Breaking News - Gay Marriage Ruling

[KevinG]

I have to ask, what does the right to keep and bear arms have to do with the state's involvement in marriage?

Noted and corrected. ...1st Amendment - all that stuff about establishing or prohibiting a religion...

[KevinG]

My view DaddyG is that the fact that some heterosexuals engage is wrong behavior is no excuse to endorse an expansion of that behavior.

I agree that redefining morals to fit our own desires is not a good thing.

But as heterosexuals practice serial monogamy, adultry and fornication on a regular basis it soes undermine the argument that marriage is a sacred institution. The relative levels of faithfulness to partners between the homosexual and heterosexual communities does not give one or the other the moral high ground.

Constitutional rights however are not dependent on someones sexual beliefs. They are for all citizens, even those who choose not to follow the community standard for morality. It is better that we allow other freedom to choose, preach and live our beleifs and see if our example and precept cannot help mankind govern themselves for the better.

The way the law sees marriage today puts us in a bind. Either we deny ourselves the priveledge of defining marriage as we see good or we deny others the priveledge of defining marriage as they see fit. IMO it is not the states place to define marriage even if the community at large supports that definition.

Ultimately the law cannot prevent us from creating heaven on earth or going to h*** in a handbasket. It should protect our freedom to choose which direction we go ourselves.

[frankenstein]

Evasion is a lie, if you don't think so, you have much to learn about the definition of truth. Why you choose deception as an acceptable lifestyle and response to open answers in a democracy speaks volumes as how one respond to your questions.

well it is good to read that, based on your statements you would regard much of the information provided by anti-gay marriage crowd as lies.

and where is the evasion?

question: Will you help? (this is a yes/no question)

response: yes or no, (is providing the person asking the question with everything they have asked for. That the person asking a question does not have the capacity to frame the question according the "type" of answer they want i.e. yes/no v pontification as to the reason why, is a problem the for the person asking the question.)

Sin is dysfunctional to be sure, but you have used many other hyperbolic phrases or attempted to push button using hateful language, I suggest your refrain from it in the future. If you cannot, I am sure others will help you see the error. I am trying not to rise to your baiting.

so you label "dysfunctional" as hyperbolic but now suggest it is appropriate to use the term? so which is it, can I or anyone else refer to homosexuals or non-lds standards lifestyle as dysfunctional? I am not clear on the message you are sending.

[frankenstein]

nvm

[Jeff K.]

I agree that redefining morals to fit our own desires is not a good thing.

But as heterosexuals practice serial monogamy, adultry and fornication on a regular basis it soes undermine the argument that marriage is a sacred institution. The relative levels of faithfulness to partners between the homosexual and heterosexual communities does not give one or the other the moral high ground.

Constitutional rights however are not dependent on someones sexual beliefs. They are for all citizens, even those who choose not to follow the community standard for morality. It is better that we allow other freedom to choose, preach and live our beleifs and see if our example and precept cannot help mankind govern themselves for the better.

I don't think it does undermine the argument other than showing more of a bad thing, produces more bad things. We know as a society what we should do, and the moral high ground is not undermined by the immoral behavior of some.

As to the question of constitutionality. Changing the definition of marriage is not a constitutional right anymore than changing the defintion of blue to green. Marriage is defined and it helps us develop as a soceity. The rights inherent in marriage can be provided for in civil unions which are not marriage and do not define themelves as such, however that is not enough for those who endorse bad or immoral behavior. By reducing marriage to a vapid nothingness, they get what they want, and they can force others to state that what they want is acceptable, even when it is not. Like the photography couple who must either lie or be prosecuted for being truthful.

The way the law sees marriage today puts us in a bind. Either we deny ourselves the priveledge of defining marriage as we see good or we deny others the priveledge of defining marriage as they see fit. IMO it is not the states place to define marriage even if the community at large supports that definition.

No, that is not accurate. The way the states see marriage, through popular vote, has pretty consistently been defined. It is an elitist group that somehow thinks we cannot choose for ourselves as a society to define marriage with those terms that do the greatest food. The constitution has made it a case for states to define marriage, both states and "the state" split that power. And marriage is important because by definition it carries with it the ideals of familial responsibiltiy. If that is taken away, then the state can also redefine families into a similar vapid empty phrase. Marriage is integral to creating families and if you change one definition, you can change the other, and both have extremely negative consequences. In a democracy, people have the right to choose the society in which they live. There is no fixed constitutional standard that exists outside of society's right to choose. The state reflects the needs of society, our founding fathers knew it, otherwise they would have held the Articles of Confederation to be sufficient.

Ultimately the law cannot prevent us from creating heaven on earth or going to h*** in a handbasket. It should protect our freedom to choose which direction we go ourselves.

I suggest you read church history and the scriptures closely if you believe the law cannot prevent us from creating heaven on earth or outer darkness. The law sets limits to behavior and provides goalposts for proper actions. If the law can redefine marriage, it can also redefine freedom, again like the photography couple, like the Catholic charities that did not want to be forced to help immoral behavior by providing children to gay couples. Their freedoms were undermined for immoral behavior.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 28 June 2011 - 09:40 PM, said:

Evasion is a lie, if you don't think so, you have much to learn about the definition of truth. Why you choose deception as an acceptable lifestyle and response to open answers in a democracy speaks volumes as how one respond to your questions.

well it is good to read that, based on your statements you would regard much of the information provided by anti-gay marriage crowd as lies.

and where is the evasion?

question: Will you help? (this is a yes/no question)

response: yes or no, (is providing the person asking the question with everything they have asked for. That the person asking a question does not have the capacity to frame the question according the "type" of answer they want i.e. yes/no v pontification as to the reason why, is a problem the for the person asking the question.)

Evasion is a lie. If someone asks you why, and you know the state will prosecute you if you answer honestly and must evade, then you are lying. You seem to think that people who don't lie are stupid rather than honest. When you cannot be honest because the state forces you to lie, then yes it is wrong.

Jeff K., on 28 June 2011 - 09:40 PM, said:

Sin is dysfunctional to be sure, but you have used many other hyperbolic phrases or attempted to push button using hateful language, I suggest your refrain from it in the future. If you cannot, I am sure others will help you see the error. I am trying not to rise to your baiting.

so you label "dysfunctional" as hyperbolic but now suggest it is appropriate to use the term? so which is it, can I or anyone else refer to homosexuals or non-lds standards lifestyle as dysfunctional? I am not clear on the message you are sending.

as you yourself stated

why did the photographer in New Mexico get sued? Because she was dumb enough to say she did not provide services to homosexuals; rather than doing the smart thing and saying "No, I am not interested, thank you, and do not not call back". Once she made it a issue of sexual orientation she was in violation of New Mexico law. so what is the lesson for people in NY if you don't want to provide services to homosexuals just say "No thank you" but if you are dumb to say "I don't like homos and will not provide services to homos" then in my opinion you deserve to get sued, if only for you stupidity in opening yourself up to a law suit.

How dare she answer the query as to why honestly. After all the state will punish you unless you lie.

I might add parsing words and avoiding context is also a type of deceit or lie if you will.

Reread the context by which you attempted to describe those involved and tell me it doesn't reflect a certain hatred. Let us see the extent of your honest in these questions.

Do you think that

Photographer 2: No because I hate homos and you should all burn in h***.

such context and the other posts with similar hyperbolic slants reflecting hate are ok? Dysfunctional within the context of other items you have raised is wrong, hands down wrong. One should refrain from it.

[Jaybear]

I agree that redefining morals to fit our own desires is not a good thing.

....

Ultimately the law cannot prevent us from creating heaven on earth or going to h*** in a handbasket. It should protect our freedom to choose which direction we go ourselves.

Well said. In the end, Jeff and his ilk are all about passing laws which hinder or prevent people for making personal choices that Jeff and his ilk personally disapprove.

This is the same reason that moral conservatives opposed birth control. Availability of birth control would lead to couples choosing to have sex out of wedlock.

This is the same reason that moral conservatives opposed no fault divorce. Given the option, couples might choose to go their separate way.

This is the same reason that moral conservatives opposed equal rights for women. Women who had easier access to well paying jobs, might be inclined to choose to work, rather than marry, stay at home and raise children.

Jeff's concern is that gay marriage is legal and society treats homosexuality as "normal" human condition then without this barrier of societal stigma that kept gays in the closet, more people may choose to have an intimate relationship with someone of their own sex.

In general terms; if we wish to remove the people from democracy and have an elite class make the decisions for the population, then lets be honest and state as much.

I am not sure where you live, but I am sure you would hate it here in America, where we have done just that. We call this "elite class" our representatives. Some of them are elected to serve as our representatives for up to 6 years. We call them Senators.

[Jeff K.]

Well said. In the end, Jeff and his ilk are all about passing laws which hinder or prevent people for making personal choices that Jeff and his ilk personally disapprove

Jeff and his ilk, my how personal is that? Jeff and his ilk do not care if the gay community practices monogamy, polygamy, or any other gamy, their choices are open to them. The opportunity for civil union with the same rights as marriage is there. Jeff and his ilk simply do not want to redefine marriage by undermining its existence.

Name one person that was fired, because they were a Mormon following passage of Prop 8.

Your lack of precision in your choice of language is challenging.

They were not fired, they resigned.

The threatened boycotts occurred, not because they were mormon, or because they VOTED for prop 8. The pressure came because they CONTRIBUTED funds to Prop 8.

I did not say laws preventing discrimination agaisnt gays also prevent discrimination agaisnt people who contribute to political campaigns. If you think that would be a good law to pass, go get em tiger.

No Jaybear, there were many men of other groups who also voted for prop 8 and did not lose their jobs.

Mormons were the easiest ones to use as a scapegoat, just like the Jews. So spare me the false dichotomy. Tell you what, show me the protests in front of the AME church and the African Americans, Muslims and Jews who voted against it and how they lost their jobs.

Otherwise your point is a false one.

Still waiting Jaybear....

[Jaybear]

No Jaybear, there were many men of other groups who also voted for prop 8 and did not lose their jobs.

Mormons were the easiest ones to use as a scapegoat, just like the Jews. So spare me the false dichotomy. Tell you what, show me the protests in front of the AME church and the African Americans, Muslims and Jews who voted against it and how they lost their jobs.

Otherwise your point is a false one.

My point is that if a law protects agaisnt discrimination against homosexuals, it will also protect agaisnt discrimination agaisnt Mormons.

Your example does not demonstrate that my point is false.

To address your post, first we have to clean up the sloppy and imprecise manner in which you have presented the facts. In the future, if you try to be more precise with your choice of words to describe facts, we can avoid this diversion.

Lets use the Sacramento theater guy as an example.

The Sacramento Theater director was not fired because he was mormon. He was not fired for voting for Prop 8. He was not even fired. He quit his job because of the problems he created for the Theater when it was learned that he donated money to supported prop 8. Had he donated money to oppose prop 8, he would still have his job.

So if you want to prove my point false, you need to show me that a law exists which protects gays from being pressured to resign, for donating money to a political campaign that offended people who are essential to the success of the business.

[Analytics]

Jeff,

You had said,

I simply pointed out what appears to be the gay man's approach to marriage. Which by the way is sustained and supported by those white parties in the US and elsewhere, the gay pride parades, whose exhibitions cannot be shown to the public based on (ironically) decency laws in the public airways.

I replied by saying, white parties and gay parades are “the gay man’s” approach to marriage in the same way that Mardi Gras and swinger parties are “the straight man’s” approach to marriage.

You responded,

Swinger parties are not acceptable to the married community and Mardi Gras certainly isn't to the idea of marriage.

That’s exactly my point.

In response to the various rants about how same-sex marriage is an attack on conservative values, I’ll simply remind you of the context of this thread: last Friday, the Republican-controlled New York State Senate legalized same-sex marriage in the state of New York.

Why they would do that? I sugguest you revisit The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage:

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

[Jeff K.]

Name one person that was fired, because they were a Mormon following passage of Prop 8.

Your lack of precision in your choice of language is challenging.

They were not fired, they resigned.

The threatened boycotts occurred, not because they were mormon, or because they VOTED for prop 8. The pressure came because they CONTRIBUTED funds to Prop 8.

I did not say laws preventing discrimination agaisnt gays also prevent discrimination agaisnt people who contribute to political campaigns. If you think that would be a good law to pass, go get em tiger.

No Jaybear, there were many men of other groups who also voted for prop 8 and did not lose their jobs.

Mormons were the easiest ones to use as a scapegoat, just like the Jews. So spare me the false dichotomy. Tell you what, show me the protests in front of the AME church and the African Americans, Muslims and Jews who voted against it and how they lost their jobs.

Otherwise your point is a false one.

Still waiting Jaybear....

My point is that if a law protects agaisnt discrimination against homosexuals, it will also protect agaisnt discrimination agaisnt Mormons.

Your example does not demonstrate that my point is false.

To address your post, first we have to clean up the sloppy and imprecise manner in which you have presented the facts. In the future, if you try to be more precise with your choice of words to describe facts, we can avoid this diversion.

Lets use the Sacramento theater guy as an example.

The Sacramento Theater director was not fired because he was mormon. He was not fired for voting for Prop 8. He was not even fired. He quit his job because of the problems he created for the Theater when it was learned that he donated money to supported prop 8. Had he donated money to oppose prop 8, he would still have his job.

So if you want to prove my point false, you need to show me that a law exists which protects gays from being pressured to resign, for donating money to a political campaign that offended people who are essential to the success of the business.

The best way to avoid a challenge is to make it all about me. You can't come up with a counter example even.

As I have said many people voted for prop 8, they did not lose their jobs, but Mormons, well thats a different story. Was it about prop 8 or are Mormons like the Jews, convenient scapegoats. I am still waiting.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 28 June 2011 - 06:04 PM, said:

Swinger parties are not acceptable to the married community and Mardi Gras certainly isn't to the idea of marriage.

That’s exactly my point.

In response to the various rants about how same-sex marriage is an attack on conservative values, I’ll simply remind you of the context of this thread: last Friday, the Republican-controlled New York State Senate legalized same-sex marriage in the state of New York.

Why they would do that? I sugguest you revisit The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage:

Could these gay pride parades exist if they didn't have the support of the large gay communities they are held in?

No, no more than swinger parades are allowed.

I suggest you consider the issue when people try to foist the obvious false imagery of the gay lifestyle.

[TAO]

My point is that if a law protects agaisnt discrimination against homosexuals, it will also protect agaisnt discrimination agaisnt Mormons.

Your example does not demonstrate that my point is false.

To address your post, first we have to clean up the sloppy and imprecise manner in which you have presented the facts. In the future, if you try to be more precise with your choice of words to describe facts, we can avoid this diversion.

Lets use the Sacramento theater guy as an example.

The Sacramento Theater director was not fired because he was mormon. He was not fired for voting for Prop 8. He was not even fired. He quit his job because of the problems he created for the Theater when it was learned that he donated money to supported prop 8. Had he donated money to oppose prop 8, he would still have his job.

So if you want to prove my point false, you need to show me that a law exists which protects gays from being pressured to resign, for donating money to a political campaign that offended people who are essential to the success of the business.

You wanted a person who had lost their job because of Voting for Prop 8. They (multiple of them) are talked about in this article: http://www.wnd.com/i...ew&pageId=84812

Also for reference, here is one of the blacklists that were given out: http://web.archive.o...yblacklist.com/ <-- (the link in the article was broken)

[Jeff K.]

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

No, gay marriage does not promote the values of marriage. Especially when they "take breaks". Commitment means a different thing. It isn't until death do us part, it is, except when we have our parties, except when we have another invited over, except.... I don't define marriage in those terms and increasing the proclivity of such actions within the marriage community in any manner should indeed be refuted.

[Daniel2]

Similarly, as a man, he should be able to control himself, as other men have done, slowly, before him. The path is rough, but it has been tread before.

Force of will is the most powerful force on earth if put to good use. Trust me =). It is a hard lesson to learn, a hard path to overcome, but it is worth it =D.

I heartily agree with everything you wrote here, TAO.

Daniel2

[frankenstein]

Actually it doesn't. Just ask the Mormons who lost their jobs because they voted and supported their conscience.

CFR, I would like to read the stories of the mormons who lost their jobs because they voted and supported their conscience.

--------------

seperately concerning truth, evasion, and deception....is labeling the right to ssm in Ca. as an aboration or to say there never was right to ssm in Ca. is it a lie to say those things about ssm in Ca.?

[bluebell]

CFR, I would like to read the stories of the mormons who lost their jobs because they voted and supported their conscience.

TAO's article which he linked to in his last post talks about specific people who were fired for voting against SSM, but I'm not sure how many/if any are mormon.

[Jeff K.]

http://mormonism-unveiled.blogspot.com/2011/05/peter-vidmar-browbeaten-into-resigning.html

It started on Thursday April 28th, when the U.S. Olympic Committee named Peter Vidmar, a two-time Olympic gold medalist gymnast, as one of two chef de missions (chiefs of mission) to act as liaisons during the Olympics and Paralympics in London in 2012. His job would have been to represent the U.S. delegations if issues arise between the USOC and the London Organizing Committee, the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee and other Olympic entities. On the surface, it looked like a good call; upon appointment, Vidmar said "I'll give my very best efforts to ensure that every athlete selected to represent the U.S. in London has the experience that they've prepared for...For many of these athletes, this could be their first and only Olympic Games, and each deserves to have their best experience."

However, it turns out that Vidmar had actively supported California Proposition 8, which defined marriage as only between one man and one woman, and which passed in 2008. He even donated $2,000 to the campaign. The LDS Church encouraged its members to work for Prop 8's passage. And openly gay figure skater Johnny Weir jumped all over it, condemning the choice of Vidmar and saying that he wouldn’t want to be represented by someone who is anti-gay marriage. In response, Vidmar explained that his views on gay marriage would not influence how he treats any gay Olympian, saying “I fully respect the rights of everyone to have the relationships they want to have...I respect the rights of all our athletes, regardless of their race, their religion or their sexual orientation. I will cheer and do all I can, passionately, for every athlete on the U.S. Olympic team.”

Even though the U.S. Olympic Committee was unaware of Vidmar's position before it named him chief of mission, they stood behind him, saying “Peter is a tireless advocate for sport in this country and someone who has inspired many with his successes in the world of sport. That is why we chose him as our chef for the London Games. We respect Peter’s right to religious freedom, and we understand and respect he fact that many Americans do not share his views.”

Yet despite Vidmar's reassurances that he would treat every team member fairly and despite the Olympic Committee's continuing support, the gay rights lobby continued to attack Vidmar, to include Box Turtle Bulletin and Just Out. This shows that the gay rights lobby, which is by no means representative of the views of all gays, will not settle for mere tolerance; they demand affirmation and celebration of homosexuality. As a result, on May 6th, Vidmar threw in the towel and resigned from the position. Vidmar explained:

"I have dedicated my life to the Olympic movement and the ideals of excellence, friendship and respect. I wish that my personal religious beliefs would not have become a distraction from the amazing things that are happening in the Olympic movement in the United States. I simply cannot have my presence become a detriment to the U.S. Olympic family. I hope that by stepping aside, the athletes and their stories will rightly take center stage."

USOC CEO Scott Blackmun expressed respect for Vidmar's decision and indicated they will find a replacement. Another unofficial LDS blog discussing this story is Times And Seasons, where Kent Larsen asks if this is persecution or freedom. Larsen wrote "What disappoints me about the activists in this case is that this mixes two unrelated things: Vidmar’s personal beliefs, public as he made them in the campaign, and his ability to perform the duties of chef de mission. Perhaps I don’t understand the position very well, but I have a hard time understanding how the beliefs could adversely affect the position". But in the end, he doesn't characterize it as persecution. Mormon Chronicles also weighs in, documenting reaction from other Olympic figures.

I will take a different tack. While the gay rights activists who chose to interject politics into the Olympics are contemptible, I can't let Peter Vidmar off the hook. Despite enjoying the continued support of the Olympic Committee, Vidmar chose to throw in the towel and resign. Resigning out of political correctness merely empowers those who use pressure tactics; it further enshrines political correctness. When the Prophet Joseph Smith came under attack for his beliefs, did he resign as President of the LDS Church? Absolutely not, although unlike Vidmar, Joseph Smith faced tarring and feathering, false imprisonment, and ultimately assassination.

I know the man as a member of the stake presidency. An honorable man in everyway.

[frankenstein]

You wanted a person who had lost their job because of Voting for Prop 8. They (multiple of them) are talked about in this article: http://www.wnd.com/i...ew&pageId=84812

Tao, from wnd.com, according to jeff's standard for truth it would appear a lie to claim the radio host was fired for support prop 8, when the official position is he was fired for defamation of sorts.

Officials atKNWZ radiosaid it was Gilbert's on-air accusations of murder against Foat that triggered their decision to take action against the program and its hosts, Gilbert and Gary Stone.

John McMullen, station spokesman, told WND, "We do not allow our employees to use our airwaves, of which we are the public trustee for, to make libelous, slanderous, defamatory remarks [about an individual], whether they are a public servant or private person.

"You cannot call people outright murderers and get away with it," he said.

Gilbert said his description of Foat as a "murderer" was in the "same vein as calling O.J. [simpson] a murderer."

Officials atKNWZ radiosaid it was Gilbert's on-air accusations of murder against Foat that triggered their decision to take action against the program and its hosts, Gilbert and Gary Stone.

John McMullen, station spokesman, told WND, "We do not allow our employees to use our airwaves, of which we are the public trustee for, to make libelous, slanderous, defamatory remarks [about an individual], whether they are a public servant or private person.

"You cannot call people outright murderers and get away with it," he said.

Gilbert said his description of Foat as a "murderer" was in the "same vein as calling O.J. [simpson] a murderer."

"I was using a metaphor," he said.

also, jeff's claim is 3 fold,

Mormon

Voted

supported their conscience

[frankenstein]

http://mormonism-unv...-resigning.html

I know the man as a member of the stake presidency. An honorable man in everyway.

The Olympic Chief resigned. and his plight has been discussed on these boards. Now we get to discuss what is truth, was the man fired or did he resign? Truth dictates he resigned, so which is it? Fired or resigned.

[Jeff K.]

Did he lose his job because he supported prop 8?

I wonder, will you speak the truth on the matter or be evasive?

[Jeff K.]

Religious Freedom

Second, we must not be deterred or coerced into silence by the kinds of intimidation I have described. We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. These are the rights of all citizens and they are also the rights of religious leaders. While our church rarely speaks on public issues, it does so by exception on what the First Presidency defines as significant moral issues, which could surely include laws affecting the fundamental legal/cultural/moral environment of our communities and nations.

We must also insist on this companion condition of democratic government: when churches and their members or any other group act or speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right to expect freedom from retaliation.

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. Fortunately, some recognized such retaliation for what it was. A full-page ad in the New York Times branded this “violence and intimidation” against religious organizations and individual believers “simply because they supported Proposition 8 [as] an outrage that must stop.” [xv] The fact that this ad was signed by some leaders who had no history of friendship for our faith only added to its force.

[bluebell]

Tao, from wnd.com, according to jeff's standard for truth it would appear a lie to claim the radio host was fired for support prop 8, when the official position is he was fired for defamation of sorts.

Officials atKNWZ radiosaid it was Gilbert's on-air accusations of murder against Foat that triggered their decision to take action against the program and its hosts, Gilbert and Gary Stone.

John McMullen, station spokesman, told WND, "We do not allow our employees to use our airwaves, of which we are the public trustee for, to make libelous, slanderous, defamatory remarks [about an individual], whether they are a public servant or private person.

"You cannot call people outright murderers and get away with it," he said.

Gilbert said his description of Foat as a "murderer" was in the "same vein as calling O.J. [simpson] a murderer."

Officials atKNWZ radiosaid it was Gilbert's on-air accusations of murder against Foat that triggered their decision to take action against the program and its hosts, Gilbert and Gary Stone.

John McMullen, station spokesman, told WND, "We do not allow our employees to use our airwaves, of which we are the public trustee for, to make libelous, slanderous, defamatory remarks [about an individual], whether they are a public servant or private person.

"You cannot call people outright murderers and get away with it," he said.

Gilbert said his description of Foat as a "murderer" was in the "same vein as calling O.J. [simpson] a murderer."

"I was using a metaphor," he said.

also, jeff's claim is 3 fold,

Mormon

Voted

supported their conscience

There were more people represented in that article than just the one that you have mentioned here. And whether or not they are mormon, the 2nd and 3rd fold of Jeffk's claim seems to be represented.

If you want to remain at all credible, you should probably acknowledge those instances, instead of doing everything possible to discount them soley because they don't measure up to an extremely narrow window of evidence you are willing to consider.

[frankenstein]

There were more people represented in that article than just the one that you have mentioned here. And whether or not they are mormon, the 2nd and 3rd fold of Jeffk's claim seems to be represented.

If you want to remain at all credible, you should probably acknowledge those instances, instead of doing everything possible to discount them soley because they don't measure up to an extremely narrow window of evidence you are willing to consider.

there were only two people from the article where is stated they were fired, and their claim was based on their own opinion; the stated reason for firing is because of the defamatory nature of the statements made against a guest of the show. Secondly there seems a sever lack of legal paper concerning these firings. Where are the workers comp claims? where is the paper trail of even dismissal of legal cases? The Coffee Shop was on the blacklist, the unnamed and unconfirmed professors report harassment.

Jeff's claim is lost job because of three things that must all be together.

Mormon,

Voted (presumably jeff means in favor of prop 8 )

and supported their conscience.

Peter Vidmar resigned, as to who is being evasion, I claim jeff is jeff claims I am. Peter Vidmar did not loose his job, he gave up his job, he voluntarily left his job. And Jeff also claims plural in terms of job loss, mormon, voting and supporting conscience.

in google searching for mormons fired over prop 8, I found claims of a lds employer who fired an employee for not voting against ssm, this is a claim from Az. And there is also documentation of the Church firing persons for having gay friend well loosing a Temple Recommend for having gay friends. The Church firigns and Az situation illustrate the point on what do we accept as fact and what do take with a grain of salt

Lastly it is Jeff who set up the narrow window. Jeff can restate his claim or we can hold him to the standard he set forth.

-------------------

jeff k posted

"Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors."

Where is the proof of firings?

Please document the "firings"?

Yes there were boycotts.

But where are the firings suffered by members of the Church.

--------------

Jeff K what is your opinion on the"boycott" promoted by PJI against Pg&E because PG&E donated money in favor of ssm?

[bluebell]

there were only two people from the article where is stated they were fired, and their claim was based on their own opinion; the stated reason for firing is because of the defamatory nature of the statements. Secondly there seems a sever lack of legal paper concerning all these firings. Where are the workers comp claims? where is the paper trail of even dismissal of legal cases? The Coffee Shop was on the blacklist, the unnamed and unconfirmed professors report harassment.

Jeff's claim is lost job because of three things that must all be together.

Mormon,

Voted (presumably jeff means in favor of prop 8 )

and supported their conscience.

Peter Vidmar resigned, as to who is being evasion, I claim jeff is jeff claims I am. Peter Vidmar did not loose his job, he gave up his job, he voluntarily left his job. And Jeff also claims plural in terms of job loss, mormon, voting and supporting conscience.

i searching for mormons fired over prop 8, I found claims of a lds employer who fired an employee for not voting against ssm, this is a claim from Az. And there is also documentation of the Church firing persons for having gay friend well loosing a Temple Recommend for having gay friends. The Church firigns and Az situation illustrate the point on what do we accept as fact and what do take with a grain of salt

Lastly it is Jeff who set up the narrow window. Jeff can restate his claim or we can hold him to the standard he set forth.

-------------------

jeff k posted

"Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors."

Where is the proof of firings?

Please document the "firings"?

Yes there were boycotts.

But where are the firings suffered by members of the Church.

Nevermind Frank, if you think your cause is served best by how you are handling it, then there's no reason for me to argue. As far as this thread is concerned, i don't have a dog in the hunt.