Another Gauntlet Hits the Ground

[Jaybear]

And, yes, there were at least a few cases of which I'm aware in which Mormons were fired for having contributed to the Prop 8 campaign. That is anti-democratic and is designed to inhibit the free expression of political opinion in a free society.

That's hilarious. The leading LDS apologist, and a professor at BYU, is complaining about a LDS employee losing his/her job for contributing to prop 8, saying its anti-democratic. Good one. I wonder what Jeffrey Neilson thinks of your concern.

BTW, I know of two men who resigned over the flareup, but none who were fired. Can you name and document a single instance in which a prop 8 supporter, mormon or not, was fired for making a contribution?

Those who drool at the delicious thought that the Church's public image has been irreparably damaged if not destroyed by its advocacy of Prop 8 should try to remember that Prop 8 won.

You are correct. The image of the LDS Church has only been damaged among those those that that support gay rights, which is what, most people with college degrees, and a vast majority of Americans under age 29, and the few people who watch Keith Olbermann.

I am sure the LDS Church is as popular as ever with those who supported prop 8 in large nubmers, African Americans, and white Christian evangelicals.

DanGB: IMHO, if Olberman had 527 viewers, it would be 526 more than he deserves.

Right because who needs intelligent and articulate political commentators, when we have Glenn Beck.

[Deborah]

My point is simply this, Pac. Mormons today don't have half the gumption nor pluck that their forebears had. Here you are, in 2009, deciding the outcome of Gay marriage in America, when your forebears were just happy to be alive to practise their religion in the secluded quarters of the Wasatch.

Except even a plural wife was married under the man and woman criteria, and plural marriage has a long history in the world and so practicing it does not go against tradition or the law of God (per the practice of ancient prophets). It's ironic you talk about modern Mormons not having gumption when it actually takes gumption to openly oppose what is politically correct in today's world.

[DanGB]

BTW, I know of two men who resigned over the flareup, but none who were fired. Can you name and document a single instance in which a prop 8 supporter, mormon or not, was fired for making a contribution?

I had also heard of one that resigned. I don't believe anyone has been fired for supporting or voting Prop 8. If they were, there would be a slam dunk lawsuit pending Im sure.

Right because who needs intelligent and articulate political commentators, when we have Glenn Beck.

I wouldn't contrast my lack of allegiance towards Olberman as support for Beck. As a conservative, I probably side more with Beck on many issues, but his delivery and style is not my cup of tea to say the least!!

[Daniel Peterson]

That's hilarious. The leading LDS apologist, and a professor at BYU, is complaining about a LDS employee losing his/her job for contributing to prop 8, saying its anti-democratic. Good one. I wonder what Jeffrey Neilson thinks of your concern.

Sophistry alert!

It's one thing to fail to have your part-time contract renewed at a church-affiliated university because you publicly oppose the publicly-stated position of the sponsoring church, and quite another to be forced out of a long-term position (e.g., at a film festival or a musical theater or a restaurant) that has absolutely nothing to do with a political issue or candidate -- simply because you've participated legitimately and even unobtrusively in the democratic political process.

Incidentally, counselor, you probably shouldn't speak publicly of things you plainly don't understand. I've taught for the BYU philosophy department, and some of my best friends are there -- including the internationally respected authority on ancient Greek philosophy who, in his capacity as department chairman, made the ultmate decision on the part-time instructor Jeffrey Neilson. He and I have taught classes together, and we discussed this case as it was happening. He's a fine man, a brilliant scholar, a quiet and unconfrontational person, and one of the most morally serious people I've ever known. The newspaper accounts of the case were, in every case with which I'm familiar, misleading and factually erroneous.

BTW, I know of two men who resigned over the flareup, but none who were fired. Can you name and document a single instance in which a prop 8 supporter, mormon or not, was fired for making a contribution?

A distinction without a substantial difference. To be effectively forced from a career position because one exercised one's rights as an American citizen in a public referendum is fundamentally and unambiguously wrong, profoundly anti-democratic, and it's deeply shameful for you to minimize its wrongness.

According to Chris Jay Hoofnagle, a senior fellow at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology at the University of California -- a hotbed, I suppose, of Mormon theofascism and homophobia -- "These are very small donations given by individuals, and now they are subject to harassment that ultimately makes them less able to engage in democratic decision making."

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Boycotts_related_to_California_Proposition_8

http://janeqrepublican.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/update-on-el-coyote-and-marjorie-christofferson/

You are correct. The image of the LDS Church has only been damaged among those those that that support gay rights, which is what, most people with college degrees, and a vast majority of Americans under age 29, and the few people who watch Keith Olbermann.

Dang. And here, in the honorable tradition of Jeremiah, we expected that, by taking the stand that we did on Prop 8, we were going to take home the gold in The Great American Popularity Contest.

Back to the drawing board!

I am sure the LDS Church is as popular as ever with those who supported prop 8 in large nubmers, African Americans, and white Christian evangelicals.

Robbie George of Princeton being their quintessential representative?

How many times before Prop 8 do you estimate that James Dobson had led campaigns in support of Mormons?

Right because who needs intelligent and articulate political commentators, when we have Glenn Beck.

I congratulate you on your formulation of perhaps the most powerful argument that can be mustered in defense of the execrable (and largely unwatched) Keith Olberman.

[ttribe]

Let me put it to you in "pedestrian" terms. I'm a former driving instructor. Everyone has the "right" to have a driver's licence. Even disabled people can get a licence. So yes, it is a right. What people do not have the right to do is break the law, or the road rules, with impunity. But they do have a right to a driver's licence, as long as they meet the minimum age under state laws, and providing they are not so disabled as to be unable to handle a vehicle. That's why the three-year-old driving, by J Whitlock, is a ridiculous analogy.

Minors are not only disallowed to marry, there are statute ages of consent, which vary. In some countries it's 14, in others 16, or 18. In my country no one under the age of 18 is legally allowed to buy alcohol. Likewise, there are heavy penalties for selling cigarettes to a minor, that is, someone under 18. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation. LOL. I have to laugh.

Marriage is a universal right. Or it should be within age constraints. If you are going to legislate Gays out of marriage, then I would ask, then why not legislate everyone out of marriage who may pose a "threat" to society? Or marital unions that may not be "in the best interests" of society?

I just think we don't see eye to eye on what a universal "right" is...your story of the drivers' license is a fine example of that. A driver's license is not a right - by definition, it is a symbol of government granted permission to use a roadway. A "right" cannot be granted by the government; it simply exists outside the government and its permissions.

Let's go back to the marriage issue - I've submitted that the fact that it requires the consent of another person is evidence that marriage is not a "right" for anyone. Here's an example, let's say I'm single. I wish to exercise my "right" to marriage. I choose Megan Fox as my spouse. I notify her of my intention to exercise my "right" to marriage. She exercises her "rights" and rejects me (I'm shocked). How can this be? I have a "right" to marriage, don't I? She is preventing me from exercising my "right"...can I sue her to compel? But wait, if I do that, I'm violating her rights. It's a completely circular problem.

I realize that you are in AU, but let's just look at the Bill of Rights attached to the U.S. Constitution in the form of the first 10 amendments thereto (beginning with Article 3) - Link. If you look at each of those, which I submit as the best examples of "rights", there is not one that requires anyone's consent (including the government's). They simply exist and I can defend myself against any trampling thereon. Marriage as a concept simply doesn't fit this definition.

[DanGB]

A distinction without a substantial difference. To be effectively forced from a career position because one exercised one's rights as an American citizen in a public referendum is fundamentally and unambiguously wrong, profoundly anti-democratic, and it's deeply shameful for you to minimize its wrongness.

I think however, there is a very substantial difference between resigning and being teminated. In addition to the legal differences, which are quite distinct, one is within the will of the affected individual and the other is not. Having said that, I think it is always sad for one to lose a job they enjoy for their personal beliefs of things civic, religious and perhaps politic.

But I think there are more similarities between the cases described above than differences for the two individuals and their respected employers. Both employers have a mission and objective to further their agenda and programs to a targeted audience they seek to attract. If distractions generated or caused (directly or indirectly) by those employed to carry out the mission and objectives becomes a distraction or hinderence to the mission, the oranization or employer will have no choice but to make changes for the benefit of it's primary goal . Sometime the employee decides to spare the organization and resigns. Sometimes they are forced out unwillingly. In both cases, the organization's effectiveness going forward would probably be impaired if employment was continued. In both cases two individuals lost a job they probably enjoyed because of their personal beliefs and convictions. In both cases, a sad outcome.

[ttribe]

I think however, there is a very substantial difference between resigning and being teminated. In addition to the legal differences, which are quite distinct, one is within the will of the affected individual and the other is not. Having said that, I think it is always sad for one to lose a job they enjoy for their personal beliefs of things civic, religious and perhaps politic.

Forcing someone to resign is not "substantially different" from termination.

But I think there are more similarities between the cases described above than differences for the two individuals and their respected employers. Both employers have a mission and objective to further their agenda and programs to a targeted audience they seek to attract. If distractions generated or caused (directly or indirectly) by those employed to carry out the mission and objectives becomes a distraction or hinderence to the mission, the oranization or employer will have no choice but to make changes for the benefit of it's primary goal . Sometime the employee decides to spare the organization and resigns. Sometimes they are forced out unwillingly. In both cases, the organization's effectiveness going forward would probably be impaired if employment was continued. In both cases two individuals lost a job they probably enjoyed because of their personal beliefs and convictions. In both cases, a sad outcome.

But, are you aware of previous cases where someone was forced to resign their job because of their contribution (however minor it may be) to a political campaign?

[USU78]

I think however, there is a very substantial difference between resigning and being teminated. In addition to the legal differences, which are quite distinct, one is within the will of the affected individual and the other is not. Having said that, I think it is always sad for one to lose a job they enjoy for their personal beliefs of things civic, religious and perhaps politic.

But I think there are more similarities between the cases described above than differences for the two individuals and their respected employers. Both employers have a mission and objective to further their agenda and programs to a targeted audience they seek to attract. If distractions generated or caused (directly or indirectly) by those employed to carry out the mission and objectives becomes a distraction or hinderence to the mission, the oranization or employer will have no choice but to make changes for the benefit of it's primary goal . Sometime the employee decides to spare the organization and resigns. Sometimes they are forced out unwillingly. In both cases, the organization's effectiveness going forward would probably be impaired if employment was continued. In both cases two individuals lost a job they probably enjoyed because of their personal beliefs and convictions. In both cases, a sad outcome.

There is no particular difference between a force-out and a firing. This fact is recognized, for example, by the unemployment insurance folks in all US jurisdictions. If there is a forced resignation, the applicant can say so. The employer is then given the opportunity to respond, whereupon the insurance folks make a decision.

The decision is always and universally and forever that unemployment compensation is awarded.

You are, quite plainly, wrong. The individuals brought up by jaybear were fired, notwithstanding they "resigned."

[Daniel Peterson]

I think however, there is a very substantial difference between resigning and being teminated.

In normal cases, that's obviously true. When the resignation occurs under intense pressure, though, the difference is relatively insignificant.

And when the intense pressure and the resignation occur because the individual has quietly exercised his or her legitimate rights as a citizen in a democracy, this is shameful and should not be defended.

[DanGB]

In normal cases, that's obviously true. When the resignation occurs under intense pressure, though, the difference is relatively insignificant.

And when the intense pressure and the resignation occur because the individual has quietly exercised his or her legitimate rights as a citizen in a democracy, this is shameful and should not be defended.

my point is that both individuals lost, or chose to lose, their jobs as a result of exercising their democratic, religious and political rights at whatever volume level they chose to use.

But no one "forced" the theatre exec to resign, particularly his employer, from what I has read. If they had for his contribution, they would have been in court! He may have concluded he could not be effective because of the media attention, but no one forced him out. If the theatre company decided in the future to not renew his contract, then that would probably be because of the greater goals it wanted to achieve, just as in the BYU situation.

It could be argued whether he could have anticipated the backlash of his decision and that I do not know. But Wm. Marriott gave enough foresight to opt out of contributing because of the backlash he saw to his financial interests.

But in either case, again, a very sad outcome for sure.

[Daniel Peterson]

The fact that a restaurant manager gave $100 to an entirely legal political campaign should not cost her her job in any way at all in a democratic polity, let alone threaten the restaurant, nor should a theater manager's private political views put his theater at risk.

The anti-democratic response to Proposition 8 was and is unjustifiable and shameful.

[Zakuska]

AMEN!

I can see the Prop 8 antagonists going after Utah based Word Perfect who gave $1 Millon dollars to the cause with boycotts etc. But a 60+ year old woman and her restauraunt and $100? I mean come on. All they had to do was stop patronizing her resauraunt.

Of course Word Perfect Also Gave $1 Million to the other side as well so they kind of cancel each other out.

[ttribe]

AMEN!

I can see the Prop 8 antagonists going after Utah based Word Perfect who gave $1 Millon dollars to the cause with boycotts etc. But a 60+ year old woman and her restauraunt?

Of course Word Perfect Also Gave $1 Million to the other side as well so they kind of cancel each other out.

Does anyone still use WordPerfect?!

[cinepro]

Can someone tell me what the point of Elder Oaks' talk was? Meaning, what was the audience of his message supposed to take a way from it, or do?

I could understand if he were somehow addressing the people who were putting pressure on the prop-8 donators after the election, and asking them to stop doing it.

But I'm assuming that most of the people who were protesting, vandalizing, and making life difficult for Prop 8 supporters won't hear about Elder Oaks' comments, and won't care about them even if they do (and they will hardly be surprised that a Mormon leader isn't happy about the backlash).

So what are we supposed to do? Work towards legislation to protect people who support political causes? Work towards legislation to limit the ways people can respond when they get upset about a political process?

[sethpayne]

AMEN!

I can see the Prop 8 antagonists going after Utah based Word Perfect who gave $1 Millon dollars to the cause with boycotts etc. But a 60+ year old woman and her restauraunt and $100? I mean come on. All they had to do was stop patronizing her resauraunt.

Of course Word Perfect Also Gave $1 Million to the other side as well so they kind of cancel each other out.

Word Perfect was sold to Corel YEARS ago.

And to answer ttribe -- a few people use it but its usually just those who get it when it comes pre-installed on their new PCs.

[Zakuska]

Word Perfect was sold to Corel YEARS ago.

And to answer ttribe -- a few people use it but its usually just those who get it when it comes pre-installed on their new PCs.

Yes I mispoke. They should go after Corel.

When I worked at the School District we supported some people who where still using Worperfect 5.1 for Dos. NO Lie!

[Zakuska]

Can someone tell me what the point of Elder Oaks' talk was? Meaning, what was the audience of his message supposed to take a way from it, or do?

I could understand if he were somehow addressing the people who were putting pressure on the prop-8 donators after the election, and asking them to stop doing it.

But I'm assuming that most of the people who were protesting, vandalizing, and making life difficult for Prop 8 supporters won't hear about Elder Oaks' comments, and won't care about them even if they do (and they will hardly be surprised that a Mormon leader isn't happy about the backlash).

So what are we supposed to do? Work towards legislation to protect people who support political causes? Work towards legislation to limit the ways people can respond when they get upset about a political process?

Elder Oake's talk was given to College Students at BYU-Idaho and he was actually dispelling the pursecution complex many of the younger generation were garnering from it.

He was explaining that all these reaction to Prop 8 weren't religious persecuition per-say, but more akin to all the political uphevals of the Civil rights Movement. They where Politcal Chest Thumping and nothing to be affraid of. Because these type of threats are nothing more the Chaff on the threasing floor and what really counts are votes. So don't let all this political chest thumping scare you away from the poles. Get out and Vote how the spirit Dictates.

[ttribe]

And to answer ttribe -- a few people use it but its usually just those who get it when it comes pre-installed on their new PCs.

A "few"? Like 8 or 9?

[DanGB]

The fact that a restaurant manager gave $100 to an entirely legal political campaign should not cost her her job in any way at all in a democratic polity, let alone threaten the restaurant, nor should a theater manager's private political views put his theater at risk.

The anti-democratic response to Proposition 8 was and is unjustifiable and shameful.

I agree. But I also recognize that our society, and probably those in history, have been subject to and affected by "influence pedaling"' for a long time. Write or wrong it seems to have it's impact.

Even our own Church has been impacted from polygamy and statehood to the pressure causing us to cease and desist our sacred ordinances from the Jewish community.

Pedals that's why it was so refreshing to watch Carrie Prejean stand up for her beliefs on marriage and fight the organization who took her crown!!

[tsubotsubo]

While I do agree that mormons are getting persecuted, I really do not think it was very clever of him to make the comparison that he did, mainly because it's hyppocritical, even though it's true.

[Deborah]

While I do agree that mormons are getting persecuted, I really do not think it was very clever of him to make the comparison that he did, mainly because it's hyppocritical, even though it's true.

How is it hypocritical?

[jwhitlock]

So is Justice Michael Kirby, a Gay member of the High Court of Australia. Do you have any openly Gay politicians or Supreme Court judges yet? Have you had an openly atheist President yet? Opinions, even among legal eagles, will vary.

And this relates, how, to your inability to grasp the finer points of what Elder Oaks was saying?

There has been no "twisting". The Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes it clear even sovereignty cannot and should not overrule basic human rights.

Of course, the definition of "basic human rights" is what's in question here - or did you happen to overlook my comment about where you draw the line?

And that would be an old and exaggerated chestnut.

Not hardly - especially when gay rights activists are soooo eager to draw the line about no official marriage recognition for other types of relationships - after their own.

I have denigrated the persecution of Mormons? How? On the issue of Prop 8, I do not support the acts of vandalism, nor the violent rhetoric against Mormons. In fact I abhor it. And I am quite certain that the vast majority in the Gay community also find such comments offensive.

And so we come full circle back to your ill-informed comments about Mormons having "persecution complexes". You can't really have it both ways; it seems disingenuous to try to backpedel this late in the conversation.

[jwhitlock]

I've asked this question a few times and I still don't have an answer - how can any act which requires the consent of another person (i.e. marriage) be considered a basic human right? Generally, I look at the Bill of Rights for the U.S. Constitution, and I don't see one listed there that requires someone else's consent. They are acts which I, alone, can and do pursue. This, of course, makes logical sense. On the other hand, I cannot exercise a "right" to marriage, unless I convince someone else to also exercise their "right" to marriage. Frankly, the "right" to marriage (for either a heterosexual or a homosexual) appears rather contrived and unprecedented.

Excellent point - and one that bears repeating.

[cinepro]

Elder Oake's talk was given to College Students at BYU-Idaho and he was actually dispelling the pursecution complex many of the younger generation were garnering from it.

He was explaining that all these reaction to Prop 8 weren't religious persecuition per-say, but more akin to all the political uphevals of the Civil rights Movement. They where Politcal Chest Thumping and nothing to be affraid of. Because these type of threats are nothing more the Chaff on the threasing floor and what really counts are votes. So don't let all this political chest thumping scare you away from the poles. Get out and Vote how the spirit Dictates.

Aaahhh. I see. That makes much more sense. And I agree with it.

[ttribe]

Aaahhh. I see. That makes much more sense. And I agree with it.

A sure sign that the Second Coming will be here at any moment!