teachings of the Scripture or the sanctity of a bunch of scattered scrolls and gold plates, or the holiness and sin-redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ? I also don't tithe, attend temple, take the Lord's Supper, evangelize, pray, or believe in Yahweh or the sanctity of Joseph Smith? but yeah man, I'm totally Mormon and I don't hate gay people; how dare you classify all Mormon as intolerant hate-mongerers just because their leadership quotes Scripture to support calling gay people confused destroyers of civilization?" What about "I'm Mormon, I go to temple, I agree with the basic tenets of the Scripture, and I pray to God a lot. I completely disagree with everything the leadership says most of the time and I don't hate gay people so I don't appreciate your classification?"

Where do you draw the line?

This is especially true when the religion in question demands monetary support from its members. Anyone who tithes to the Mormon church supported defeating this Prop financially.

Good. Boycott those businesses, you hypocrites. I won't be. I don't agree with the passing of Prop 8, but people have a right to believe it should have been passed.

And do people not also have a right to react to those people's beliefs?

It's freedom OF speech. It's freedom OF religion.

Not freedom FROM them.

What an interesting interpretation. I would be very interested to hear exactly how this blacklist relates to Congress establishing laws regarding speech/religion. I would also be interested to hear exactly how it is possible to establish freedom OF religion without including the freedom to abstain FROM religion. I would also like to hear how a clause prohibiting Congress from establishing a religion does not mean that we have freedom from the govermnent establishing religious laws.


I also scrolled through Perez Hilton's website and only found one article related to the LDS impact on Prop 8: http://perezhilton.com/2008-11-15-th...s-are-to-blame. Do you disagree that the tithes of Mormon church members that bankrolled the No on Prop 8 campaign contributed to the prop being defeated? Do you disagree that the leaders of the Mormon church are hate-filled? Do you disagree that they are proud of it in the Times articles?

[Boozy]

Perez Hilton is an idiot man-child who specializes in drawing semen trickling from the mouths of celebrities. Why are we even talking about him? Who cares what he thinks?

[Slytovhand]

This is a press release by the LDS church with several scriptural quotes backing their intolerance of homosexuality and strict gender roles (just reading it pisses me off, ugg). It flat up says that gay marriage would destroy civilization if legalized.

If someone willing defines themself as belonging to a church whose leadership and Scripture proclaims things, then they deserve to be classified as someone who follows that leadership and believes that Scripture. Otherwise what is the point of claiming adherence to that religion? Can I say "Yeah, I'm Mormon, but I don't agree with anything the leadership says, most of the moral teachings of the Scripture or the sanctity of a bunch of scattered scrolls and gold plates, or the holiness and sin-redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ? I also don't tithe, attend temple, take the Lord's Supper, evangelize, pray, or believe in Yahweh or the sanctity of Joseph Smith? but yeah man, I'm totally Mormon and I don't hate gay people; how dare you classify all Mormon as intolerant hate-mongerers just because their leadership quotes Scripture to support calling gay people confused destroyers of civilization?" What about "I'm Mormon, I go to temple, I agree with the basic tenets of the Scripture, and I pray to God a lot. I completely disagree with everything the leadership says most of the time and I don't hate gay people so I don't appreciate your classification?"

Where do you draw the line?

This is especially true when the religion in question demands monetary support from its members. Anyone who tithes to the Mormon church supported defeating this Prop financially.

Anriana - you'll notice throughout Fratching that you and I often take opposite sides of the fence.

On this one - I am so with you!!! (Ped - is that another sign of the apocalypse? )

Actually - with about all of your post... though your first line has me a bit confused... what's the deal there??

perez Hilton... I think I've heard the name - and Boozy's post makes me not really want to know any more (see how much I look up to you for wisdom and guidance in my life?? )

But I see not a lot wrong with choosing to boycott or not as one desires - other than the possible fact of - 'who the hell is getting this information, where from, and isn't that an invasion of privacy'??? I should be allowed to make donations to anyone I feel like, anonymously - as far as the rest of society is concerned - as long as it's not a political donation over a set amount that needs to be audited for inappropriateness (ie - a bribe).

[smileyeagle1021]

I should be allowed to make donations to anyone I feel like, anonymously - as far as the rest of society is concerned - as long as it's not a political donation over a set amount that needs to be audited for inappropriateness (ie - a bribe).

you would think, but in the United States any donation over a certain amount (I'm not sure how much it is) needs to be reported... and for publicly traded companies all donations need to be reported (which makes sense, if I'm going to buy stock I want to know where every penny of that company's money is going).

and I (oddly enough) have to disagree with Slyt and Anriana... when they say it is impossible to be a member of the church and be a tolerant open minded individual... there is a growing number of people who disagree with the current First Presidency. I'd like to have hope that eventually the Church will get new leadership and update their ways.

[anriana]

Slyvtohand - I was talking about the businesses around here that put up icthys and crosses in their shopwindows.

and I (oddly enough) have to disagree with Slyt and Anriana... when they say it is impossible to be a member of the church and be a tolerant open minded individual... there is a growing number of people who disagree with the current First Presidency. I'd like to have hope that eventually the Church will get new leadership and update their ways.

That wasn't quite my point. I completely understand that people have more than one aspect, and the religious side doesn't always match the sexual or political or spiritual or whatever. I don't think I've ever known a single religious person who was 100% aligned with their religion. Every one that I've met disagreed with leadership or specific tenets in some way.

I just think it's silly for those religious people to claim adherence to a specific denomination/religion and then get upset when other people make statements about the faith based on official Scripture and prepared statements by the faith's leader. If it upsets someone to be lumped in with their leaders and Scriptures like that, they shouldn't call themself the same things. Go be a "liberal member of the Church of Latter Day Saints" or make up "Unitarian Mormons" or something.