BYU Bans Protests on Y Mountain

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Ah, well.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Let me check my card here and…………yep……….

BINGO!

Kinda weird that this "reasonable minds" sentiment gets so much derision on this board.  It is intended as a token gesture of respect for perspectives that conflict with my own.  But oh well.

I think we need to be able to have disagreements, and to continue discourse with civility and mutual respect even when Party A ends up not persuading Party B or vice versa.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 15, 2022 by smac97

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if that difference precludes reasonable time, place and manner restrictions?

Feel free.

"Special Pleading" is the order of the day, it seems.

Equality Utah has its offices in downtown Salt Lake City.  Although generally open to the public, I don't think they should be expected to acquiesce to ideological opponents setting up shop in there, or using their office front windows to post criticisms of their goals and policies.  See, even if someone disagrees with Equality Utah (I generally don't and in fact I find some of their efforts quite admirable), I think Equality Utah is not obligated to provide a forum for the expression of that disagreement.  There are all sorts of other places where its critics can go without violating the basic property rights of Equality Utah.  I think the law, and basic notions of common decency and respect, preclude such obnoxious and unseemly (and illegal) behavior.

But when it comes to BYU's property rights, it's "pass the popcorn."

Thanks,

-Smac

“Special Pleading”? Really counselor?

At the idea that a property that is required by legal agreement to be publicly accessible should be treated differently from a private residence?

I am going to need more popcorn!

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“Special Pleading”? Really counselor?

Really.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard.

See, I am suspecting a massive double standard is in play here.  The standard for BYU and the Church is that property rights don't matter.  That protesters are justified in trespassing.  That BYU and the Church are somehow obligated to provide a forum for protesters to speak and act against the Church, and to foment adverse public sentiment against them (BYU and the Church).

The other standard is . . . for everyone else.  Equality Utah, for example.  Or the Encircle House in Provo.  Would people like some on this board be publicly gloating at the prospect of protesters trespassing at these places?  Setting up shop to speak and act against them, to foment adverse public sentiments against them?  I think . . . not.  Why?  "'Well, that's different because shut up,' he explained."

"Property rights for me and mine, but not for thee and thine."  Same goes for basic notions of tact, decorum, and basic decency.  Everyone is entitled to such things except BYU and the Church.  For them, it's "pass the popcorn."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 15, 2022 by smac97

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Still you.

If you bought a house next week, would you let protesters into it to the week after?  Protesters who intend to shame and humiliate you into bending to their will?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Thanks,

-Smac 

This post says a lot about your complete unwillingness to give the LGBT an inch.  I repeat

We are talking about a Y on the mountain that only recently was give to BYU by the U.S. Forest Service.  A Y on U.S Forest Service  that for decades BYU students would climb all over and dump whitewash on the environment.  

Now who is appealing to the ridiculous??

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think my comments were hyperbolic.

Ah it is

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

CB and others appear to be advocating for the violation of BYU's property rights.  Because they dislike BYU and the Church. 

This is cause I neither dislike BYU nor the Church.  Most of my children are members of the Church.  I have always encouraged them to participate in the Church.  I attended BYU.  5 of them have also attended BYU.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

They are faulting the Church for regulating the conduct on its property, even though I suspect they would not go along with similar rights violations as to their property.

No one is faulting the Church for regulating the conduct on its property.  Please refer to my post here on this thread.  See here

Quote

BYU/the Church  is the one laying down the gauntlet and thinks that it has complete power over its students.  Well it does have that power.  I have see BYU use it's power to kick out anyone who disagrees with its policies before. I have seen the Church kick out those that are looking for reform.  And they have every right to.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The comparison is purely hypothetical and illustrative.  I would be strongly opposed to any protesters trespassing on CB's property and violating his fundamental property rights by setting up a protest to rail against him and/or his personal beliefs.  I would think it absurd and unreasonable for such protesters to expect CB to blithely surrender his property to the whims of people who disagree with or dislike his opinions so that they can publicly disparage and speak against him for having those opinions.  

Yet you advocated for people attacking my home because of my position on Y mountain.   (yeah this is how you would respond to that statement)

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it would be ironic, grossly hypocritical, and in contempt of the law for me to advocate for protests of this sort against BYU while reserving to myself the right to define what goes on at my house.

The Y on a mountain is NOT the same as your home.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We're talking about property rights.  And we are talking about a publicity stunt that is calculated to disparage BYU and the Church, to bring to bear public opprobrium against BYU and the Church, to foment ill will against BYU and the Church, to coerce BYU and the Church into altering its stance on certain issues, to punish BYU and the Church for believing in and teaching a code of sexual ethics.

And once again. this is what I actually said, I might add the bold is in the original post I made

Quote

BYU/the Church  is the one laying down the gauntlet and thinks that it has complete power over its students.  Well it does have that power.  I have see BYU use it's power to kick out anyone who disagrees with its policies before. I have seen the Church kick out those that are looking for reform.  And they have every right to.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If protesters were to go to CB's house and trespass on his front loan, and if they were to put on a publicity stunt calculated to disparage him, to make him look bad, to foment ill will against him, to coerce him into altering his stance on certain issues, to punish him for having and advocating his preferred set of sexual ethics . . . I would be appalled.  I would hope nobody would ever do that to him.  Even if the protesters were nonviolent (which itself would be a dubious claim - since when is breaking the law and trespassing onto private property in direct violation of the owner's will not violence?).  Even if they said "Hey, we are just talking about setting up placards and protest signs and colored lights on your front lawn, and passing out flyers critical of CB, and publicly speaking against him.  Where's the harm in that?"  

I don't know what front loan is.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Violation of property rights would be the harm.

If property rights are harmed, then there BYU has legal recourse.  No one is suggesting those legal recourses should be taken from them.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The toxicity of using pressure tactics to shame and coerce a private party to alter its religious views would be the harm.

toxic pressure?  Hyperboil

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The wanton hypocrisy of egging on unlawful behavior, then turning around and objecting to it when it happens to you, would be the harm.

Peaceful protests is what is being discussed.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As a society we have become too accustomed to resorting to such things rather than reasoning, persuasion, evidence, and so on.

Yes peaceful protests are a cornerstone of our democracy.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As a soceity we have become too intolerant of diverse viewpoints.  Religious individuals, groups and institutions like BYU are, it seems, not allowed to disagree with the viewpoints of some people, and if they dare to do it than these people will cheer on actions to punish and humiliate BYU, to disregard and violate its property rights, and so on.  "Pass the popcorn," as it were.

No one has said that BYU is not allowed to have an belief it wants.  You are making this up.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Why?  At least evangelicals are respecting the law and basic property rights.  How is that worse than what is being advocated and hoped for here (protesters deliberately violating BYU's property rights)?

Evalgelics are not denying students equal treatment at BYU are they.  It is BYU that is doing that.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A closer analogy would be evangelicals invading the Conference Center and protesting there, or going onto Temple Square and protesting there.  That, I think, is when my point would be "well taken."  It just so happens that our evangelical critics have a sufficient amount of respect for the law, and sufficient tact, decorum, basic decency, and self-awareness to not do such things.  

No it is not.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Years ago when I was attending BYU there were ongoing problems with students from the U splashing red paint on the bronze statue of Brigham Young and/or the bronze cougar outside of the stadium.  They even climbed Y mountain and painted a giant red "U" on the Y.

Flashlights are not red paint.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

By your reckoning, red paint "has nothing to do" with the BYU-UofU rivalry.

I never said that

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Except, it did.  It does.

Thanks,

-Smac

Just Fisking you back.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Really.

From Wikipedia:

See, I am suspecting a massive double standard is in play here.  The standard for BYU and the Church is that property rights don't matter.  That protesters are justified in trespassing.  That BYU and the Church are somehow obligated to provide a forum for protesters to speak and act against the Church, and to foment adverse public sentiment against them (BYU and the Church).

The other standard is . . . for everyone else.  Equality Utah, for example.  Or the Encircle House in Provo.  Would people like some on this board be publicly gloating at the prospect of protesters trespassing at these places?  Setting up shop to speak and act against them, to foment adverse public sentiments against them?  I think . . . not.  Why?  "'Well, that's different because shut up,' he explained."

"Property rights for me and mine, but not for thee and thine."  Same goes for basic notions of tact, decorum, and basic decency.  Everyone is entitled to such things except BYU and the Church.  For them, it's "pass the popcorn."

Thanks,

-Smac

I know what special pleading is. It just doesn’t fit. At all. Ever.

I pointed out the difference. One is an outdoor public venue meant to be used by the public and students and the other is a private residence. You either cannot or will not understand that that is an obvious distinction. Either way I feel sorry for you.

[kimpearson]

8 hours ago, rongo said:

You seem to know all about this. What kind of lights did they use? They were colored high-powered flashlights, right?

I wonder where BYU's property begins and the public easement ends. I wonder how far away from the Y a fence could be built (if it would render handheld lights ineffective). 

If your estimates of non-student (and probably non-LDS, to be honest) involvement are true, it's also concerning that it might be a proxy battleground for people who have no love for or connection to the Church or to BYU. Gullible students!  

Yes flashlights. Some were allies who have taken BYU students under their wings. A couple of parents and a couple of UVU students.   All I know of are members some are inactive. 

[kimpearson]

I have talked to several involved.  They almost without exception believe in the gospel and had no desire to undermine the church. What they wanted was to highlight that there are many queer students at BYU who live in fear of being kicked out of college and losing all the credits they have earned because BYU has often refused to send transcripts to other colleges when a queer student is kicked out.  They wanted to highlight the unequal treatment of queer students at BYU. Yes they want BYU to equalize the treatment of queer students. If you don’t think they should be treated equal just say so.  Why throw in all extra junk to make it sound like these queer students and allies are evil people violating precious personal property rights comparable to someone personal residence.  It was flashlights shined on the Y that the school totally expected public access to and still does. No property was harmed.  No person was harmed.  I am pretty sure no judge or jury would find any violation of any law. 

[CV75]

16 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I have talked to several involved.  They almost without exception believe in the gospel and had no desire to undermine the church. What they wanted was to highlight that there are many queer students at BYU who live in fear of being kicked out of college and losing all the credits they have earned because BYU has often refused to send transcripts to other colleges when a queer student is kicked out.  They wanted to highlight the unequal treatment of queer students at BYU. Yes they want BYU to equalize the treatment of queer students. If you don’t think they should be treated equal just say so.  Why throw in all extra junk to make it sound like these queer students and allies are evil people violating precious personal property rights comparable to someone personal residence.  It was flashlights shined on the Y that the school totally expected public access to and still does. No property was harmed.  No person was harmed.  I am pretty sure no judge or jury would find any violation of any law. 

Then all they have to do is get their demonstration approved, like everyone else, irrespective of their sexuality since all are not queer.

[california boy]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Then all they have to do is get their demonstration approved, like everyone else, irrespective of their sexuality since all are not queer.

I don't think the issue is filling out an approval form. I think it is that BYU wants to stop the Y from being lit up at all.

[The Nehor]

I would make the next protest more obnoxious if I were them. If you are going to yelled at about flashlights might as well go all out.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't think the issue is filling out an approval form. I think it is that BYU wants to stop the Y from being lit up at all.

There are authorized "lightings" for special occasions such as homecoming, etc. BYU is only prohibiting demonstrations "on university-owned portions of Y Mountain, including the trail and the “Y” symbol." If anyone doesn't accept the school's explanation that it is for safety and that it is related to using/altering the Y symbol  to make a point other than its intended meaning (see Elder Holland's August 2021 speech to faculty, administration and student leaders), then what is wrong with that, anyway?

Edited January 16, 2022 by CV75

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There are authorized "lightings" for special occasions such as homecoming, etc. BYU is only prohibiting demonstrations "on university-owned portions of Y Mountain, including the trail and the “Y” symbol." If anyone doesn't accept the school's explanation that it is for safety and that it is related to using/altering the Y symbol  to make a point other than its intended meaning (see Elder Holland's August 2021 speech to faculty, administration and student leaders), then what is wrong with that, anyway?

Maybe it would help if BYU/the Church would explain why lighting up the Y is out of bounds.  Or is this whole LGBT are welcome in the Church, we just don't want to let them be recognized or treated equally.  There shouldn't even be a reason to demonstrate.  Yet the Church has given them a reason. That is the sad part.

I saw thing on a discussion about this on the internet.  I think it is pretty dead on as to what is happening here.

 

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe it would help if BYU/the Church would explain why lighting up the Y is out of bounds.  Or is this whole LGBT are welcome in the Church, we just don't want to let them be recognized or treated equally.  There shouldn't even be a reason to demonstrate.  Yet the Church has given them a reason. That is the sad part.

I saw thing on a discussion about this on the internet.  I think it is pretty dead on as to what is happening here.

 

Maybe is just an issue of respect.  They don't want groups to use the Y in a way to advocate a cause without the permission of the Y.  I suppose if a MAGA group wanted to use the Y to promote Donald Trump, BYU would want a say on whether that should occur first.  If on group gets a pass, other groups may feel they can follow and do what they want. 

[carbon dioxide]

The Y is old tech.  Take down the Y and replace it with a very large LED Y to light up the mountain.  It could be so bright that even if groups attempted to shine their own lights on it, that it would be washed out but the beautiful light beaming out that can be seen from space.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe it would help if BYU/the Church would explain why lighting up the Y is out of bounds.  Or is this whole LGBT are welcome in the Church, we just don't want to let them be recognized or treated equally.  There shouldn't even be a reason to demonstrate.  Yet the Church has given them a reason. That is the sad part.

I saw thing on a discussion about this on the internet.  I think it is pretty dead on as to what is happening here.

 

Maybe it would help to read the school’s explanation, and if it isn’t believed, stick to the policy anyway and demonstrate concerns in better ways than speculating about a policy that treats everyone equally. The speculation undermines credibility. It also perpetuates the divisiveness, confusion and conflict Elder Holland was calling out – is that really the objective?

Equally dull-witted comics can be made of the speculators.

Edited January 16, 2022 by CV75

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The Y is old tech.  Take down the Y and replace it with a very large LED Y to light up the mountain.  It could be so bright that even if groups attempted to shine their own lights on it, that it would be washed out but the beautiful light beaming out that can be seen from space.

There are other ways to use lights.

Get one of those projectors and do something similar to what the Scottish protestors did at the Turnberry golf course. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loser-lawn-trump-golf-course/

Or do one of those synchronized things where you make a symbol on the hill with people dressed in certain colors.

Be creative and have fun with it.

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Maybe is just an issue of respect.  They don't want groups to use the Y in a way to advocate a cause without the permission of the Y.  I suppose if a MAGA group wanted to use the Y to promote Donald Trump, BYU would want a say on whether that should occur first.  If on group gets a pass, other groups may feel they can follow and do what they want. 

It is probably unwise to tell University students not to protest. From what I have seen in history it tends to make them protest more. This one was so muted it was probably barely noticed. The people angry about it (probably not even the university) are giving it free publicity.

[california boy]

13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Maybe is just an issue of respect.  They don't want groups to use the Y in a way to advocate a cause without the permission of the Y.  I suppose if a MAGA group wanted to use the Y to promote Donald Trump, BYU would want a say on whether that should occur first.  If on group gets a pass, other groups may feel they can follow and do what they want. 

Or maybe it is just BYU trying to erase the LGBT students at BYU.  Yeah, I will go with the most obvious, and not pretend it is about anything else.

 

[california boy]

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

Maybe it would help to read the school’s explanation, and if it isn’t believed, stick to the policy anyway and demonstrate concerns in better ways than speculating about a policy that treats everyone equally. The speculation undermines credibility. It also perpetuates the divisiveness, confusion and conflict Elder Holland was calling out – is that really the objective?

Equally dull-witted comics can be made of the speculators.

I have said this repeatedly, BYU can set up any rules it wants.  But they should also be prepared for the blowback they get from trying to silence the LGBT students on campus.  The more extreme measures BYU uses, the more national attention it will receive.  The more it activates other schools to protest against the unfair treatment of LGBT students at nationally televised sports games.  

We will all sit back and see what are the results of these actions.  What in the past was a local story of the Y lit on the mountain may very well turn into a more national awareness of the discrimination BYU places on its LGBT students.  And the more it reinforces an image of the Church as being anti gay.  When that happens, there is no one to blame but themselves.

This action was a peaceful expression by students who were trying to believe the Church when it says it is ok to be gay, just don't act on it.  Evidently that is not true, unless you also believe that lighting up the Y also breaks the Law of Chastity.  

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Or maybe it is just BYU trying to erase the LGBT students at BYU.  Yeah, I will go with the most obvious, and not pretend it is about anything else.

If that were the case, there would be a purge going on. As it is, BYU has gone out of its way to show that it is inclusive and tolerant (cf. its behavior during the previous protests). I would say that honor code enforcement and discipline for gay issues are probably nil right now.

By "erasing," I think what you mean is "not formally endorsing gay dating." 

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

If that were the case, there would be a purge going on. As it is, BYU has gone out of its way to show that it is inclusive and tolerant (cf. its behavior during the previous protests).

As you know, the point of the protests it to object to the fact that LGBT students aren't treated inclusively.   And now BYU wants to even squash that voice.

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I would say that honor code enforcement and discipline for gay issues are probably nil right now.

By "erasing," I think what you mean is "not formally endorsing gay dating." 

Does the Church consider gay dating as breaking the Law of Chastity?  Or is it just BYU?  The Church needs to decide what is moral and what isn't.  This game they are playing with LGBT students is unfair to the students and unfair to all gay members.  If gay dating is immoral, then disciplinary actions should be taken towards all gay members that date.  Let everyone know that the Church expects its gay members to not only be celibate, but to also live as monks.  

 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

This action was a peaceful expression by students who were trying to believe the Church when it says it is ok to be gay, just don't act on it.  Evidently that is not true, unless you also believe that lighting up the Y also breaks the Law of Chastity.  

This seems inconsistent, and like moving the goalposts to me. How can protestors protesting bans on gay dating be "trying to believe the Church when it says it is ok to be gay, just don't act on it?" Isn't that the opposite of that? If they are "trying to believe that," then maybe they shouldn't . . . be trying to force change through a pressure campaign.

Of course flashlights aren't against the LoC, but the while point is acting against what is currently against Tre LoC as defined by the Church. That's the whole point of Tre pressure campaign, getting this changed.

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

This seems inconsistent, and like moving the goalposts to me. How can protestors protesting bans on gay dating be "trying to believe the Church when it says it is ok to be gay, just don't act on it?" Isn't that the opposite of that? If they are "trying to believe that," then maybe they shouldn't . . . be trying to force change through a pressure campaign.

Of course flashlights aren't against the LoC, but the while point is acting against what is currently against Tre LoC as defined by the Church. That's the whole point of Tre pressure campaign, getting this changed.

This isn't moving the goalpost.  It is part of the problem.  It is the clear message the Church is sending to those that are gay.  You don't have a voice at BYU, but somehow we love you and want you to stay in the Church.  Just shut up and sit on the back row.

Edited January 16, 2022 by california boy

[Fether]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

If gay dating is immoral, then disciplinary actions should be taken towards all gay members that date.

I still don’t get this…Why? Does disciplinary action get taken against people who struggle with anger? Or people who swear? Or people who get tattoos? Or people who participate in NCMOs?

Just because something is immoral doesn’t mean the church needs to step in and punish them.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Fether

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I have said this repeatedly, BYU can set up any rules it wants.  But they should also be prepared for the blowback they get from trying to silence the LGBT students on campus.  The more extreme measures BYU uses, the more national attention it will receive.  The more it activates other schools to protest against the unfair treatment of LGBT students at nationally televised sports games.  

We will all sit back and see what are the results of these actions.  What in the past was a local story of the Y lit on the mountain may very well turn into a more national awareness of the discrimination BYU places on its LGBT students.  And the more it reinforces an image of the Church as being anti gay.  When that happens, there is no one to blame but themselves.

This action was a peaceful expression by students who were trying to believe the Church when it says it is ok to be gay, just don't act on it.  Evidently that is not true, unless you also believe that lighting up the Y also breaks the Law of Chastity.  

You have said that repeatedly, but it fails in proving your current complaint is that BYU has ulterior motives from those it has expressed for establishing this policy, which still permits demonstrations (including LGBTQ+ policy issues). Wallowing in the past under new circumstances does nothing to help the conversation move along, as BYU invites through various forums “in loco parentis.”

Can you come up some ways that safety is a valid concern with regards to student demonstrations on BYU property, in this case, on the mountain?