Perhaps, and if that happens, then it pretty much doesn’t matter what either side does. But I think some people are skeptical that it won’t create a backlash that might create more problems. . . on both sides.
Ah, you answered my second question before your answered my first. You were only talking about discrimination based on the donations. You didn’t mean discrimination for any reason, which could and did include sexual orientation at one time. And you would know more about this than I would, but. . . still does?
You haven’t read much of this thread, have you? You seem to ask questions that have been asked and answered. If they weren’t answered to your satisfaction, then you could at least address that instead of asking the same question.
Yes, but I don’t think that weakens the argument, given how easy the hypothetical is to follow to its conclusion.
We’re talking about individuals who donated funds to organization(s) in this case as well such as the Family Research Council, which existed before this ballot initiative and no doubt continues to exist now. I think both donations to the NAACP and the pro-8 groups can both be described as “donations to organizations that seek change in the law through political and legal means.”
I’m actually not sure of where I fall in this case, but the NAACP example is strong enough that it shouldn’t be ignored or swept away. It gets to the core of the issue: should political donations be made public when doing so potentially exposes the donors to both legal and extra-legal repercussions?
I didn’t say for any reason, I said it is at will employment which has a certain legal meaning. In many states and areas it is legal to fire someone because you disapprove of their sexual orientation. CA is not one of those states.
Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but one thing I find notable (and encouraging) about this whole issue is, not too long ago it would have been supporters of pro-gay initiatives who might have hesitated making donations that could be easily discovered and publicized. The tide has definitely shifted.
Those who oppose complete normalization (if that’s a fair term) of gay relationships are, IMO, like Japanese generals in 1944: fighting on, winning battles, but it’s clear that their war is already lost.
Sure. But that describes virtually any organization. From MADD to the Down Syndrome Congress to the Family Research Council. I agree that the instance cited bears consideration, but donations made to a specific political movement, whether “Yes on 8” or “No on 8” are not, to my eye, quite the same as membership dues paid to an organization. If I’m mistaken, then I will readjust my thinking.
I have indeed. From the jump. And as was pointed out to you by faithfool back in the mists of the second page of this rollicking good time, as well as early this morn by Rubystreak, two of the three cites you gave are not what would be called credible in any gathering of adults. Of the cites you provided, the only one that carries any weight is that of the individual being attacked and taken to the hospital. And all that really demonstrates is that there exists one person who feels it acceptable to punch a supporter whose business was in no way affected. In addition to which he seems to be laboring under the misconception that marriage is somehow a part of the public school curriculum. The second cite shows supporters giving as good as they received, the police have done their job, and in the video it appears that supporters cause the reporter to send it back to the studio due to the noise level that they’ve created. In the third, it appears that nothing is really known save that a church was vandalized. The police are investigating according to the linked story and in looking at the photo, it appears that the individual has issues with the Catholic hierarchy, as well. I sincerely hope that whoever did it is caught. Which brings things back to the question to which you were responding. A question that was directed toward Mr. Moto. If you have any information about the issue with concealed carry permit holders, then by all means share. If not, then let’s get back to Prop 8.
Heh, difficult situation. Amusing catch 22 though - keep the guy and get boycotted by the pro-gays, or fire him and get boycotted by the bigots. I’m the kind of guy who finds this shit hilarious :).
However, I still stand by what I said earlier : giving money to a campaign is public speech no matter how you look at it. No one asked you to, no one twisted you arm, you knew what you were doing when you did it, you reap what you saw. It’s not like the pro-gays are in a majority anyway, if they were they’d have carried the vote. And it’s not like the pro-gay side is the one known for hate crimes.
So what if they boycott ? You don’t need their dirty buttloving sinborn money do you ? Stand by your high and mighty sacred fucking principles. Og’s got your back, or so you tell us.
Making a donation is akin to speaking up - it is, in effect, hiring someone else to make a public effort to sway opinion your way.
I guess most would agree that one can’t literally stump for a point of view and at the same time insist on doing so anonymously - that’d be absurd. I don’t see why you’d have a right to anonymity just because you’re hiring someone to speak on your behalf. Which, in my mind, is what you’re doing when you donate.
FWIW, as someone who advocated boycotts earlier in the thread, I find this disgusting. If she were the owner of the restaurant, I would be okay with it, but she’s just an employee. The point of a boycott is to economically punish companies whose behavior we disapprove of. In this case, the company didn’t do anything except hire someone whose behavior we disapprove of. IMHO, this is stepping over a line.
I think one thing is worth taking into account in one of the non-hypothetical actual cases here. Marjorie Christofferson, the Mormon restaurant manager who made the donation, is the daughter of the elderly woman who owns that and other businesses (which the daughter also runs). Her ‘resignation’ as manager of El Coyote, the restaurant in question, is a clear example of ‘show’ – whoever is listed as manager, is there any question who will be in charge of that business, given the circumstances. And in that case, it fits Bricker’s example of a manager/proprietor like his McDonald, not an employee like his Sinclair. (I agree with him that it is usually unjust to hold a business accountable for the non-business-related acts of a non-policy-making employee. If Sam who owns the gay resort employs Pete as a maintenance man, and Pete is an avid follower of and contributor to Focus on the Family, it’s up to Pete to reconcile his conscience between employment and beliefs, and coercion on Sam to ‘discipline’ Peter is unethical. But if Sam is 80 and Sam Jr. runs the resort for his father, he can and should be held to account for any actions he takes that are offensive to his clientele.
Thanks for posting that (about Ms. Christofferson), Poly. I remembered reading it several weeks ago, and I had been looking for the source so I could bring it up yesterday. Alas, I was unable to find the cite.
GAH. And by that, I obviously meant that after sowing you’ve patiently watched your crop grow until such time as you’ve made the decision to reap what you saw. Obviously.
Well, we can’t simply assume that those who blackmailed are in turn also those who want to protect themselves from the same problems. Prop 8 people used the system, Prop 8 people want to be protected from the system - but are they the same people? Hypocrisy can’t be spread across an entire group based on the evidence that some acted one way and some acted contrarily.
I suppose it depends whether they knew that was going to happen when they donated. Or even if they thought it would happen/donated after it did, but felt that was an unfortunate side-effect of a cause of which their other goals were more reasonable. Sort of like paying taxes whilst being against particular things that money may go towards because, overall, you do mainly agree with where the money goes. I’m not sure to what extent that makes someone hypocritical.