We want to strip people of rights anonymously

[magellan01]

@Antinor01

Are you proposing that all donations be anonymous? Or only for certain situations? What exactly is your proposition?

(it can be in 8 parts if you like)

I think that donations, like the vote, should be anonymous. I think revealing that information should be up to the donor. Again, just like the vote. Some people vote and keep it secret. Some will discuss their position with others. Some will protest visibly and publicly work to see their position is given the best shot. The default is the first group of people. I see no reason why it should change for donations.

[Antinor01]

@magellan01

I think that donations, like the vote, should be anonymous. I think revealing that information should be up to the donor. Again, just like the vote. Some people vote and keep it secret. Some will discuss their position with others. Some will protest visibly and publicly work to see their position is given the best shot. The default is the first group of people. I see no reason why it should change for donations.

So a multimillionare should be able to donate 10 million to back a cause they support? Or the CEO of Phillip Morris donate millions to fight anti-smoking drives and no one can know about it unless they choose to let them?

[joyfool]

@magellan01

Oh, wiseguy, eh? My point was that I think it likely based on the militancy I see coming from gays on the Prop 8 issue. So, what the good God-fearing people of the Bible Belt would do or have done is not of issue. I’ve seen more hate and anger over this issue than the abortion issue. And I used to live in the Bible Belt and had to pass abortion protestors with their bloody signs every day, as my office was a half a block from a major hospital which the protestors chose as a venue.

So, you can save it with the mock surprise of “these events you find oh so interesting but have never heard of, pray tell”.

Ah, so in other words, all the things you’re afraid of haven’t come to pass. Gotcha ya. Fight on with yer bad self against those mean ol’ gay people who wanna do that radical ‘gettin’ married’ shit.

[Jenaroph]

@magellan01

I’m not sure of the usefulness of your metric, but I’d expect that violence by militant homosexuals will likely exceed that by rabid anti-abortionists. I don’t think there will be killing, but many more lesser crimes. The reaction to the Prop 8 Vote leads me to believe this. And the way they demean an demonize their opponents.

I’d like to ask you to clarify this. Because I am finding it hard to fathom that one could exceed the violence committed by rabid anti-abortionists without killing, since the rabid anti-abortionists have already committed murders for their cause.

[Rubystreak]

For someone who is pro-gay rights in spirit, and who has tons of gay friends, and who is not even a teeny little bit homophobic, magellan01 sure does show up in these threads a lot with plenty to say.

I’m just sayin’…

[GLWasteful]

@magellan01

Paint bombs thrown at homes, spray painting, overturning of trash, tires being slashed, breaking of windows, etc. Threatening letters, gay magazines, boxes of dog shit, etc.

Really? No doubt this is already a problem somewhere. Hell, anywhere. Wuzzat? It’s not? Really? Then what are you on about again?

Incorrect. I can certainly see why you’d want it to not be mentioned along with this, but you’re wrong. It has everything to do with this thread. I don’t see how one can see this as a good thing and be in favor of keeping the vote private. There is an issue on a ballot—whatever it is—some people will vote for it, some will vote against it. Everyone’s opinion is private and no one is subject to pressure. If someone chose to help their vote by donating money, the same standard should apply.

Well, but it ain’t. And I’m not incorrect. Unless you are actually claiming that money donated to a cause should be kept in strictest confidence. Y’see, money and votes are two entirely different things. One is secret, which is why it’s called a secret ballot. The other, well, isn’t. Which is as it should be. If someone wants to give money to a given cause, then they damned well oughta have the stones to stand up for it and not be a snivelling coward and attempt to sue to protect a privacy that they never had from the go.

I do think if the person chooses to make his opinion public—give speeches, write letters, put signs in their window, etc.,—that’s a different story.

So cowardice only applies to those who are too, well, cowardly, to do more than write a check? Your premise is laughable. And foolish besides. A twofer if you will.

@Antinor01

(it can be in 8 parts if you like)

Heh

[magellan01]

@faithfool

You know magellan, I’m curious. In every gay marriage related thread, the cast of participants usually changes and that’s even among our gay posters. However, you are typically in attendance. As, if I’m remembering correctly, a straight guy, why is this apparently such an important issue to you?

First, you’re very wrong if you think I post in every gay thread. There are months and months that I will not post in any of them. My presence is noticeable, I think, because I am in the minority and find myself responding to many people. So, while ten different posters on the other side might post a total of thirty times, you’ll see each name only a few times. (As is starting in this thread, for instance.) If I respond to even most of what is asked of me, my name becomes much more visible. Also, gay threads tend to come in bunches. I’m often asked to comment on a comment in another thread. It certainly ain’t for the fun of it. But I think its good to remind many here that the world does not mirror the SDMB. Prop 8 being a perfect example.

But this thread, for me, isn’t a “gay thread”. I take the position I do regardless of the issue. I’m pro-choice, but I think those who hold the opposite position should be able to keep their donations private, as well.

@faithfool

And no, it’s not bullshit. But then, that’s how I’ve always been. My personal / professional (when I had it) / romantic life all had to line up together or I couldn’t look myself in the mirror each morning. There’s no way in hell I could do what you’re proposing even if I wanted to. And I don’t anyway. So believe it or not, but there are indeed some people like that out there.

Obviously, your mileage varies greatly.

But how would your vote/donation remaining private prevent you from looking yourself in the mirror? Where’s the disconnect. In fact, you’d be able to vote (in private), donate (on private) and then put a big-ass sign in your front window. The question, for me, is why must your donations be public?

Well, why?

@faithfool

Obviously, your mileage varies greatly.

Thank goodness.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

@faithfool

By the way, do you have any information on this that I can read? Because I’d like to see the evidence of this kind of harassment either.

First, you can read the article in the OP. It reads:

The lawsuit filed Wednesday cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support Proposition 8 received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman claims she was told: “If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter.”

Another donor reported a broken window, one said a flier calling him a bigot was distributed around his hometown and others received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.

Then a quick google search for Prop. 8 violence gives a number of results including:
Another incident:

In a violent display of intolerance, an opponent of Proposition 8 attacked and seriously injured a man who was volunteering on Sunday for the initiative to define marriage as between and a man and a woman.
Prop. 8 supporter, Jose Nunez, 37, was brutally assaulted while waiting to distribute yard signs to other supporters of the initiative after church services at the St. Stanislaus Parish in Modesto.
The assailant grabbed about 75 signs and yelled at Nunez accusingly, “What do you have against gays!” Although Nunez replied that he had nothing against gays, he was attacked anyway. The assailant punched Nunez in the left eye and ran off with the signs.
Nunez, his eye dripping with blood, walked into a building on church grounds where a fellow parishioner called 911. Police and paramedics responded to the scene.
Nunez, who suffered a bloody eye, serious wounds to his face, and a scratch to his knee, was rushed by ambulance to a local hospital where he received 16 stitches under his eye.

Another incident:

Queerty reports that last night in Sacramento pro and anti-8 crowds violently clashed, resulting in several arrests.

Another incident:

Anti-Prop. 8 mob rings in 2009 with more church vandalism
By Michelle Malkin • January 5, 2009 06:02 AM

The tolerance bullies are at it again — engaging in renewed property damage in the name of peace, love, and understanding. Oh, and shooting themselves in the foot to boot. The anti-Prop. 8 mob opened up their new year by spray-painting a Catholic church in San Francisco’s Castro district to protest support for traditional marriage. Only one small oversight: The church they targeted is actually “gay-friendly” and opposed the ballot measure, too. D’oh.

There’s more, but I think you get the idea.

I’m not sure if your post was completely sarcastic or if you actually meant that you hadn’t heard of any of this and wanted to read about some of it.

[magellan01]

@Antinor01

So a multimillionare should be able to donate 10 million to back a cause they support? Or the CEO of Phillip Morris donate millions to fight anti-smoking drives and no one can know about it unless they choose to let them?

I’d have no problem with a corporations actions being divulged. I’d probably also be fine with putting a limit on the donation amount for individuals, after which it would become public. The reason is that then someone would be having a much greater effect on the outcome than an ordinary citizen.

[magellan01]

@Rubystreak

Is it a punishment when a consumer chooses to spend his money in one store and not another? No, that’s a free market at work. People are free to choose to deny a business owner of their business for any reason whatsoever, from the petty to the whimsical to the ethical and anywhere in between. The right uses this tactic as well as the left, for instance, the “boycott Disney” movement. You choose not to make politics a reason for where you shop. How can you say it’s wrong for someone else to use that criterion? It’s THEIR MONEY and they can spend it however they want. Not a single thing wrong with it.

They can, yes. But is it right? I think not. The question for me is the degree that a donation is like the vote. I see them as more similar than you do, I guess. But let’s look at a grocer, say, in the Castro. He’s been there for years. He does well and is happy. And the people in the neighborhood are happy with him. Clean place, good selection, good prices, and a hearty “how are you today”? All is well. Then it is revealed that, like I, while he favors gay rights, he draws the line at gay marriage and voted for Prop 8. We’re still fine, because no one knows. Now he writes a check in favor of Prop 8 for $100, and the info is made public. People in the neighborhood (mostly gay) decide to make a point and go to the guy two blocks away. The guy goes out of business. Id=s that not punishment. I think its disgusting. It’s a mob forcing someone to say “uncle”.

[magellan01]

@faithfool

Ah, so in other words, all the things you’re afraid of haven’t come to pass. Gotcha ya. Fight on with yer bad self against those mean ol’ gay people who wanna do that radical ‘gettin’ married’ shit.

Actually, in other words, I can anticipate events they might happen before they do. I can also not want to punish someone—in fact want them protected—even if they disagree with me.

Tell me Oh Noble Knight, what is the advantage of making this info public?

[GLWasteful]

@magellan01

The guy goes out of business. Id=s that not punishment. I think its disgusting. It’s a mob forcing someone to say “uncle”.

Or, y’know, a customer base that is happier spending their own (a point that needs be made repeatedly, it appears) money where they want. As is their right.

[Antinor01]

@magellan01

I’d have no problem with a corporations actions being divulged. I’d probably also be fine with putting a limit on the donation amount for individuals, after which it would become public. The reason is that then someone would be having a much greater effect on the outcome than an ordinary citizen.

The line for presidential elections is $25 I believe. I could live with that being applied here in CA. It appears that they report any donation of any size. (I just downloaded an excel file with the donors to protectmarriage.com’s campaign from the Secretary of State’s website)

[magellan01]

@Jenaroph

I’d like to ask you to clarify this. Because I am finding it hard to fathom that one could exceed the violence committed by rabid anti-abortionists without killing, since the rabid anti-abortionists have already committed murders for their cause.

I’m talking number of incidents, not degree of violence. In that latter arena, I think you are unquestionably correct.

[Rubystreak]

@magellan01

They can, yes. But is it right? I think not.

It’s not right for people to shop at one business but not another, for whatever reason they like? Ridiculous.

The question for me is the degree that a donation is like the vote.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, each person only gets one vote, but they can use as many of their dollars as they wish to influence the vote.

You can make up all the scenarios you wish, but making a donation like that when you know that it will be disclosed and then crying about it later seems a little bit like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You want that law changed, then I assume you are writing to your legislator. As it stands, that’s the law, and those people made their donations with the knowledge that it would be public, and that those are the stakes. To be surprised later when people are reacting to your vote to take away their rights seems disingenuous. It’s a consequence that you accept for taking your principled stance and putting your money towards it.

[magellan01]

@Rubystreak

For someone who is pro-gay rights in spirit, and who has tons of gay friends, and who is not even a teeny little bit homophobic, magellan01 sure does show up in these threads a lot with plenty to say.

I’m just sayin’…

I never said I had “a ton of gay friends”. Just that I have gay friends. Not to mention a bunch of gay colleagues and acquaintenances.

I never understood the sense of these “just sayin’” posts. Best I can figure is the poster has no real supportable point to make, but would like to get in a gratuitous insult of sorts.

::shrug::

[Jenaroph]

@magellan01

They can, yes. But is it right? I think not.

Is it right to tell someone they MUST give their business to someone whose morals they disagree with? 'Cause, frankly, that’s what you’re saying here. Say that guy gave $100 to the Ku Klux Klan. Would you tell people it’s wrong to avoid his business? Say he gave it to the Communist Party. Say he gave it to the Boy Scouts. People for various reasons have problems with each of those organizations. Why do you suggest they are obligated to support someone they disagree with if there’s an alternative they prefer? There’s no constitutional right to have your business be a successful one.

[buttonjockey308]

Cowards.

[magellan01]

@GLWasteful

Well, but it ain’t. And I’m not incorrect. Unless you are actually claiming that money donated to a cause should be kept in strictest confidence. Y’see, money and votes are two entirely different things. One is secret, which is why it’s called a secret ballot. The other, well, isn’t. Which is as it should be. If someone wants to give money to a given cause, then they damned well oughta have the stones to stand up for it and not be a snivelling coward and attempt to sue to protect a privacy that they never had from the go.

I’m saying that 1) yes, it should be kept secret, like the vote, and 2) that even if it is not secret, that publishing info like the google map should not be done. (Not that you can really stop it, I guess, if the info is not private.) But things like this map just seek to intimidate people, and pressure them into not donating. I see it as mob rule.

I’ll ask you, as well: why should the donations be made public? How does that better serve society?

@GLWasteful

So cowardice only applies to those who are too, well, cowardly, to do more than write a check? Your premise is laughable. And foolish besides. A twofer if you will.

I don’t follow the first part of this. And if the latter part is true, please show how. Your proclamations aren’t doing it for me.

[boytyperanma]

We have laws in effect to protect people from violence vandalism etc.They historical are more likely to be enforced for those against gay rights.

For those conservatives that are now claiming they may become targets because of their actions, I say tough shit. Gays have been targets because of their mere existence for years. The right has done everything they can to prevent gays from being protected but when the tide turns they cry foul.