Oaks is in favor of religious freedom

[Flystripper]

Would it be repugnant to American values for group of white supremacists to organize a boycott of businesses that supported desegregation?

I know gay marriage seems to be a cut and dried issue for you, but your perspective is not the only perspective, and many good people supported the other side of the debate. This wasn't the black and white, right and wrong issue that you and many others here believe it was.

That would not bother me and I expect white supremacist groups already do this.

[SeattleUte]

Not sure, but I don't think this helps the dialogue. The scale and frequency is irrelevant. If we are being consistent, Mos have every right to organize and vote their collective conscience. Our churches should not be subjected to vandalism as a result of a political stance, even if it happens only once.

Our stake center was vandalized....the stone placard that has the Church logo was spray painted. I think it said, "H8" or something similar. Come to think of it....I wonder if brother_h8 was responsible?

Look. Stipulated. It's wrong. I want to know if Oaks is being honest in his rhetoric. It's relevant to ether this is analogous to pogroms, hate crimes against blacks, etc. What's really going on here? There are a lot of gays and gay sympathizers, some of them are bad people. The LDS Church is complainging about violence, as it should. But I want to know whether gays are acting like brown shirts here, which is the suggestion.

[TheBYUGuy]

Why is no one talking about the real victim of Elder Oaks' talk? The poor atheists, who, for some reason, got dumped in with the gays and gay rights supporters.

Link?

BTW, he also mentioned the following in his talk:

The United States Supreme Court
Church members
Mongolians
Pilgrims
Hurricane victims

[cowboy]

Because it is illegal to vandalize a car. It is not illegal to organize an economic boycott. Are you being serious here?

I am not saying that it sucks for the family that owns the business. But Americans have the right to protest. Why would an economic boycott be un-American? It is very American.

The term moral and ethical....moral and ethical to whom? The law dictates our universal behavior. Moral and ethical is relative to the individual. There is nothing unethical to peaceably assemble. it is a constitutional right.

once the assembly turns non-peaceable...all bets are off.

I'm not saying that economic boycotts should be illegal. In fact, I participate in an economic boycott of a polygamist group who lives in the area. They own a bakery, and I refuse to buy their bread.

My question, and it is serious, involves the ultimate affect of these boycotts on the voting process. I'm much more likely to support a cause if my only consequence is a keyed car (an illegal act) than I am if my consequence will be a failed business because my gay banker saw my name on a black list. This suggests, then, that voter support can be suppressed through economic intimidation. Do we really have a democratic process for deciding these issues if people fear the consequences of supporting their preference?

[LA Ute]

I notice you speak in this language often. It certainly connotes hostility and bias, although I am sure it is unintended on your part. You have referenced "sides" before. Good luck to your "side," I guess.

Seriously, TD, that's not my intent at all. I really am trying to stay focused on the issues, and to frame them. There are two sides to the debate and it's an important one. I do not think those who take the other side are evil or bad, just wrong. The other side's most vocal proponents seem, on the other hand, to think those on my side are indeed evil. "Californians against Hate," for example. That's a political tactic -marginalize the opposition. I'm just calling it out.

Keying cars: no
Vandalism: no
publishing public info: fine. what's wrong with that?

It's legal. I just think it's an intimidation tactic that ought to be called out. (What other goal can be behind publishing a map with donors' names and presonal residence addresses? Fred Karger said his intent was to discourage people from donating next time.) We can't stop that through a lawsuit or any other means. What we can do is decry it and try to make those who use the tactic pay a political price.

Make sense?

[TripletDaddy]

Look. Stipulated. It's wrong. I want to know if Oaks is being honest in his rhetoric. It's relevant to ether this is analogous to pogroms, hate crimes against blacks, etc. What's really going on here? There are a lot of gays and gay sympathizers, some of them are bad people. The LDS Church is complainging about violence, as it should. But I want to know whether gays are acting like brown shirts here, which is the suggestion.

ok, but what I am saying is that such rhetoric does not help the cause for equality and awareness. We all have a sphere of influence here on CUF. I know I have changed my stance on some issues and strengthened them on others as a result of things I have read here and then later researched. Hopefully others here have logged off with something new to think about...be it religion, food, sports, whatever.

we have a lot of smart folks here with good opinions on both "sides" (ha...I love LA Ute!) of the argument. You might be able to help sway an opinion....a REAL opinion....if you laid off that sort of commentary. What we are now discussing has little to do with Elder Oaks. It has to do with educating each other regarding opposing points of view on a hotly contested issue.

If you really want to help your gay friends and relatives have access to greater civil rights and marriage, you would be a more effective instrument by laying off the Elders Oaks/LDS stuff and focusing on a logic and common ground.

This issue will be resolved only through education and awareness. Not inflamed rhetoric. And most definitely not by pointing out the foibles of Church leaders.

ok, enough lecturing on my part. I will go back to clowns jumping out of barrels.

[TripletDaddy]

Seriously, TD, that's not my intent at all. I really am trying to stay focused on the issues, and to frame them. There are two sides to the debate and it's an important one. I do not think those who take the other side are evil or bad, just wrong. The other side's most vocal proponents seem, on the other hand, to think those on my side are indeed evil. "Californians against Hate," for example. That's a political tactic -marginalize the opposition. I'm just calling it out.



It's legal. I just think it's an intimidation tactic that ought to be called out. (What other goal can be behind publishing a map with donors' names and presonal residence addresses? Fred Karger said his intent was to discourage people from donating next time.) We can't stop that through a lawsuit or any other means. What we can do is decry it and try to make those who use the tactic pay a political price.

Make sense?

Yes, makes sense. And I know it was not your intent. thanks for receiving it with the intended tone.

[Flystripper]

How is the destruction of a business through a concerted smear effort acceptable, but keying the business owner's car not? Aren't they both forms of intimidation?

Granted, one act is legal, while the other is not, but aren't we talking about a moral and ethical compass here rather than a legal one?

Withholding your money from a business and encouraging others that agree with you to do the same is very different than an act of vandalism and destruction of property. You really don't see the difference?

Those that agree with the business owner's political views are able to rally to his cause and buy goods and services from him. Companies (small or large) should be held accountable for their donations.

[LA Ute]

I want to know whether gays are acting like brown shirts here, which is the suggestion.

Straw man. It doesn't have to rise to that level to be objectionable in the political arena.

[RobinFinderson]

We can't stop that through a lawsuit or any other means. What we can do is decry it and try to make those who use the tactic pay a political price.

Make sense?

It makes perfect sense. The church is returning fire with the same kind of fire. One group publishes names to exact a political price. The other group publishes individual acts and describes them as 'intimidation,' which is also an attempt to exact a political price. It is tit for tat.

[SeattleUte]

Say it's 1953, right during the heart of the U.S. Civil Rights movement. A few individuals give large amounts of money to the NAACP in support of desegregation, ending Jim Crow laws, etc.

One year later, the names of these individuals are published in commercials featuring their hometowns and how much they contributed. The ads have ominous music in the background, and the message is clear that these people are being vilified for their actions.

Okay or not okay?

Yes, it's okay. Personally I'd be pleased to be featured that way, because I think segregation, Jim Crow, etc. is reprehensible. It's also their Constitutional right to do that.

The money doonated to Prop. 8 paid for, among other things, fear mongering about such high flown nonsense as churches would be required to marry gays. It's not like either side is innocent of hyperbole and agressive political tactics here. Ironic.

[TheBYUGuy]

But I want to know whether gays are acting like brown shirts here, which is the suggestion.

I guess I haven't been hearing what you have.

Also, nobody is comparing the degree and/or frequency of "violence and intimidation" to the KKK, the Nazis, or Poland 1939. But the effect is still to deter and discourage people from participating in politics as they see fit.

[TripletDaddy]

I'm not saying that economic boycotts should be illegal. In fact, I participate in an economic boycott of a polygamist group who lives in the area. They own a bakery, and I refuse to buy their bread.

My question, and it is serious, involves the ultimate affect of these boycotts on the voting process. I'm much more likely to support a cause if my only consequence is a keyed car (an illegal act) than I am if my consequence will be a failed business because my gay banker saw my name on a black list. This suggests, then, that voter support can be suppressed through economic intimidation. Do we really have a democratic process for deciding these issues if people fear the consequences of supporting their preference?

ok, I think I better understand your question now.

I think that the obvious intended result of an economic boycott is a negative impact on the focused target. That is the point. So, in an effort to avoid that negative financial impact, the target alters behavior.

If you wish to call that intimidation, then so be it. That would also mean that you are engaging in a form of intimidation against polygamists.

I guess I am confused as to how someone can support the legality of economic boycotts, but then feel it unfair that those legal economic boycotts result in the target suffering horrible financial consequences. That is the exact purpose of an economic boycott...to use legal means to hit someone where it hurts the most.

[kccougar]

But I want to know whether gays are acting like brown shirts here, which is the suggestion.

Nice. Did you learn that trick from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity?

[beefytee]

First, if a list is published weeks and months after the election, and we have no reason to believe that the possibility of such lists being published at some time in the future had any effect on voter turnout on election night, then by definition, how can it be "voter intimidation?" I think you are confusing "voter intimidation" with good, old fashioned "intimidation."

There were lists available before the election. Obviously not all donors were on them.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/democr...proposition_8/