structurecop Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 And are you willing to guarantee that no one else will think that it is a hate crime?Uh, since when is it a crime of any sort to not patronize a business? Did you grow up in East Berlin?
cjcampbell Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 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. Actually, he was a professor at the University of Chicago law school and president of BYU, not a mere professor. One suspects that somebody with as long and distinguished a career as Dallin H. Oaks probably actually knows something about the law.
cjcampbell Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Uh, since when is it a crime of any sort to not patronize a business? Did you grow up in East Berlin?By evading the question you have answered it most eloquently.
Mordecai Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Not "The" Mordecai, ie. borrowed with permission. My wife and I donated to support Prop 8 and went out door to door to inform others. That activity is "American" and is what the intimidation focused on. Are we not intimated when our names are published and then harassed. Is that the kind of free society we want?
structurecop Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Well, they haven't arrested anyone for vandalizing our ward building yet. Or the stake center in Olympia, despite the fact that a gay rights organization publicly took credit for the act. In fact, the police do not seem interested in investigating these crimes at all.1- Admission of guilt does not constitute probable cause for arrest, much less conviction. 2- Have you, or anyone else from local leadership, followed up with the detective(s) assigned to investigate the matter? What you see as disinterest is probably just higher priority cases taking precendence.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 I note that you have wisely chosen not to try to defend this assertion, previously made by you:Which is just as well, because that assertion is a lie.Well I'll start with a statement from the Catholic Church:"Proposition 8 is not against any group in our society. Its sole focus is on preserving God's plan for people living upon this earth throughout time," Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop of the Diocese of Los Angeles, said in a statement Thursday. That's one statement from the Catholic Church. Here are numerous from the Church, about the "divine plan of marriage": Same-Sex Marriage and Proposition 8.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Next you will have to explain why there are so many Mormons who disagreed with the church and even went public with it. Fortunately there are some very sensible Mormons around. But on this issue, I fear they were in the small minority.
juliann Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Better yet, boycotting businesses which employ a single gay person as long as that one employee continues to work there.It wasn't the boycotting. It was the intimidation. They brought in their thugs and formed a gauntlet that any potential custormer would be required to walk through to get in....probably because supporters showed up that made up for their absence. Don't let them get away with making it sound like a little "boycott". Most of the time these "democratic" activities were accompanied by threats or a threatening presence.
ttribe Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Of course, you would see victimisation in terms of retaliation against you, without looking at the real causes of such retaliation. Not that I condone violent acts, but the Church should have been aware that by marshalling such a force to pass Prop 8 it would create anger. You would perhaps try to explain MMM on the grounds that the US created tensions within Utah, Brigham Young and others were
ttribe Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Fortunately there are some very sensible Mormons around. But on this issue, I fear they were in the small minority."sensible" = "agrees with Ray"...got it.
juliann Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Fortunately there are some very sensible Mormons around. But on this issue, I fear they were in the small minority.Whatever. But you need to support your list of rather offensive allegations rather than providing nonresponses like this.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 First, that comparison to MMM was beneath you. It is a valid comparison, and I stand by it. Explaining acts of violence does not extend only to one side. According to this - Link - there are some 750,000 members of the Church living in California. Furthermore, the days of the Church being a "Utah Organization" are long since over. Quit parroting the rhetoric Ray.I'm not talking about the Mormons in California. You divert.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Whatever. But you need to support your list of rather offensive allegations rather than providing nonresponses like this.Offensive allegations like what? Give me a bullet point list and I'll address them.
DanGB Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 It wasn't the boycotting. It was the intimidation. They brought in their thugs and formed a gauntlet that any potential custormer would be required to walk through to get in....probably because supporters showed up that made up for their absence. Don't let them get away with making it sound like a little "boycott". Most of the time these "democratic" activities were accompanied by threats or a threatening presence.Wow! That's terrible. Sounds like the Rodney King riots! I'm surprised it didn't receive more press coverage. Why weren't the police called in?
Zakuska Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 It wasn't the boycotting. It was the intimidation. They brought in their thugs and formed a gauntlet that any potential custormer would be required to walk through to get in....probably because supporters showed up that made up for their absence. Don't let them get away with making it sound like a little "boycott". Most of the time these "democratic" activities were accompanied by threats or a threatening presence.Exactly! Google "SNCC office 616".It was a voter registration poling office which was set up to help blacks register to vote that was ran sacked by... White "Police officers" and other armed white thugs. Its said the people running the both had to flea through a bathroom window and over the roof top then hide out in an aquantences appartment all night while the rioting continued out side.This is one of the main events that lead to our current Voter intimidation laws we have today. Which is pretty much exactly what Elder Oakes was referencing. And this is exactly what Gay rights Activists did to Sister Majorie at El Cyote.
ttribe Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 It is a valid comparison, and I stand by it. That's unfortunate...a little bit of my respect for you died in that moment...seriously.Explaining acts of violence does not extend only to one side. Your point was overwhelmed by the fact that your "explanation" was laden with certain assumptions you projected onto the MMM participants. IMO, there was no excuse for the violent acts of MMM...or the angry No on 8 crowds. None.I'm not talking about the Mormons in California. You divert.Uh no...what did this mean then?But when you purposely interfere in the democratic processes of another state, you expect to get off scot-free without criticism.
congruity Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 So, they don't want Rush Limbaugh to own an NFL team because he is too "divisive" but they don't mind Keith Olberman doing NFL color and commentary. Hmmm. I am not a fan of Rush but if Olberman is allowed to commentate on any NFL games in the future the NFL will be just a bunch of hypocrites. Whenever I see Olberman doing game commentary I will make sure to not watch that game from now on. I'm going to boycott any NFL game Olberman does. Im hearing that Keith Olberman had less than complimentry comments about Elder Oaks and His speech.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#33319827Apparently, he's the worst person in the world.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 That's unfortunate...a little bit of my respect for you died in that moment...seriously.Awww. tt, you broke my heart. I shall not sleep tonight.
ttribe Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Awww. tt, you broke my heart. I shall not sleep tonight.Apparently, reasonable minds can't disagree...and at least one of them can't be civil.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Uh no...what did this mean then?Exactly what I said. Massive interstate intervention with the second largest financial aid to pass prop 8, outside of California itself.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Apparently, reasonable minds can't disagree...and at least one them can't be civil.So your "Ray Ray" comment was pure and unadulterated. How one-sided do you get? What do you think I am?
DanGB Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 So, they don't want Rush Limbaugh to own an NFL team because he is too "divisive" but they don't mind Keith Olberman doing NFL color and commentary. Hmmm. I am not a fan of Rush but if Olberman is allowed to commentate on any NFL games in the future the NFL will be just a bunch of hypocrites. Whenever I see Olberman doing game commentary I will make sure to not watch that game from now on. I'm going to boycott any NFL game Olberman does.Gotta confess, I dig Rush. He screwed up w his comments about McNabb and it cost him rightfully. But Olberman is just too short on the IQ area for me. He can probably do sports without it being to noticable, but on politics and news, he is like listening to a sixth grader!
ttribe Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 So your "Ray Ray" comment was pure and unadulterated. How one-sided do you get? What do you think I am?It certainly wasn't intended to be insulting...I guess this is where the "no voice inflections" and "no facial expressions" thing comes back and bites me in the rear again...it really was intended to be friendly. My apologies if it didn't come off that way.
ttribe Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Exactly what I said. Massive interstate intervention with the second largest financial aid to pass prop 8, outside of California itself.And why is it not okay for the Church to mobilize its members in a political matter that will affect nearly a million of its members directly and could have a nationwide impact?
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 It certainly wasn't intended to be insulting...I guess this is where the "no voice inflections" and "no facial expressions" thing comes back and bites me in the rear again...it really was intended to be friendly. My apologies if it didn't come off that way.Well, with no insult intended, I really do not care what you (or most here) think about me.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.