There’s gonna be a lot of broken hearts and angry souls by the end of this.

I wonder if Prop 8 was defeated if the pro-family people would react as virulently as the pro-gay people.

PaulW: I wonder if Prop 8 was defeated if the pro-family people would react as virulently as the pro-gay people.

I think the pro-family people and the pro-gay people are the same people.  It’s the yes on 8 folks who are anti-family.

“And I cannot and will not change my love and respect for your views.”

What? What?!

Are you listening to yourself, ma’am? You just came off as a massive hypocrite! And incoherent to boot!

I wish I lived on the West Coast so I could boycott El Coyote. I guess I’m just going to have to settle for continuing to withhold my patronage.

All the pro Prop 8 business owners should be made to face the consequences of their actions.  Rights are rights, if rights don’t apply to everyone they aren’t rights.  It doesn’t matter what you base your decision to remove the rights of any particular group, the decision is wrong. 

This is something every person concerned with civil liberties and basic human rights should be upset over.  None of the businesses who contribute money to take away rights of any person in this country should be supported with our dollars.

I don’t think the yelling and trying to get her to give counter-donations was productive, to be honest—the bottom line is that she went with her loyalty to an institution, which was perfectly within her rights whether she really believed in its position or not, but she can’t expect her patrons to remain similarly loyal to her business.  She was probably sincere, but her choice was to support the church instead of her customers, and she needs to look to her church for support now.  Better to just make those points and follow through, instead of being so emotional; while losing business would have upset her regardless, now she’ll be that much more attached to the church and consider her gay former customers crude & bullying.

Maybe the Southern Cal Mormon population’s large enough to rescue her business, like in Utah.  Or maybe not.

Look it’s all very simple.  She is free to donate and support whatever political cause she wishes.  I have that same right.  I also have the right to withhold support from political causes I disagree with.  If I am your customer, I now have to reconcile myself to the fact that I am indirectly supporting Prop 8 financially.  I can not do that.  I’m not punishing you for your view or expression thereof.  I’m not taking you to task for your faith and the church you belong to.  I am simply making an economic and political decision for myself.

So drop that victimhood shit.  I’m not punishing you or being vindictive.  Mormons can continue to fund anti-gay measures.  But quit crying out “bigotry!” when we react and respond accordingly to your actions.

“the church just tells you what to donate”  why not leave the church?  I don’t understand why someone would let a church, especially one as crazy as the mormon church control their life.

When Gandhi was in South Africa, and the British passed a law that would ban all non-Christian weddings, he addressed a group of Indians saying, “The British will make whores out of our wives and bastards out of our children.”  It got a reaction.

The Mormon Church led a successful (so far) campaign to destroy families.  And the families that it has destroyed know exactly what happened, and they’re not exactly sympathetic to the people who did it.  Why should they be?  Would Mormons buy tacos from a person who had campaigned to nullify their marriages?

I went to the “Yes on 8” web site and politely asked for a list of businesses that donated to their campaign, but haven’t received anything yet. Does anybody have a complete list? I want to boycott all those businesses.

Four words: bigotry will cost you.

Consequences, folks.

Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!

Gracchus, you can find the complete list of contributors, pro and con here:  http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

There’s a similar story here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?ref=theater

Mark: “I went to the “Yes on 8” web site and politely asked for a list of businesses that donated to their campaign, but haven’t received anything yet. Does anybody have a complete list? I want to boycott all those businesses.”

Californians Against Hate have a ‘dishonor’ roll: http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/dishonorRoll.html

I made myself a little Email Template of Outrage and started sending “How could you do such a thing? I won’t be giving you my business. Ever. Jerkface.” emails the other day. So far I’ve heard back from three, the most entertaining of which is from Bruce Himes, president of Western Water Works. He sent me many quotes “from our Founding Fathers” and said “We think and feel if any honest and open minded American would study the basic principles and intentions which this country was founded upon; they would concur with the purpose of Proposition 8.”

Sigh. They really don’t get it.

Here’s a list of businesses supporting prop 8:  http://www.afterellen.com/node/39787

Good riddance to El Coyote.

El Coyote may have seemed like a really great cafe.  But if the owner is going to use the money made from gays to make gays second-class citizens, she utterly deserves to go under.

Yep. If I were gay and a former patron of El Coyote, the knowledge that I had indirectly contributed to having my rights stripped in this way would enrage me.

Mark:

http://antigayblacklist.com/

Thanks!!!

Gracchus has it right. It’s all about the consequences.

One thing that American right is horrible with dealing with, to be honest, is coming to grasp with the consequences of your actions. And yes, voting is an action. Giving money is an action. They believe that it’s all just a game. That it’s just scoring points.

By showing them that, yes, there is consequences to bigotry, you make outward bigotry harder. The next time. The reality is that you can’t do a whole lot politically or socially to combat internal bigotry. But you can make people self-aware that their bigotry is wrong and they shouldn’t act upon it. 

This person might very well like homosexuals. And I’m serious on this. They just have a dual-line of thinking. What they do in terms of their church may be completely separated from what they do in their day-to-day life. In fact, I’d argue this is usually the case.  What’s happening, is that wall is crumbling very fast. People are being held responsible for their views and actions stemming from their religious belief, which is something that by and large is brand new, and is a reaction to Prop. H8.

The Mormons have opened Pandora’s Box, to be honest. They never expected the bullied to fight back. Why should they? The status quo has been going on for decades. No, this is real change that’s starting right now.

Gracchus, you can find the complete list of contributors, pro and con here:  http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

Much appreciated, as are the contribs of mir and XtinaS. I’ll be heading to CA on a trip soon, and will make sure to avoid any businesses that support Nuremberg-Lite Laws.

Is there anyone compiling a list of Utah businesses in which the Church of LDS has an equity stake, either directly or through well-known shells? Ski season is coming up soon!

I don’t understand why this woman made a special donation to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.  Just because the Mormon church is against gay marriage, why didn’t she exercise her own judgement on making a separate donation to the Yes campaign? 
I know if you give directly to an organization (like a church or any charity) you cannot control how they may use their funds, but why give support to a political entity that is fighting against what you believe in?

The Mormons have opened Pandora’s Box, to be honest. They never expected the bullied to fight back.

Not just the bullied, either.  After the election (and Obama’s ascent—probably had something to do with it), I saw a notable change in attitude in the American mainstream media (disclaimer: only what I personally caught off CNN and other similar “centrist” or centre-right outlets).  I saw actual chagrin and disbelief in the faces of straight-identifying, run-of-the-mill, non-Olbermann talking heads reporting on 8’s passing. The sheet has been torn off.  The US media (barring right-wing celeb hosts, of couse) seems more like a gay ally that it was even two weeks ago.

Am I imagining this?  What I’m seeing (or wanting to see?) must be driving the pro-8s nuts.

PaulW (although I suspect you were drive-by trolling and won’t be back to see replies):

There’s gonna be a lot of broken hearts and angry souls by the end of this.

I wonder if Prop 8 was defeated if the pro-family people would react as virulently as the pro-gay people.

I assume by “pro-family” you really mean “pro-8” (as others have pointed out here and elsewhere, the two are definitely not the same thing). But yes, had Prop 8 been defeated I have no doubt that its supporters would have reacted in the same way, or more likely worse, given that they were prepared to physically attack no-on-8 in the run-up to the vote. (As documented in video footage linked in earlier posts here.) Yes, I’m sure we would have seen much worse than protests outside churches and a bit of shouting at boycotted businesses.

that should say “no-on-8 bystanders [observing pro-8 protests] in the run-up…”

Someone upthread asked if the “pro-family” groups would react similarly had Prop 8 been defeated.  I’m surprise this question even has to be asked.  Faith groups routinely mount organized boycotts, of everything from businesses to movies.

Faith groups routinely mount organized boycotts, of everything from businesses to movies.

Their mistake is that they go after big game like Ford and McDonalds, and their boycotts usually never make it past the Focus on the Family website and the mockery of a few progressive blogs.

Boycotts are among the least efficient ways to express dissent, but it is entirely fair to seek to spend one’s money at business that are not actively persecuting you. I am sorry that Chrisoffersen feels torn between her (Mormon) family and the friends she has made through her cafe, but welcome to the LGBT world honey, the Mormon church and other groups have decided to force you to take a stand with one community or the other. The choice has consequences.

AS I said elsewhere in commentary on El Coyote, the Mormon Church was only too happy to take this woman’s money for years and for that PropH8 campaign, but I imagine that when her business fails, they’ll be too busy to help her out.  It’ll be “Ooops, sorry, gotta go baptize some more dead Jews and see who else’s rights we can abridge, and oh by the way, ignore those batshitcrazy idiots in our church who are raping 14-year-old child brides… those are “Godly marriages”...” 

As others have said, the boycott needs to be felt by the Big Boys who give money to the Mormons and Catholics, not just the small business owners who have much more to lose while the Big Boys stand by and laugh.

One thing that American right is horrible with dealing with, to be honest, is coming to grasp with the consequences of your actions. And yes, voting is an action. Giving money is an action. They believe that it’s all just a game. That it’s just scoring points.

That’s what having privilege is all about—you can do whatever you want and never have to pay the consequences.  That’s why they start screaming when people get angry that Don Imus called college basketball players “nappy-headed ‘hos.”  He’s a old white man!  He can say whatever he wants and you don’t get to talk back to him!

I’m just happy that I can still buy a new MacBook in good conscience—Apple donated $100,000 to No on 8.

I live in L.A. and have known that El Coyote is a kind of institution out here but have never had a chance to ever eat there (there’s absolutely no parking in the neighborhood and the Coyote’s lot is almost always full if you try to go on weekends) so I’m happy to say I’ve never given this woman’s business my money and now I never will:).

ignore those batshitcrazy idiots in our church who are raping 14-year-old child brides…

Polygamist Mormons are not part of the Church of Latter-Day Saints.  Polygamy is grounds for excommunication from that institution.

Rights are rights, if rights don’t apply to everyone they aren’t rights.

Rights *do* indeed, apply to everyone. Everyone in California is limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex. 

Homosexuals simply don’t like these rights being applied universally.

“Little Larry”, down at the Blood Clot Bar is a Norman and his magic underwear consists of assless chaps.

“Rights are rights, if rights don’t apply to everyone they aren’t rights.
Rights *do* indeed, apply to everyone. Everyone in California is limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex.”

And I suppose you would consider it freedom of religion if every religion by Christianity were outlawed, but everyone had the same right to choose which denomination they attended.

limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex

Yawn… Dan Savage noted that maybe gay men should then marry right-wingers’ daughters, IIRC.  Bet they wouldn’t like that too much, unless marriage really isn’t all that ‘sacred.’

However, I’ve long said that I’d rather marry a woman than a fundamentalist man, even being almost ridiculously straight.  Let me extend that to say that—if somehow forced to make such a choice—I’d also rather marry a gay man than a right-wing man.  The sex would be pretty, er, uninspiring (or worse) in either case, but at least a gay partner would be a better conversationalist and almost certainly less embarrassing in public.

Rights *do* indeed, apply to everyone. Everyone in California is limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex.

And what, beyond the fact that slightly over half the voters are bigots like yourself, makes that limitation work toward the greater goals and ideals of Western democracy? For example, as embodied in the CA State constitution:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.  Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

I highlighted the key words for you. Not that I expect an answer—in previous threads you’ve not only demonstrated that you’re a bigot, but also that you’re an intellectual coward.

“Yes, but it’s your business to find out what your church is contributing to so that you can make sure that those causes are aligned with your personal faith.”

I don’t give any money to any religious organizations, for any purpose.  But, it is very difficult to find organizations that line up 100% with your own values/beliefs - for instance, I don’t agree with government support of “faith-based initiatives” but Barack Obama does - should that have held me back from supporting his campaign or voting for him?

Rights *do* indeed, apply to everyone. Everyone in California is limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuals simply don’t like these rights being applied universally.

And this is different how from the old argument of “Rights do apply to everyone, everyone is limited to marrying someone from their own race, miscegenators just don’t like when those rights are applied universally”?

The church only sometimes tells people how to vote? And which political campaigns to donate to?
That argument works as well for keeping a tax exemption as “I only sometimes break into houses and steal things” does for getting a burglar off the hook.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the mormons do take care of this woman and her family—they are pretty clan-oriented, and it would give them huge moral-outrage points.

[By the way, forgive the cut-n-paste, but here’s the question I asked Bob in the previous thread, and will promised to ask him every time he appears in one of these Prop 8 threads. Unless the site owners request otherwise, I’ll continue to do so until Bob answers or he gets banned]

The definition of “people who can’t get married” (i.e. law-abiding citizens discriminated against) aside, how is the language inserted into the CA constitution different in effect and intent from this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Rep. Seaborn Roddenbery D-GA, 1913):

?“Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians… within the United States… is forever prohibited.”

or this one, enacted into law by a democratically elected government (Nuremberg Laws, 1935):

Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.

You see, Bob, if you want to keep going with your “democracy at its finest” and “outrageous judicial activism” arguments, you’re going to have to first explain to us exactly how this sort of legislation promotes the cause of Western-style democracy as embodied in the U.S.

Constitution or Article I Section 1 of the California Constitution:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.  Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

In the end, we know the real answer: Bigot Bob doesn’t consider homosexuals people. But he’s too frightened to admit it.

Rights *do* indeed, apply to everyone. Everyone in California is limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” - Anatole France.

There are three questions to ask of all limitations under the law:
i, Why does this limitation exist?
ii, Who does it hurt by existing?
iii, Who does it hurt if it does not exist?

As regards gay marriage, the only answers given are:

i, Because God said so.  My God, speaking to my church, not the God of any other church.
ii, Gays.  But not really, because they can always marry people they don’t love and live a lie.
iii, Nobody.  Except, you know, straight marriages which will disintegrate entirely for no readily apparent reason.

I was bought up to believe (male) gay sex was icky.  Hell, I still think (male) gay sex is icky.  But I recognise that as my own prejudice and failing, and I don’t attempt to enshrine it in theology or law.  if I was going to start down that path, I’d work on banning mashed potato, macaroni cheese and purple sweatsuit pants before starting on gay sex.

It doesn’t hurt anyone when gays marry.  It certainly hurts them not to be able to marry. And marriage is a right.

So why the fuck not just let them marry?  Or, to be more exact, stand out of the way of applying marriage laws equally and rationally?

Latts, that’s awesome.  I’m making up a tee for us straight wimmins:

“I’d rather marry a woman or a gay man than a fundie”

Oh, and Bob, before you try to dodge my question with your “immutable or non-immutable characteristic” argument, keep in mind that, in terms of the question, all that tells us is whether Prop 8 supporters like yourself are (respectively) the Seaborn Roddenbery kind of bigots or the Adolf Hitler kind.

The LDS church is strange indeed if they can make their believers write checks to political campaigns. My church wanted money only to keep itself going.

Assuming she was unable to shake the Mormon indoctrination: While voting is a matter of individual conscience, her position on donating should have been “I can’t publicly disrespect the relationships of my friends and customers.”

crude & bullying.

Yes, yes. Gay people, we need to eat shit politely. And for god’s sake don’t go getting emotional when you turn on your TV and for months on end and see commercials making you out to be some scary threat to children. It’s not like conservatives have a history of accusing us en masse of being pedophiles. Those commercials certainly didn’t want to subtly capitalize on that. And don’t go getting emotional over a right being stripped away. And certainly the prospect of your marriage being nullified isn’t a reason to go get emotional. Instead we should feel sorry for this person and politely let her be as emotional as she wants. Having been given a glimpse of the pain her choices inflict on people, clearly she’s the victim here. People should be shielded from the consequences of their actions. Well, bigots should, I guess.

“the church just tells you what to donate”

This is truly insane and a case where people have to start taking responsibility for their own actions. She chose to obey they orders to donate to the Yes on 8 campaign. Why is she surprised that some people regard this as an insight into her character and a sign that they don’t want to send money in her direction? We’re all free agents. Even if our church asks us to do something, we can still say “no.”

When I was in High School in the late 80s/early 90s, El Coyote was known for serving underage patrons. Not me, of course. I hope more businesses that support Prop 8 are “outed.” Sorry, couldn’t resist the awful pun. Can this site keep a list of LDS-owned businesses in California? I’m up north now, so my “boycott” is useless.

Rights *do* indeed, apply to everyone. Everyone in California is limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex.

And before Prop 8 passed, everyone (that is, all adults) in California was not so limited, but had the option of marrying someone of the same sex. Why this simple fact is beyond the ability of the bigots to grasp is beyond me.

Tyro, I think you’re being a little free with the “choice” thing. A church that acts as community, surrogate parents and driver of business connections has a lot of power over its adeherents. This is more like the choice about whether to come out of the closet to your wingnut family or boss than it is like the choice to have fries with a burger or not.

I think it’s the refusal to apologize, or to match the donation with a countervailing one that is key here.

“And I cannot and will not change my love and respect for your <STRIKE> views </STRIKE> money”

Heh, just recently fell in love with teh STRIKE.  Just let those wingers keep me from marrying it!

I was hoping to get this out at lunch, and I see that some trolling has occured, so please read this in full before you reply.  Counting to five wouldn’t hurt, either:

My understanding is that Ms. Christofferson is the daughter of the current owner, and gets a salary as a floor manager.  In my mind, this is close enough to “owner” that I’m willing to accept the idea that the “ownership” of this establishment made the donation.

My question is:  How far down the chain should this go?  If someone on the wait staff or a buser had made a $20 donation, should the establishment be boycotted until the person quit?

My feeling is that a distinction should be made between ownership and employees, unless our social safety net becomes a lot more generous.  I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, though.

My question is:  How far down the chain should this go?  If someone on the wait staff or a buser had made a $20 donation, should the establishment be boycotted until the person quit?

Perfectly reasonable question—didn’t even count to 5.

I draw the line at a Prop 8 supporter holding significant (1% or more) equity in the enterprise. Judging by the boycott lists, I most people outraged by Prop 8 seem to feel the same way. If the business goes under, the innocent employees can put the blame where it belongs: on the bigoted owner.

If an employee felt compelled to mouth off on his to customers about “teh eeeevilll gayz” I’m trust that most employers would take care of that problem themselves. Any employer who didn’t would have a lot of other reasons besides Prop 8 for losing money.

Tyro, I concede that she has a choice, but everyone has a choice in his or her religion.  Most of us think it’s cruel to demand someone take actions that violate their religious views, especially if a minority religion.  I think the fact that the LDS Church both campaigned hard for Prop 8 and tells its members to donate to political causes makes the church a fair target for criticism, but I don’t see any merit in taking it out on this particular woman, or the artistic director of the California State Theatre.  Especially since in neither case does it appear that the individuals would have donated money absent the church’s directive. 

To Paul’s point, apologizing or making a countervailing donation would in essence force Christofferson to say she was wrong to follow her religion in the first place or would, in the case of a donation to No on Prop 8, be directly disobeying it.  I get the sense from the article that she understands the pain the vote on Prop 8 caused, but there’s not a lot of effort to understand her point of view and its specific religious motivation.  I’m not trying to be an apologist or whatever, but she seems like she’s trying to do the right thing and marriage equality supporters (of whom i am one), to the extent they have a gripe with the Mormon Church at all, it’s with the hierarchy.  Expecting adherents to ignore or defy the teachings of the church on religious matters (as defined by the church) is inconsistent with pluralism, which makes it ironic that she’s the one targeted for bigotry.

Rights *do* indeed, apply to everyone. Everyone in California is limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuals simply don’t like these rights being applied universally.

Rights *do*indeed, apply to everyone.  Everyone is entitled to an education alongside people of their own race as spelled out in Plessy v Ferguson.  Negroes simply don’t like this right being applied universally.

I think the fact that the LDS Church both campaigned hard for Prop 8 and tells its members to donate to political causes makes the church a fair target for criticism, but I don’t see any merit in taking it out on this particular woman, or the artistic director of the California State Theatre.

So, just checking—if a pharmacist denies me birth control pills because s/he has been taught by the Catholic Church that contraception is wrong, it would be immoral for me to boycott that pharmacy because the person is just following the teachings of their church.  I should keep giving my business to that pharmacy and direct my protests to the Vatican instead.

...I don’t see any merit in taking it out on this particular woman, or the artistic director of the California State Theatre.  Especially since in neither case does it appear that the individuals would have donated money absent the church’s directive.

There’s a point at which your humanity should trump the dogma instilled in you by your religion.  Both of these individuals chose to follow a bigoted dogma, rather than confront the institutional bigotry of their church.

Most religions make a big deal about faith, partly because (a) they usually feature some central dogmas that simply will not stand up to even the smallest smidge of rational analysis (virgin birth, e.g.); and (b) if leaders of said religion can get their followers into a state of mind where they swallow those dogmas whole, they can usually get them to go along with anything else. They just gotta train people not to make those analyses.

And in a secular society, we usually humor whatever people think in private—it’s like what economists call a commons.

However, when these people run around insisting that their unexamined religious beliefs should form the basis of public policy, it’s reasonable that those beliefs be, for once, thoroughly gone over, shred by shred, by the general public, and all the ridiculous parts pointed out, in detail (just as they would be if they were beliefs about a type of technology, or how the economy works).

If you want to mix politics and your religion, what you (and everyone in your faith who signs on for it) give up entirely is the prerogative to bitch about your religion and its oh-so-sacred traditions and priests not being respected—any more than, say, the citizen who wants his town to build a wind farm can get away with complaining that he shouldn’t have to explain his precious reasons to an audience that includes those wind-hating apostates from ConEd. 

However, the wind-farm guy would probably be prepared for that situation. If your religious beliefs depend on you not ever thinking through what your church tells you, if you’ve been brought up to believe that even turning your mind in that direction is a sin, an offense to God, you’re going to perceive even the politest inquiry along those lines as an attack on your religion (which it is). And you’re likely to just see the attack, and not the logic, or the validity of other parties’ positions, or any other aspect.

Clearly, Ms. Christoffersen has this sort of disconnect. From the description, she seemed completely surprised that so many of her regulars might have a problem with her actions. 

But now she’s got something to think about—not just her business, but that she managed to hurt people she probably thought of as friends.  And she’s not alone (especially if they’re having No-on-8 rallies in Salt Lake City).

In the long run, this fight is going to be tougher on the LDS (and similar anti-sex religions) than it will be on the gays. Gays and their marriages will survive over time. I’m not so sure about the Mormons.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, which is at the root of why it’s wrong to deny equal rights to gays and lesbians (and probably why the issue has no business being put up to the electorate in the first place.)  Religion is not, strictly speaking, but the law, in order to deal with the fact that people want to impose their religions on each other all the time throughout history, has evolved to treat religion like an immutable characteristic, in anti-discrimination laws and in special accomodations in limited circumstances like exempting members of peace churches from the military draft in times of war.  So, saying she should just quit or disobey the Church is not really a good answer.

The pharmacy example is based on the proprietor not serving you, so a boycott would be superfluous.  El Coyote’s history, and this was Christofferson’s point, had been welcoming to gays and lesbians.  I see the argument that the best way for the Mormon hierarchy to change is if they were more or less forced to by their membership, but a boycott is not actually a constructive solution to anything if for no other reason that, because of the religious injunction at work, it’s not actually likely to change her behavior.

It would also be unfair for pro-prop 8 forces to target business owners who opposed it based on their religious convictions—as many churches did.

David B:

Even in the Catholic Church, there’s a difference between following your religion and following the orders of the religious hierarchy. Even moreso in this case because the mormon religious hierarchy has been very careful not so say that giving money for political causes is a religious tenet. They’re trying to have it both ways, and their flock is enabling them. There should be a boycott, and there should be a close look at whether the church hierarchy has violated the laws that govern their tax-exempt status.

”The church just tells you when to donate, it doesn’t tell you how to vote. It very, very rarely tells you how to vote.”

Yet another in the long, long, long list of reasons why we should all be thankful that Mitt Romney didn’t make it onto the Republican ticket.

And oh, for the person up the thread who pointed out that most churches have trouble just getting donations at all, let alone donating to political campaigns:

Devout Mormons are required to donate 10% of their earnings to the church.  Not to their individual congregations, but to the LDS church itself.  Failure to do so except in extreme cases may well threaten one’s “temple recommend,” which is the certification that devout Mormons must present when they perform certain mandatory rituals at the temple.  No temple recommend = no rituals = risk of excommunication.

I’ve known some individual Mormons who were very nice people, but the religion itself is quite autocratic.  It also won’t change unless it faces overwhelming public disapproval since the hierarchy changes only when someone dies, which means that right now it’s a group of about 100 old, white, conservative men. 

Very sad.

David B, you’re right.  When people think that their religion says that it’s right to own slaves, we shouldn’t blame the people; we should blame the religion.

As a spiritual person I’m insulted by fact that you cannot grant people with religious beliefs credit for the capability of any sort of autonomy.  Yes, you may believe that you are accountable to your God, but, before that, you are accountable to your fellow man, and, if the two conflict, you had damn better well be willing to accept the consequences of treating your fellow man like ass in the name of your God.

The pharmacy example is based on the proprietor not serving you, so a boycott would be superfluous.

No, the example is based on the proprietor refusing to provide a particular item based on his/her religious beliefs.  People don’t only go to drugstores for their prescriptions—they also buy shampoo, cold medicine, makeup, pens, etc. etc. 

So your argument is that the proprietor can refuse to sell me the one particular item that his/her religion does not allow but s/he can still expect me to give my business to them for other things?  And if I don’t continue to buy my cold medicine from someone who refused to fill my prescription on religious grounds, then I’m the one who’s in the wrong?

If you are a good Mormon, and your Church asks you to support a bill that denies the marriage of gay couples, you need to be proud to follow their precepts.  They are against the marriage of gays.  They ask you to support them in that.  Period.  If you do not believe in that, you tell your religion that.  But you don’t complain if the gay people boycott your restaurant, pretending that you didn’t do something they find offensive, because you did.  You cannot have it both ways.  Sorry.

The only way out, if you truly like the gays and their rights, is to disavow your Church on that particular issue.  If they don’t like it, tough.  It all boils down to who has power over you; do you have power over yourself or does your Church have power over you?  That’s a decision you must make.  You cannot evade the consequences of your acts.

They tithe, eh?  13 million Mormons.  Say about half of those earn income.  Assume said half earns at only the US average of $40k.  Let’s also assume that the Mormons tithe on the gross.  That’s $26 billion dollars per year flowing into the Church.  That’s only about 3 billion less than Coke grossed for the twelve months ending September 26, 2008.

Woah.  Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard were geniuses.

I think that I could deal with the godsy types if they always didn’t want it both ways.  This restauranteuse is an excellent example: she wants to belong to a church that mobilizes its vast resources—including her money—to deprive her friends, neighbours and customers of a basic civil right.  She also wants to have those same people love her and patronize her restaurant.  The pharmacist debate is another excellent example.

Suck.  Blow.  Can’t do both.

It would also be unfair for pro-prop 8 forces to target business owners who opposed it based on their religious convictions—as many churches did.

A boycott is always a fair way to protest. I disagree with the motivations behind the one you cite, as I disagree with people who supported H8 and think they’re disgusting bigots who want to deny civil rights to a minority for no real reason, but it wouldn’t be “unfair” for them to boycott.

Funny, isn’t it?  People on the political right think that the consumer’s choice is one of the keys to a functioning society—unless people on the left make choices for reasons that they think inappropriate.

Like Caren, I never order from Domino’s, and for the same reason.  I never drink Coors for the same reason.  (Well, that and it’s a spectacularly shitty beer.)  And I don’t patronize a drug store ‘round the corner because they once just stared at me shivering in the cold rather than open the fucking doors at 8:59 instead of 9:00.  All choices are valid but the tightlywoundierighties would have you think that I’m only entitled to the last-mentioned.

  “ignore those batshitcrazy idiots in our church who are raping 14-year-old child brides…”

Polygamist Mormons are not part of the Church of Latter-Day Saints.  Polygamy is grounds for excommunication from that institution.

keshmeshi

Oh no doubt they threaten “excommunication” but I don’t believe for a minute that the High Elder Council of Grand Dragons or whatever it is that rules the Mormons with an iron fist haven’t stopped winking at the practice while publicly vowing in great pomposity that the church is against it.

The Mormon church is not to be believed on that because they’ve also engaged in lying and cheating and theft to get PropH8 passed. Lying and cheating and stealing and breaking U.S. laws are also wrong and a sin, but more than one “Christian” has bloviated that they’re necessary to stop a so-called “greater evil.”  Which proves to me that these people aren’t to be trusted with anything.

I’m reasonably sure that they just “wink” at the old bastards out there raping the child brides in the name of the angel Moroni, because in the church’s eyes, those OFs are at least in “straight” marriages.

The Mormons have a LOT to answer for.

Funny, isn’t it?  People on the political right think that the consumer’s choice is one of the keys to a functioning society—unless people on the left make choices for reasons that they think inappropriate.

OT, but I was just thinking about this in the context of public/private schools. Conservatives should love the idea of public schools - they’re just more competition. If they suck, then go to a private one. It’s the free market, baby, and if you can’t afford private school, pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Same for healthcare. (If the LDS can play politics, surely the feds can play the free market.)

Dejah:

They don’t necessarily wink at the guys with the child brides, but because those guys are a threat to their power. You’re talking about people who have quite literally within the past 25 years blown one another up over doctrinal disputes.

Boycotting El Coyote is a perfectly legitimate protest.  Of course, by the same token, I will be booking my next ski trip to Utah.

The founders of Curves are rabid right winger fascist pro-lifers and devoted anti-feminists…

You see that kind of crap in a whole lot of odd places…

Boycotting El Coyote is a perfectly legitimate protest.  Of course, by the same token, I will be booking my next ski trip to Utah.

tomonthebay on 11/13 at 08:47 PM

Break a leg, tommy, break a leg.

Most of us think it’s cruel to demand someone take actions that violate their religious views, especially if a minority religion.

There’s a difference between sins of omission and sins of commission. No one is demanding that LDS’ers support Prop 8 and donate to it. People would be perfectly ok if she said, “I didn’t participate in support for Prop 8 because of my religious views.” It crosses the line when she proactively donates to the Proposition 8 cause, and it is perfectly legitimate to question whether supporting people who proactively funnel money to specifically support these causes is a good idea.

No one is asking this woman to take actions which violate her religious. Those are her own. It would be helpful if she did not take actions which violate moral views. “I was just doing as I was told” is not an excuse.  Now, paul does bring up a perfectly valid point that Ms. Chrisoffersen was under a certain amount of duress, and perhaps we should take that into consideration, but she’s hardly apologetic about the issue, and people need to consider the social pressure of the church vs. the interests of their own community. People shouldn’t be turning to the “orders” they received from the LDS as an excuse. Rather, they should probably be speaking out against it.

Ah, the mormons. Takin’ names, destroying lives.

I pity her. She’s trying to square the circle. It’s horrible that they have such a hold over her. It takes a special kind of person to reject manipulation that goes deep into your hind brain. Especially the elderly whose minds, though shaped by years of experience—and that should be respected if not deferred to, are less flexible. I’m not excusing her actions. They’re just wrong. But one should try to understand, provided that understanding is rational, not mere acceptance of the memes shaping the person (the dysfunction many “liberals” who think the right is at root wholesome and somehow more authentic suffer from).

Tyro, a sin of omission is still a sin to which one would be held accountable.

“The pharmacy example is based on the proprietor not serving you, so a boycott would be superfluous. “
No it isn’t. It’s based on a class of people being denied their (ostensible) rights. So anyone who accepts that view should boycott the business. It goes beyond the individual being served, or a particular set of products.

“Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic… Religion is not,”
Both partly true, both partly false. Sexual orientation is fluid in some individuals, which is where the belief in ex-gays comes from: there really are some apparent successes who are in truth ex-bi practitioners who may even have been exclusive homosexual practitioners. Religion, whilst presented as a free choice, is not in many ways. There are the processes of indoctrination and coercion: limitation of language and intellectual methods, social sanctions, emotional reliance, cultural associations, interventions in the basic development of mind that are inaccessible to many and more I’m sure, that all impose costs that can be insurmountable in practice.

Boycotting El Coyote is a perfectly legitimate protest.  Of course, by the same token, I will be booking my next ski trip to Utah.

At least you’re honest about your bigotry, tomonthebay, which is more than I can say for cowards like “Bob Zimmerman” and “Larry” who are still hiding their own irrational hate behind bogus legal arguments and junk-science stats. Not you: the Church of LDS hates gays, you hate gays, so you’re gonna support ‘em by vacationing in their home state. Doesn’t get more clear than that.

I should say you’re not targetting your support for homophobia as effectively as the El Coyote boycotters who are against it. For example, I’ll likely also be skiing in Utah, but will boycott businesses where the Church of LDS has an ownership stake—you’ll probably want to patronise them exclusively. Sort of an extra bonus for me, as I always prefer dining out with the knowledge I’m not surrounded by frightened (if honest) morons.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic…

David B.,

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Also, there is a larger subject and that is does your perceived ‘right’ to marry, trump the right of people to have a say about the laws they must live under?

Do you really want a group of Judges creating the society they want to see without regard to the voters? It may be to your benefit in this instance, but in the next instance, it may not. Conservative Judges could look into the state constitution, slap their foreheads and say they see_________________(insert scary right-wing issue of choice) where non was seen ever before, and then sign documents installing his vision.

Is that really what you want?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

You seem to disagree with his conclusion—guess you’re more the kind of bigot who discriminates against mutable but perfectly legal choices, “Bob”.

And, “Bob”, until you answer my question above your “judicial activism” argument remains baseless hyperbole in regard to the issue at hand. Given how much you’re relying on that argument, it’s no wonder you’re scared to answer my question.

Conservative Judges could look into the state constitution, slap their foreheads and say they see_________________(insert scary right-wing issue of choice)

Oh, and “Bob”, what these supposedly liberal judges did was look at a proposed anti-gay-marriage law, then look into the state constitution, slap their foreheads and say they don’t see any explicitly discriminatory language that would allow such a law. And then they declared the law unconstitutional. Checks and balances, “Bob.”

The sort of judicial regime you describe as resulting from this situation is one that most strict constructionists wouldn’t buy. If you’re gonna defend Prop 8, you might as well be honest about your reasons like tomonthebay—your understanding of the legal system is embarrassing.

Also, there is a larger subject and that is does your perceived ‘right’ to marry, trump the right of people to have a say about the laws they must live under?

Does a black person’s perceived “right” to attend a white school trump the right of people to have a say about the laws they must live under?

I think what Bob Z misses, and many other people do, is that the US Constitution, and state constitutions as well, are intended to protect the rights of minorities from the will of the majority.  The rights of the majority do not need to be protected in this way.
It is ridiculous that this issue was even put to the voters.  I’m ashamed to say that my state has a DOMA, but I’m glad there is no constitutional amendment.

Let’s see what these Republican judges wrote when they overturned Prop 22.

Quotations

In the majority decision:

  [U]nder this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass <u>the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.</u>[18]

  [S]trict scrutiny (...) is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion — a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.[19]

  [T]he exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples.[20]

  ”[T]he right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people.”[21]

“[U]nder this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.[18]”

If the decision states that, then is it not so that Prop8 will be struck down as unconstitutional?

Brain dead undergrads walked out of classes in a “No on 8” rally and are currently protesting not too far from the Mormon temple in San Diego. If they are around when I leave work, then I might go and confront their collective stupidity.

“If the decision states that, then is it not so that Prop8 will be struck down as unconstitutional?”

Prop 8 amended the state constitution, so your question is nonsensical.

wonder if Prop 8 was defeated if the pro-family people would react as virulently as the pro-gay people.

I really enjoyed the equivalence here between A. a group being stripped of its rights and B. a group getting butthurt cause they didn’t get to strip a group of its rights.

Cause those are totally two things that are totally the same.

If the decision states that, then is it not so that Prop8 will be struck down as unconstitutional?

As Prop 8 amended the state constitution itself, so it’s not the same as striking down a normal law. The question is far from nonsensical, though, because gay couples who are denied marriage licenses by the state on the basis of the Nuremberg amendment will sue on the grounds that it’s in conflict with Article I Section 1 of the California Constitution on several solid points. The state will then have the unenviable job of trying to defend the Prop 8 amendment—not to say they won’t win, although amicus briefs from brilliant legal minds like Bob Z and Ostiarius will do more to help our side.

It’s one of several ways to get this in front of the SCOTUS, or at least create enough delays stays in its execution that it won’t be enforced until its repeal comes up for a proposition vote again in 2010.

Another option is the Civil Union compromise: the state moves the package of spousal rights currently conferred by a state-issued Marriage License to a Civil Union License, eliminates the Marriage License entirely (thereby neutering the Prop 8 language), and requires any two consenting adults who want that package of rights to get a C.U. License. People who want to get “married” can do so with whatever ceremony they like, but if they do without the C.U. License, the state doesn’t recognise the union.

The State of California basically has to decide which hassle it would prefer.

Thank you, Gracchus, for a reasoned and helpful response.

The civil union concept leads me to mixed feelings.  On the one hand it is the easiest way to the goal.  On the other hand I dislike the notion that “marriage” which has long been a secular state in addition to being a sacramental one, should suddenly be declared the exclusive property of the god consortiums.  On the other, other hand, it would be fighting over a word rather than a right.

Mormons willl think twice before demanding public donations against gay rights again.  They’d like to abolish gay marriage everywhere, but if they KNOW that their small business Mormon donors will get boycotted, then the Mormon church loses the tithing.  Everyone’s hurting with the slower economy and with an added boycotts and huge bad publicity, the Mormons may lay low for awhile.

Personally, I would like a new regulation, law, whatever that a church can’t keep its tax exemption AND directly advocate on any vote or referendum.  People who know each other from church can start a new non-religious anti-whatever group and that group has to pay taxes. 

I’d also like a “Who Lied” investigation in the Mormon hierarchy, to identify what leaders TOLD others that Prop 8 would save Mormon and other ministers from being ordered to perform gay marriages.  Keep asking, and asking.  Lying is a sin.  Make the top guy (and you know it’s a guy) apologize and resign, as a gesture of GOOD faith.  Until then, I’d like to see “Mormons lie about ministers forced to perform gay marriage” as a picket sign.  They can’t complain, because they DID lie.

JHR: “the church just tells you what to donate” why not leave the church?  I don’t understand why someone would let a church, especially one as crazy as the mormon church control their life.

The reason behind this is because there’s nowhere else to go for these people. They’re taught since before they could talk that this religion is the only way to achieve the highest glory in heaven and those who abandon the teachings are cast into Outer Darkness. (This is used to great effect on people who lost children and are told they will never see them again unless they do as told.) Read more on the reasons why people find it very difficult to leave here: http://exmormon.org/

Additionally, Mormonism isn’t like other types of Christianity - if you don’t like this Baptist preacher, you can’t go to the other Baptist church down the street. It’d be like taking Mac OS and trying to put it on a PC. The official LDS church controls the entire discourse for these people.

Brain dead undergrads walked out of classes in a “No on 8” rally and are currently protesting not too far from the Mormon temple in San Diego. If they are around when I leave work, then I might go and confront their collective stupidity.

I’m sure they quiver in fear at the very thought, Ost.  No doubt whatever scolding you have prepared for them will leave them covered in shame for standing up for the rights of their friends and loved ones, and will send them scurrying back to their classes.  Never again will they dare to challenge a cause you espouse.

You’re Just That Good.

If the decision states that, then is it not so that Prop8 will be struck down as unconstitutional?

As Gracchus pointed out, since Prop H8 was an amendment to California’s constitution, it’s not as simple as striking down a normal law.

However, it’s already being legally challenged on the grounds that stripping an entire class of Californian citizens of their rights is a revision of the constitution instead of a simple amendment, which would require a 60% majority to pass.

If we’re a minority of the voters, why are they so afraid of our boycotts?