PDA

View Full Version : "It's Time to Speak Out Against The 'Mormon Boycott'"



LA Ute
12-05-2008, 11:03 AM
Well, this post on The American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/its_time_to_speak_out_against.html)ought to produce some fun here. (Seattle, come out, come out, wherever you are!)

The opening paragraph:


Supporters of gay marriage have reacted with anger at the passage of California Proposition 8, which amended the California state constitution to provide that only marriages that fit the traditional definition (one man, one woman) will be recognized. The resulting protest movement has devolved into anti-Mormon bigotry which has been met with silence by liberal civil rights groups. The anti-Mormon fervor has become so nasty, and is growing at such a pace, that it is time to speak out against the "Mormon boycott."

The author then goes on to detail a number of anti-mormon activities. I thought the post was quite interesting; I wasn't aware of all the anti-Mormon activity that is planned. I suppose Seattle and a few others here will view all of this with a sort of grim satisfaction (along with a bit of glee), and others will try to be objective but say the Church has this coming and should have known that it would get lots of flak for its pro-Prop 8 activities. A few brave souls will express outrage.

I'll just pose my favorite question: What if the Orthodox Jewish community had gotten behind Prop 8 in a big way, raised lots of money, and were prominent in grass-roots organizing. Subsitute "Orthodox Jewish" for "Mormon" in the activities and statements chronicled on the American Thinker post. Would you find that acceptable?

Whattaya think?

RobinFinderson
12-05-2008, 11:24 AM
First, much of the conduct of the protesters is genuinely terrible. Sending 'white powder' to various temples should buy the would-be-terrorist some serious jail time, where s/he can consider what such acts of terrorism can do to the social fabric of this country.

But boycotting, protesting, sign making, and name calling are all par for the course.

RobinFinderson
12-05-2008, 11:27 AM
And personally, I would limit boycotts to known material contributors to Prop 8. Church affiliation alone doesn't justify a boycott. I'm grateful to my many gay friends and family who were patient with me as I resolved my issues with the Mormon church and its homophobia.

SeattleUte
12-05-2008, 11:28 AM
Well, I have a few thoughts. First, I don't see anything going on here that isn't legal, in fact isn't fully protected by the First Amendment. If you brought a lawsuit trying to enjoin encouragement of the listed boycotts I'm sure you'd not only lose but also be sanctioned by the court for bringing a frivolous lawsuit, and I don't say that about many lawsuits.

Second, LA, with all due respect, and I do respect you a lot, your crack about Orthodox Jews is reprehensible, it's not what I consider to be worthy or even ethical dialogue. (It's the stock in trade of Il Padrino.) If they're involved in this in some way, fine, bring them in and have at it. But to my knowledge, they're not. It's one thing to say that Orthodox Jews believe bad things or have bad values, it's quite another to say they are a coddled class in our society when they've done you no harm.

In fact, you're wrong about Orthodox Jews being a protected class. An Orthodox Jew couldn't get as close to being president as Romney has--if irreligious folks have anything to say about it--for one thing because Orthodox Jews are creationists and bilblical literalists. To the extent you see me as representing what you're condemning in society, note I have said that teaching your children creationism is to me like circumcizing women, and I include Orthodox Jews in that criticism (on the other hand it's as important to teach the creation myth as the Iliad). Moreover, Orthodox Jews are citicized all the time in intellectual mags for chicanery in Israel. One reason you don't hear more criticism of Orthodox Jews is that they don't get involved as often as Mormons in socially conservative political causes like Proposition 8.

But there is another reason why Jews and Catholics get more respect than Mormons (that's what you're talking about at bottom). Not so long ago (in the overall scheme of things) there was little more than Catholicism and Judaism in Western civilization and culture, besides some critical and positive influence from Islamic countries, themselves offsprung from Judeo-Christianity. Even Maxwell used the term "Judeo-Christian." "Catholicism" really didn't have the meaning it has today until the protestant reformation. Until Martin Luther, Catholics were Christians. Catholicism or Christianity--if you will--itself was a fusion of Judaism and that Classical element of our civilization that led to secularism (code named "paganism" in Maxwell's speech). Mormonism is seen by secularists (who give Mormonism much thought) as a recent derivative, that rejects some of the better parts of this "Judeo-Christian" tradition referenced by Maxwell.

il Padrino Ute
12-05-2008, 11:35 AM
Second, LA, with all due respect, and I do respect you a lot, your crack about Orthodox Jews is reprehensible, it's not what I consider to be worthy or even ethical dialogue. (It's the stock in trade of Il Padrino.) If they're involved in this in some way, fine, bring them in and have at it. But to my knowledge, they're not. It's one thing to say that Orthodox Jews believe bad things or have bad values, it's quite another to say they are a coddled class in our society when they've done you no harm.

That was a nice little shot at me, but you completely missed the point LA was making.

He didn't make any comments about Orthodox Jews. He only asked to consider what would be happening if the Orthodox Jews had been behind Prop 8 the way Mormons did.

So, read his post again and make an attempt to actually answer his question rather than twist it to your advantage.

SeattleUte
12-05-2008, 11:42 AM
That was a nice little shot at me, but you completely missed the point LA was making.

He didn't make any comments about Orthodox Jews. He only asked to consider what would be happening if the Orthodox Jews had been behind Prop 8 the way Mormons did.

So, read his post again and make an attempt to actually answer his question rather than twist it to your advantage.

Have you ever heard of a rhetorical question? Do you think they're real questions? Think about why such a question is called rhetorical.

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 12:03 PM
And personally, I would limit boycotts to known material contributors to Prop 8. Church affiliation alone doesn't justify a boycott. I'm grateful to my many gay friends and family who were patient with me as I resolved my issues with the Mormon church and its homophobia.

What do you mean when you refer to the Church's "homophobia?" Are you really arguing that defining marriage traditionally, as between a man and a woman, is homophobic?

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 12:06 PM
Second, LA, with all due respect, and I do respect you a lot, your crack about Orthodox Jews is reprehensible, it's not what I consider to be worthy or even ethical dialogue. (It's the stock in trade of Il Padrino.) If they're involved in this in some way, fine, bring them in and have at it. But to my knowledge, they're not. It's one thing to say that Orthodox Jews believe bad things or have bad values, it's quite another to say they are a coddled class in our society when they've done you no harm.

Counselor, you are too smart for this. I made no "crack" about Orthodox Jews. In fact, the only "crack" involved here may have something to do with what you are smoking! (DISCLAIMER: A bad and fully intended in jest.)

Seriously, my friend, get real and re-read my post! And for once, answer my question. It's actually a pretty good one, if I do say so myself. Here it is again:


What if the Orthodox Jewish community had gotten behind Prop 8 in a big way, raised lots of money, and were prominent in grass-roots organizing. Subsitute "Orthodox Jewish" for "Mormon" in the activities and statements chronicled on the American Thinker post. Would you find that acceptable?

In other words, would a boycott of Orthodox Jewish businesses be acceptable? Would it be acceptable to tell companies with Orthodox Jewish executives that you won't support them because you don't want to put any money in the pocket of an Orthodox Jew? And so on.

Come on, counselor, you know a defense can be mounted for anything. Defend that.

SeattleUte
12-05-2008, 12:38 PM
Counselor, you are too smart for this. I made no "crack" about Orthodox Jews. In fact, the only "crack" involved here may have something to do with what you are smoking! (DISCLAIMER: A bad and fully intended in jest.)

Seriously, my friend, get real and re-read my post! And for once, answer my question. It's actually a pretty good one, if I do say so myself. Here it is again:


What if the Orthodox Jewish community had gotten behind Prop 8 in a big way, raised lots of money, and were prominent in grass-roots organizing. Subsitute "Orthodox Jewish" for "Mormon" in the activities and statements chronicled on the American Thinker post. Would you find that acceptable?

In other words, would a boycott of Orthodox Jewish businesses be acceptable? Would it be acceptable to tell companies with Orthodox Jewish executives that you won't support them because you don't want to put nay money in the pocket of an Orthodox Jew? And so on.

Come on, counselor, you know a defense can be mounted for anything. Defend that.

I answered your (rhetorical) question. Maybe you were too busy defending your honor to notice. I believe Orthodox Jews would be treated as harshly as Mormons, and they are criticized. YOur reasoning is circular because they likely would not get involved in something like Prop. 8 and that's why they're not being criticized. Do you have evidence they are as institutionally or monolitically and insidiously involved as Mormons? I also explained why Judiasim and Catholicism are more respected than Mormonism.

UtahDan
12-05-2008, 01:16 PM
Whattaya think?

I will take as a given that we do not get the same treatment as other faiths who have been around longer. A more interesting question to me is why that should be.

Another way to think about your question is what if we were talking about Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists which are also churches born in America during the 19th century.

I think that the suggestion that underlies your question (maybe it doesn't) is that Mormons are treated unfairly because of what we believe. I think that my observation above that other newer churches would receive similar treatment under similar circumstance undercuts that argument.

I have said elsewhere that our status as embattled and persecuted is nearly sine qua non in LDS culture, but the truth is that outside of areas where there are a lot of LDS, and even there sometimes, people know very little about us if they know anything at all. What they do know is usually wrong. We are not well known or understood at all. This is what I attribute the disparity in treatment to. I still think that best response on our part is gentle correction rather than scandalized outrage. It is nice to see some other churches coming to our defense, however. That is the best of all worlds.

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 01:18 PM
I answered your (rhetorical) question. Maybe you were too busy defending your honor to notice. I believe Orthodox Jews would be treated as harshly as Mormons, and they are criticized. YOur reasoning is circular because they likely would not get involved in something like Prop. 8 and that's why they're not being criticized. Do you have evidence they are as institutionally or monolitically and insidiously involved as Mormons? I also explained why Judiasim and Catholicism are more respected than Mormonism.

No, you didn't. Let's try again:

Would a boycott of Orthodox Jewish businesses be acceptable? Would it be acceptable to tell companies with Orthodox Jewish executives that you won't support them because you don't want to put any money in the pocket of an Orthodox Jew?

Not a very hard set of questions to understand.

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 01:26 PM
I still think that best response on our part is gentle correction rather than scandalized outrage. It is nice to see some other churches coming to our defense, however. That is the best of all worlds.

I am not aware of much "scandalized outrage," at least as I understand that term, so I don't know what you are referring to. If you are referring to my comments, then I think you need to re-think your definition.

I do think intelligent discussion and inquiry is very important. I think people who share Seattle's disdain (and that is putting it mildly) for Mormonism need to be called to account. The same people who chuckle at the retribution being leveled against Mormons would be scandalized if the same activities were directed at Jews or Muslims.

As a personal matter, I do not tell religious jokes (except about Mormons, to other Mormons) and I won't laugh at them. To me that's just common decency. In an arena like this, which is really a debate and discussion forum, I want people like Seattle to explain and account for their defense of indecent behavior.

SeattleUte
12-05-2008, 01:30 PM
No, you didn't. Let's try again:

Would a boycott of Orthodox Jewish businesses be acceptable? Would it be acceptable to tell companies with Orthodox Jewish executives that you won't support them because you don't want to put any money in the pocket of an Orthodox Jew?

Not a very hard set of questions to understand.

Your hypo is tortured and unrealistic, but if I suspend belief, and imagine Orthodox Jews going out and prosecuting push polls, conspicously raising and donating money for Prop. 8, I say yes, consequences would be similar, including boycotts and reactions to boycotts. I say similar and not the same because as Dan and I have noted, the older faiths are treated with more respect and I think not unreasonably. Is it unreasonable that Mormons are treated more respectfully than Moonies or Scientologists?

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 01:36 PM
Your hypo is tortured and unrealistic, but if I suspend belief, and imagine Orthodox Jews going out and prosecuting push polls, conspicously raising and donating money for Prop. 8, I say yes, consequences would be similar, including boycotts and reactions to boycotts. I say similar and not the same because as Dan and I have noted, the older faiths are treated with more respect and I think not unreasonably. Is it unreasonable that Mormons are treated more respectfully than Moonies or Scientologists?

I will try yet again:

Would a boycott of Orthodox Jewish businesses be acceptable? Would it be acceptable to tell companies with Orthodox Jewish executives that you won't support them because you don't want to put any money in the pocket of an Orthodox Jew?

You changed my question. The word is "acceptable." Also, you added facts. Maybe you could just answer the question. Then you might try responding to your own revision to my question, which seems to suggest that if the religious minority's conduct is bad enough, it is acceptable to boycott businesses they own, or businesses who employ their members in high executive positions. Do you really mean that?

SeattleUte
12-05-2008, 01:46 PM
I will try yet again:

Would a boycott of Orthodox Jewish businesses be acceptable? Would it be acceptable to tell companies with Orthodox Jewish executives that you won't support them because you don't want to put any money in the pocket of an Orthodox Jew?

You changed my question. The word is "acceptable." Also, you added facts. Maybe you could just answer the question. Then you might try responding to your own revision to my question, which seems to suggest that if the religious minority's conduct is bad enough, it is acceptable to boycott businesses they own, or businesses who employ their members in high executive positions. Do you really mean that?

Well, you made it easier for me. I don't see things that way, actually. Did you agree with boycotts of South African exports? Do you avoid buying stocks in allegedly non-green companies? Neither of these activities have interested me. I have thought they were counterporductive or nonsense or too much bother. But certainly I think this kind of expression is "acceptable." I'd not want to live in a society where it wasn't.

The other day I drove by a bunch of people downtown waving Bibles around, carrying evangelical slogans, and singing. I didn't like their noise or the site of it really, but recognized their right to do that. So, I thought what they were doing was excessive, nonsense and a waste of time, but I felt it was perfectly acceptable.

So yes, I think the boycotts are acceptable. It's Consitutionally protected activity. Actually, to use your jargon, I think it's more acceptable than what you did, because I agree with their cause but most emphatically not yours. However, I'm not participating in them.

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 01:50 PM
Well, you made it easier for me. I don't see things that way, actually. Did you agree with boycotts of South African exports? Do you avoid buying stocks in allegedly non-green companies? Neither of these activities have interested me. I have thought they were counterporductive or nonsense or too much bother. But certainly I think this kind of expression is "acceptable." I'd not want to live in a society where it wasn't.

The other day I drove by a bunch of people downtown waving Bibles around, carrying evangelical slogans, and singing. I didn't like their noise or the site of it really, but recognized their right to do that. So, I thought what they were doing was excessive, nonsense and a waste of time, but I felt it was perfectly acceptable.

So yes, I think the boycotts are acceptable. It's Consitutionally protected activity. Actually, to use your jargon, I think it's more acceptable than what you did, because I agree with their cause but most emphatically not yours. However, I'm not participating in them.

So you accept organized activity against individuals merely because of their relgious affiliation, particularly if it's a religion that upsets you personally. I am glad we made that clear.

SeattleUte
12-05-2008, 01:55 PM
So you accept organized activity against individuals merely because of their relgious affiliation, particularly if it's a religion that upsets you personally. I am glad we made that clear.

It depends on the belief in question. I think it's acceptable that Stanford and other schools refused to have anything to do with BYU in the 1970's (it was high time, actually) because of the priesthood ban. I think it's acceptable that the Wyoming black 14 boycotted the BYU game.

I think you need to pick a different battle. The boycotts are not anti-social or hate speech. They're just not.

RobinFinderson
12-05-2008, 01:57 PM
What do you mean when you refer to the Church's "homophobia?" Are you really arguing that defining marriage traditionally, as between a man and a woman, is homophobic?

I tend to leave the definitions in these kinds of situations to the offended party. 100% of my gay friends consider the church's position to be homophobic. Was 'separate but equal' a racist standard? To me, the church's position is slightly worse than 'separate but equal,' because the church doesn't even pretend like civil unions and marriages should be 'equal.'

woot
12-05-2008, 01:57 PM
So you accept organized activity against individuals merely because of their relgious affiliation, particularly if it's a religion that upsets you personally. I am glad we made that clear.

And you seem to want it to be illegal to do so? This whole thread has been you trying to set SU up so you could make this smug little jab, seemingly without realizing that by doing so you're putting yourself on the side of religiofascism. That is, of course, assuming that you're not purposefully using a different definition of the term "acceptable" than what SU so clearly used.

SeattleUte
12-05-2008, 01:57 PM
LA, here's a tip about this baord. When I get into a dialogue with someone about whatever--Israel, prop. 8, whatever-- and everyone is silent but the two of us, it means everyone agrees with me. When they don't agree with me they get involved.

Jeff Lebowski
12-05-2008, 02:04 PM
LA, here's a tip about this baord. When I get into a dialogue with someone about whatever--Israel, prop. 8, whatever-- and everyone is silent but the two of us, it means everyone agrees with me. When they don't agree with me they get involved.

LOL.

I heart SU.

pelagius
12-05-2008, 02:05 PM
LOL.

I heart SU.

It was pretty funny, although my best guess is that it really signals most of the board on both sides of the issue has prop 8 fatigue.

TripletDaddy
12-05-2008, 02:12 PM
I am not aware of much "scandalized outrage," at least as I understand that term, so I don't know what you are referring to. If you are referring to my comments, then I think you need to re-think your definition.

Just as an observation, but you play the semantics card on our beloved, full-haired UtahDan over the use of "scandelized outrage," yet the entire premise of your thread is silly hyperbole.

Mormon boycott? What Mormon boycott? Who exactly is boycotting Mormonism?

There have been some examples here and there of vandalism and a guy quitting his job. The criminal behavior is inexcuseable.

yet there is no evidence of a massive boycott of Mormonism nor of its members.

You live in SoCal. I live here. Can you give me examples of this Mormon boycott? Which cities? Were is it taking place? I haven't seen it.

UtahDan
12-05-2008, 02:21 PM
I am not aware of much "scandalized outrage," at least as I understand that term, so I don't know what you are referring to. If you are referring to my comments, then I think you need to re-think your definition.

I do think intelligent discussion and inquiry is very important. I think people who share Seattle's disdain (and that is putting it mildly) for Mormonism need to be called to account. The same people who chuckle at the retribution being leveled against Mormons would be scandalized if the same activities were directed at Jews or Muslims.

As a personal matter, I do not tell religious jokes (except about Mormons, to other Mormons) and I won't laugh at them. To me that's just common decency. In an arena like this, which is really a debate and discussion forum, I want people like Seattle to explain and account for their defense of indecent behavior.

I wasn't thinking of your comments when I said scandalized outrage. Maybe that is a somewhat harsh way to state it, but I am referring to that which motivates one strongly to demand that we be treated with the same hypersensitivity that other faiths are treated.

Look, I agree with you about SU. He and people who are like mind think what they think and do what they are going to do on this issue. And, to be clear, I think that it was a noble thing for members of the church who personally disagreed to support Prop 8 notwithstanding.

I'm just trying to highlight that we don't serve any useful purpose by descending into and perpetuating the culture of hypersensitivity that currently surrounds a lot of discourse on religion. Lets not be part of that. Of course I'm not talking about ignoring shameful behavior, but if people think we are morally corrupt, as SU does, lets meet that argument on the merits and ignore the other crap. Lets not try to bring a discussion of our faith into a realm that other faiths currently inhabit where you can't disagree without being a bigot or anti-something.

If it seems like I am a little sensitive here, I probably am. I think that culturally we have a persecution complex that well predates this issue which is tiresome, serves no useful purpose other than to stroke our self conceptions as being embattled because we are righteous, and probably inhibits us from hearing what is being said to us. I think one of the most disarming tactics in a debate of any kind is to ignore the invective that your opponent has hurled at you and address the merits of his argument.

I wouldn't patronize an business if I knew that the owner donated to NAMBLA. I wouldn't commercially support any of the Kingston clans business holdings. I grant others the right not to do business with me if they think I am morally corrupt. But I want to persuade them that I am not, not cry foul that I think we should make no judgments about people based on what they believe.

Does that make sense? I don't feel like I'm articulating it well.

BTW, it is a delight to see you contributing so much substance to this board. You have an important voice. It is like the good old days at UteFans.

All-American
12-05-2008, 02:40 PM
LA, here's a tip about this baord. When I get into a dialogue with someone about whatever--Israel, prop. 8, whatever-- and everyone is silent but the two of us, it means everyone agrees with me. When they don't agree with me they get involved.

Ah, geez, you mean I have to say so every time I think you're off your rocker?

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 02:45 PM
You live in SoCal. I live here. Can you give me examples of this Mormon boycott? Which cities? Were is it taking place? I haven't seen it.

I haven't seen it either. I was commenting on a blog post at The American Thinker. (See my first post above for the link.) The discussion was, if those things are going on, do we think they are acceptable? Im my opinion, Seattle has twisted himself into a pretzel trying to argue that they are.

il Padrino Ute
12-05-2008, 02:45 PM
Have you ever heard of a rhetorical question? Do you think they're real questions? Think about why such a question is called rhetorical.

Yes, I know what a rhetorical question is, but because it's rhetorical doesn't mean that we don't have to answer the question by expressing our own opinion.

So, what's your opinion about LA's question? Would the vitriol be as nasty toward Jews as it is toward Mormons?

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 02:47 PM
Does that make sense? I don't feel like I'm articulating it well.

I think you are doing great. I'm just trying to keep Seattle honest, but that may be too big a job for one person.

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 02:50 PM
And you seem to want it to be illegal to do so? This whole thread has been you trying to set SU up so you could make this smug little jab, seemingly without realizing that by doing so you're putting yourself on the side of religiofascism. That is, of course, assuming that you're not purposefully using a different definition of the term "acceptable" than what SU so clearly used.

Oh, wow. Religiosfascism? Don't you think that's just a bit, well, over-wrought?

No, I do not want it to be illegal. My question is whether such behavior is acceptable. There is no right or wrong answer, objectively. It's a matter of what we as a society find acceptable, and to get to that point we need to discuss it, hopefully without calling each other names. :eek:

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 02:51 PM
LA, here's a tip about this baord. When I get into a dialogue with someone about whatever--Israel, prop. 8, whatever-- and everyone is silent but the two of us, it means everyone agrees with me. When they don't agree with me they get involved.

Yessir, you are a fox. No self-respecting hedgehog would ever try that one.

marsupial
12-05-2008, 02:54 PM
Just as an observation, but you play the semantics card on our beloved, full-haired UtahDan over the use of "scandelized outrage," yet the entire premise of your thread is silly hyperbole.

Mormon boycott? What Mormon boycott? Who exactly is boycotting Mormonism?

There have been some examples here and there of vandalism and a guy quitting his job. The criminal behavior is inexcuseable.

yet there is no evidence of a massive boycott of Mormonism nor of its members.

You live in SoCal. I live here. Can you give me examples of this Mormon boycott? Which cities? Were is it taking place? I haven't seen it.

I hear Perez Hilton is boycotting Robert Redford and his bigoted Sundance Film Festival and that little Mormon hamlet we know as Park City.

PaloAltoCougar
12-05-2008, 02:55 PM
LA, here's a tip about this baord. When I get into a dialogue with someone about whatever--Israel, prop. 8, whatever-- and everyone is silent but the two of us, it means everyone agrees with me. When they don't agree with me they get involved.

I confess there are times when I have agreed with SU, but a more reliable measurement than the board's silence could be obtained by setting your Weather.com home page to "Hell" and watching for temperatures to drop below zero celsius. As Dante noted, it happens--just not very often.

TripletDaddy
12-05-2008, 02:59 PM
I haven't seen it either. I was commenting on a blog post at The American Thinker. (See my first post above for the link.) The discussion was, if those things are going on, do we think they are acceptable? Im my opinion, Seattle has twisted himself into a pretzel trying to argue that they are.

Are these folks really protesting "Mormonism" as much as they are protesting the political stance the Church recently took in a public vote?

Nobody has spoken out against baptism, repentance, the Holy Ghost, family home evening, temple endowments, fast offerings, or middle age large breasted women playing volleyball and basketball at the chapel cultural hall. Wake me up when they start dissing us for our core beliefs, not a fringe, centralized political movement that spanned 3 months.

I will say this....if these boycotters even THINK about messing with Saturday's Warrior, they will be sorry and they will incur my wrath. It will give new meaning to ZERO POPULATION IS THE ANSWER, MY FRIEND!

PaloAltoCougar
12-05-2008, 03:01 PM
I hear Perez Hilton is boycotting Robert Redford and his bigoted Sundance Film Festival and that little Mormon hamlet we know as Park City.

I think this reflects the fatuity of many of the boycotters. I've attended a few film festivals, including multiple Sundances, and except for those located on Castro Street, no festival has featured more positive gay-related themes (and I realize I'm teeing it up here; have at it, boys).

I'm also amused by the boycott of the "Mormon-owned" Marriott Corporation, which must be the only publicly traded corporation with transfer restrictions limiting ownership to full tithepayers.

TripletDaddy
12-05-2008, 03:03 PM
I hear Perez Hilton is boycotting Robert Redford and his bigoted Sundance Film Festival and that little Mormon hamlet we know as Park City.

I will say this much about Perez.....he is a no-talent hackjob.

Park City is better for his not trodding its soil with his filthy white cocaine markers.

TripletDaddy
12-05-2008, 03:05 PM
I think this reflects the fatuity of many of the boycotters. I've attended a few film festivals, including multiple Sundances, and except for those located on Castro Street, no festival has featured more positive gay-related themes (and I realize I'm teeing it up here; have at it, boys).

I'm also amused by the boycott of the "Mormon-owned" Marriott Corporation, which must be the only publicly traded corporation with transfer restrictions limiting ownership to full tithepayers.

I am currently boycotting the LDS Church.

My protests consist of my failing to return the 2 folding tables and 6 chairs I stole from the chapel for our Thanksgiving dinner get-together.

Given the impending triplet birthday party next weekend and the subsequent holiday dinner at our house, the Spirit tells me that my boycott will last through the month of December.

I will probably soften my stance sometime after the New Year. It will also likely be later at night and in the middle of the week.

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 03:15 PM
I am currently boycotting the LDS Church.

My protests consist of my failing to return the 2 folding tables and 6 chairs I stole from the chapel for our Thanksgiving dinner get-together.

Given the impending triplet birthday party next weekend and the subsequent holiday dinner at our house, the Spirit tells me that my boycott will last through the month of December.

I will probably soften my stance sometime after the New Year. It will also likely be later at night and in the middle of the week.

I am boycotting Triplet Daddy. I will support no enterprise that puts money in his pocket, because he is likely to turn around and give it to USC.

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 03:19 PM
I will not boycott Palo Alto Cougar, however, because any money I might put in his pocket may well end up in the coffers of the University of Utah.

PaloAltoCougar
12-05-2008, 03:25 PM
I will not boycott Palo Alto Cougar, however, because any money I might put in his pocket may well end up in the coffers of the University of Utah.

It is for this reason that I boycott myself. My bishop has called me in for an interview.

pelagius
12-05-2008, 03:31 PM
On a related note, did everybody already see the following that appeared in the NY Times today (here's hoping this isn't like AA hitler video in terms of previous posting):

http://nomobveto.org/images/nytad_lg.png

woot
12-05-2008, 03:33 PM
Oh, wow. Religiosfascism? Don't you think that's just a bit, well, over-wrought?

No, I do not want it to be illegal. My question is whether such behavior is acceptable. There is no right or wrong answer, objectively. It's a matter of what we as a society find acceptable, and to get to that point we need to discuss it, hopefully without calling each other names. :eek:

I don't actually assume that anyone on this board is a reliofascist. I only meant to point out the absurdity in working so hard for an opportunity to take the smug high ground over SU by implying moral deficiency in his position. In order to do so it is, in fact, apparent that you were both working under different definitions of the term "acceptable," despite SU's very clear explanation of what he considered it to mean in this context. It is not clear to me that you still aren't using the term in a moral sense, despite SU's use of it in the legal sense. The conversation really can't go anywhere until we define all the terms we're using.

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 03:53 PM
I don't actually assume that anyone on this board is a reliofascist. I only meant to point out the absurdity in working so hard for an opportunity to take the smug high ground over SU by implying moral deficiency in his position. In order to do so it is, in fact, apparent that you were both working under different definitions of the term "acceptable," despite SU's very clear explanation of what he considered it to mean in this context. It is not clear to me that you still aren't using the term in a moral sense, despite SU's use of it in the legal sense. The conversation really can't go anywhere until we define all the terms we're using.

Sorry you saw smugness there, it wasn't intended. Seattle and I are friends and go at it frequently on issues like this. I think his anger towards the Church blinds him to the indecency of the attacks now being waged on Church members, simply because of their membership. It's really just two lawyers who like to argue wasting time on a Friday afternoon.

creekster
12-05-2008, 03:53 PM
On a related note, did everybody already see the following that appeared in the NY Times today (here's hoping this isn't like AA hitler video in terms of previous posting):

http://nomobveto.org/images/nytad_lg.png

As a youngun' weaned on politics in the lates 60s and early 70s I have mixed feelings seeing Chuck COlson flying to our rescue.

pelagius
12-05-2008, 04:05 PM
As a youngun' weaned on politics in the lates 60s and early 70s I have mixed feelings seeing Chuck COlson flying to our rescue.

good catch ... I didn't even notice that.

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 04:15 PM
On a related note, did everybody already see the following that appeared in the NY Times today (here's hoping this isn't like AA hitler video in terms of previous posting):

Bunch of knuckle-dragging bigots. Just ask Seattle.

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 04:31 PM
As a youngun' weaned on politics in the lates 60s and early 70s I have mixed feelings seeing Chuck COlson flying to our rescue.

Well, he's only one of 10. Besides, he's changed a lot since then and has done a lot of good.

creekster
12-05-2008, 04:33 PM
Well, he's only one of 10. Besides, he's changed a lot since then and has done a lot of good.

I know. But still, Chuck Colson?

LA Ute
12-05-2008, 04:36 PM
I know. But still, Chuck Colson?

Let's just be glad it is not Jeb Stuart Magruder. Or G. Gordon Liddy. Or E. Howard Hunt.

YOhio
12-05-2008, 04:36 PM
On a related note, did everybody already see the following that appeared in the NY Times today (here's hoping this isn't like AA hitler video in terms of previous posting):

http://nomobveto.org/images/nytad_lg.png

Half of those names sound like gay film actors. Especially the guy from Michigan Law.

il Padrino Ute
12-05-2008, 04:37 PM
Half of those names sound like gay film actors. Especially the guy from Michigan Law.

I'll take your word for it.

YOhio
12-05-2008, 04:39 PM
I'll take your word for it.

I'm just repeating what PAC told me.

il Padrino Ute
12-05-2008, 04:40 PM
I'm just repeating what PAC told me.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

il Padrino Ute
12-05-2008, 05:47 PM
On a related note, did everybody already see the following that appeared in the NY Times today (here's hoping this isn't like AA hitler video in terms of previous posting):

http://nomobveto.org/images/nytad_lg.png

K08akOt2kuo

YOhio
12-05-2008, 05:50 PM
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

PAC loves gay movies.


I've attended a few film festivals, including multiple Sundances, and except for those located on Castro Street, no festival has featured more positive gay-related themes (and I realize I'm teeing it up here; have at it, boys).

il Padrino Ute
12-05-2008, 05:52 PM
PAC loves gay movies.

In that case, I retract my comment directed at you and point at PAC and say:

rX7wtNOkuHo