Oaks is in favor of religious freedom

[LA Ute]

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.

Let's say you are a lawyer in Mississippi and, as a matter of conscience, you are thinking about giving $1,000 to an initiative campaign that seeks to change the law related to a civil rights issue. You become aware that opponents of the intitiative are very vocal and well-organized, and some are influential members of the business community that you rely on for legal work. Opponents publish in the local legal newspaper the name and firm affiliation of every lawyer who donates to the "yes" campaign (but not those who donate to the "no" side). The obvious goal is to discourage donations - a form of political speech. So there is no question they are trying to silence you and like-minded people.

Is it legal for them to do that? Sure is.

Are you justified in resenting that tactic? You sure are.

It is something they should be called out on? Absolutely.

[EDIT: I forgot to mention that the above is exactly what happened in the California legal community in the Prop 8 election.]

What SU seems to be saying (and maybe you too) is that attacking such a tactic is not fair game. I don't think you can make that case convincingly.

[TripletDaddy]

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

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

fair point.

given that Prop 8 won, do you have any reason to believe that the legal publication of this public info resulted in the intimidation of voters at the ballot box? I am not saying that it did not happen. I am simply asking whether you know that it did, esp in light of the victory of Prop 8. Do we have any accounts of folks that would have otherwise voted but for this intimidation?

As I stated previously, I think people here are confusing the annoying and offensive behavior of vandals and criminals with the politically crafty and legal behavior of activists.

[byu71]

If I were a gay man I would not have a business in Utah. I imagine LDS people do this all the time. I get emails from relief society presidents to boycott stuff all the time.

I no longer attend Priesthood or Relief Society meetings, so perhaps I do miss out on some "let's boycott" campaigns. I know of a very successful restaurant chain here in Utah owned by one of my old fraternity brothers. One of the best people you would want to meet and as a side note he is openly gay. Perhaps mormons don't know that or give him a pass because he is a RM.

My point is not that it does't happen, by what you said it does. I think that is ridiculous it does. The church and it's members shouldn't be organizing boycotts against business's except in very, very rare occasions.

[SeattleUte]

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.

Look, what's been going on here is that the LDS Church up to now has experienced a pyhrric victory because gay rights activists have successfully cast it as an enemy of unconditional love and civil rights. Now the LDS Church trying to cast itself as a civil rights victim and steal the moral high ground. That's pretty predictable. Comparing yourself to Jews dead in the Holocaust or Blacks lynched in the South is like comparing people you disagree with to Nazis. I think it's very relevant to know whether the mainstream gay movement is playing fair. I think Dishonor Rolls are fine. Violence is reprehensible.

Are we talking about a few petty criminals here or an organized effort to infringe on Mormon exercise of religion? I might add, that in Eastern Europe and the South the government participated in and/or tacitly allowed the widespread hate crimes. I think it matters a lot whether we allow an organization to cheapen the civil rights discourse and humanity's historic struggle for tolerance.

[TripletDaddy]

Let's say you are a lawyer in Mississippi and, as a matter of conscience, you are thinking about giving $1,000 to an initiative campaign that seeks to change the law related to a civil rights issue. You become aware that opponents of the intitiative are very vocal and well-organized, and some are influential members of the business community that you rely on for legal work. Opponents publish in the local legal newspaper the name and firm affiliation of every lawyer who donates to the "yes" campaign (but not those who donate to the "no" side). The obvious goal is to discourage donations - a form of political speech. So there is no question they are trying to silence you and like-minded people.

Is it legal for them to do that? Sure is.

Are you justified in resenting that tactic? You sure are.

It is something they should be called out on? Absolutely.

[EDIT: I forgot to mention that the above is exactly what happened in the California legal community in the Prop 8 election.]

What SU seems to be saying (and maybe you too) is that attacking such a tactic is not fair game. I don't think you can make that case convincingly.

I think there is a bit of posturing going on by both camps, frankly. here you ask whether one side may or should be "called out" for campaign tactics. I think we would all agree that they may or should.

However, earlier, I believe it was you that employed very specific language..."un-American" for example. That is simply wrong. there is nothing un-American about the behavior in either camp. The entire process is quintessentially American.

If you wish to make the claim that the tactic was shrewd, crafty, had negative impact, that you wished they hadn't done it, etc....no worries.

But if we say that the tactic was "not appropriate," "un-American," "immoral," etc.....that language is as useless as attacks on Dallin H Oaks's character. What's the point? The conversation stalls and nobody wins.

[SeattleUte]

Let's say you are a lawyer in Mississippi and, as a matter of conscience, you are thinking about giving $1,000 to an initiative campaign that seeks to change the law related to a civil rights issue. You become aware that opponents of the intitiative are very vocal and well-organized, and some are influential members of the business community that you rely on for legal work. Opponents publish in the local legal newspaper the name and firm affiliation of every lawyer who donates to the "yes" campaign (but not those who donate to the "no" side). The obvious goal is to discourage donations - a form of political speech. So there is no question they are trying to silence you and like-minded people.

Is it legal for them to do that? Sure is.

Are you justified in resenting that tactic? You sure are.

It is something they should be called out on? Absolutely.

[EDIT: I forgot to mention that the above is exactly what happened in the California legal community in the Prop 8 election.]

What SU seems to be saying (and maybe you too) is that attacking such a tactic is not fair game. I don't think you can make that case convincingly.

How interesting that you all can't help yourselves comparing yourselves to blacks in Jim Crow South. This is why I want you to tell me exactly what kind of "violence" you have suffered. If you insist on appropriating the black experience in pursuit of civil rights I'm going to have to ask you to provide some facts about your suffering.

[RobinFinderson]

How interesting that you all can't help yourselves comparing yourselves to blacks in Jim Crow South. This is why I want you to tell me exactly what kind of "violence" you have suffered. If you insist on appropriating the black experience in pursuit of civil rights I'm going to have to ask you to provide some facts about your suffering.

Growing up, I had to suffer through a few road shows, the equivalent of minstrel shows. They made Mormons look like total buffoons.

[TheBYUGuy]

How interesting that you all can't help yourselves comparing yourselves to blacks in Jim Crow South.

Link?

[TripletDaddy]

How interesting that you all can't help yourselves comparing yourselves to blacks in Jim Crow South. This is why I want you to tell me exactly what kind of "violence" you have suffered. If you insist on appropriating the black experience in pursuit of civil rights I'm going to have to ask you to provide some facts about your suffering.

I agree that the comparisons to Jim Crow South are a little ridiculous and over the top. In fact, they are totally off-point.

It would be better (if at all, mind you...it is dangerous territory for anyone) to compare early LDS pioneers to Jim Crow South...systematic violence, government-sanctioned oppression, etc.

Prop 8 vandalism and job loss is a poor analog to the struggle at Little Rock.

I am not sure Oaks was equating the 2, as no reasonable person would likely agree. I think he was drawing parallels (of which there are some).

[beefytee]

However, earlier, I believe it was you that employed very specific language..."un-American" for example. That is simply wrong. there is nothing un-American about the behavior in either camp. The entire process is quintessentially American.

Yes, but calling people "un-American" is also as quintessentially American as it gets...even if it is untrue.

[byu71]

How interesting that you all can't help yourselves comparing yourselves to blacks in Jim Crow South. This is why I want you to tell me exactly what kind of "violence" you have suffered. If you insist on appropriating the black experience in pursuit of civil rights I'm going to have to ask you to provide some facts about your suffering.

Can you, specifically you SU, tell me who you mean by "you". I would like to follow the conversation, but I don't know who "you" is.

[TripletDaddy]

Yes, but calling people "un-American" is also as quintessentially American as it gets...even if it is untrue.

ha. that is also fair. and you correct. but we should expect more from ourselves.

For evolved gentlemen.....we Cuffers that use Right Guard.....anything less is uncivilized.

[JohnnyLingo]

How interesting that you all can't help yourselves comparing yourselves to blacks in Jim Crow South. This is why I want you to tell me exactly what kind of "violence" you have suffered. If you insist on appropriating the black experience in pursuit of civil rights I'm going to have to ask you to provide some facts about your suffering.

This is completely off base.

Please try again.

[cowboy]

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.

I don't have an answer, which is why I bring it up. I think it is hypocritical for someone to think sanctions are bad if the wrong side is engaging them, which is why I asked the white supremacy question. I also think there is a difference between economic sanctions designed to suppress voter support and economic sanctions for other reasons. I am very much a free-market person, and I firmly believe we should be able to do business with whomever we choose, but I also think people should be free to support whatever side of an issue they want. Like I said, I don't have any answers.

[LA Ute]

However, earlier, I believe it was you that employed very specific language..."un-American" for example. That is simply wrong. there is nothing un-American about the behavior in either camp. The entire process is quintessentially American.

If you wish to make the claim that the tactic was shrewd, crafty, had negative impact, that you wished they hadn't done it, etc....no worries.

It is all those things. By calling it "un-American" I was engaging in standard political rhetoric. Translated, what I was saying, "You should vote against those bums for using such rotten and despicable tactics!"

No, wait . . . that would be a little overheated,wouldn't it? But you get my drift. In a political context, I'm saying, "Look at these tactics - they are trying to silence us! Outrageous! Don't let them get away with that! Exercise your franchise - vote yes on 8!" That's pretty American too, wouldn't you say?