Oaks is in favor of religious freedom

[Solon]

Why should it be dishonorable? I'm not scared of people finding out who I am and how I feel about this issue.

I think he was just referring to the Californians Against Hate list: http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/

[DU Ute]

What is the intent of the ads posted above?

Won't someone please think of the children!

[SloanHater]

Why should it be dishonorable? I'm not scared of people finding out who I am and how I feel about this issue.

That's the term (Dishonor Roll) used by Californians Against Hate for those who donated in support of Prop 8.

I have no problem with donations being a matter of public record. I do find it offensive to take public records and compile an 'enemies' list.

[TheBYUGuy]

Can someone please enlighten me specifically about the scale and frequency and quality of purported "violence and intimidation"? Thanks in advance.

Why? Are you suggesting that they didn't exist at all, or are you just going to tell us that they had no effect on the political process?

[TripletDaddy]

I'm not following your logic. It seems irrelevant when lists are published. Doesn't the possibility (threat) of ending up a target list (or Dishonor Roll) influence future voters and voting behavior? Perhaps I'm misjudging the intent of making these lists, but I don't see how they could be used constructively.

On a side-note, groups like Californians Against Hate weren't just publishing Public Records. They were using Public Records to find Personal Information and make that public.

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."

Traditional and popular examples of "voter intimidation" would be the Blank Panthers hanging out in front of voting booths on election day, dissuading people (through menacing behavior) from entering the polls and casting ballots.

"Contructively" is another meaningless term. In your view, protests and economic boycotts are not constructive. If you are against Prop 8, protests and boycotts are very constructive. There is no way to answer that question.

Finally, there are no rights to privacy with website ownership IF the owner does not take active steps to make private his or her ownership. A simple internet search can tell you who owns which website....unless that person has masked the info.

To the extent that these groups were publishing private phone numbers, you are correct, that is inappropriate. But at this point, the balloon has been deflated. there is no more punch to your protestations if the best thing you can come up with is that the group should not have been publishing internet domain ownership.

Protests and boycotts are the result of activism. There is nothing inappropriate about protests, demonstrations, or boycotts. When those behaviors turn criminal, then no reasonable person would support them. I believe this is what Oaks was discussing.....because we definitely had examples of clearly criminal and repugnant behavior on the part of Gay marriage supporters.

ps as usual, seattleute is coattailing off one of my posts, basically saying the same thing but with much more windbaggery.

[SeattleUte]

That's the term (Dishonor Roll) used by Californians Against Hate for those who donated in support of Prop 8.

I have no problem with donations being a matter of public record. I do find it offensive to take public records and compile an 'enemies' list.

Well, I don't. Go ahead and compile an enemies list and put me on it, as long as the predicate fact is true. Make a list and say I'm an enemy of heterosexual only marriage. Why are they afraid to be associated with a cause they claim to care so much about.

Even assuming you're right and it's impolite, it's not a civil rights vioilation, it's not libel, it's not illegal. It's politics! It's what the LDS Church is doing too.

[TripletDaddy]

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?

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.

[RobinFinderson]

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.

[SloanHater]

They can be used constructively to protest at those individuals' homes (or more likely, outside of their gated communities). Political donations, which are a form of protected public speech, are appropriately countered by demonstrations, which are a form of protected public speech.

Violence, threats, etc, are not protected public speech.

I may be in the minority here, but I don't think it is appropriate to protest outside of an individual's home. It reminds me of those who protested the Iraq war at funerals.

It may be legal, but it doesn't seem appropriate.

[TripletDaddy]

Can someone please enlighten me specifically about the scale and frequency and quality of purported "violence and intimidation"? Thanks in advance.

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?

[LA Ute]

I think he was just referring to the Californians Against Hate list: http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/

Fred Karger, the man behind Californians against Hate, is a seasoned political advertising guy. He said in in interview I heard, regarding publishing the donors' names, "We'll see if they want to donate next time." So his goal is to scare off donors. Donating to a campaign is political speech, of course. We can debate all day, SU, about whether Karger's tactics are OK. I don't think so; you do. I suspect you'd see it differently if a right-wing or (horrors!) religious group -- or any group whose goals you oppose -- were doing the same thing.

(The foregoing is directed to SU, not to you, Solon.)

[SeattleUte]

Why? Are you suggesting that they didn't exist at all, or are you just going to tell us that they had no effect on the political process?

Correct. I suspect these are minor, errant incidents of property damage. It happens. Violence is absolutely wrong, especially for exercising Constitutional rights. But Oaks has raised the specter of civil rights crimes. I want to know the scale and extent, etc. so I can evaluate we've got really got Poland 1939 going on here as some people are trying to suggest. This is an absolutely relevant question.

[TripletDaddy]

I may be in the minority here, but I don't think it is appropriate to protest outside of an individual's home. It reminds me of those who protested the Iraq war at funerals.

It may be legal, but it doesn't seem appropriate.

I hear you on that one. It is annoying. But it can be done legally and we all have our rights.

One of the arguments that the No camp put forth was obedience to the rule of law. Well, this is the rule of law folks. You donate, your name is public record. Boycotts are legal. Protests and demonstrations are legal. That is the rule of law. On the whole, it is a good system, but it can't exist in a vacuum.

[JohnnyLingo]

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?

[Flystripper]

How would you feel if in retaliation the church organizes a boycott in Utah of any known gay businessmen.

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.