Judge: Prop 8's donors must be identified

[PhantomWolf]

They absolutely have a right to hold different opinions. Just as I have a right not to use their establishments.

But if you deliberately target them and take part or boycott them to try and drive them out of business, then how are you're actions any less intolerant than theirs? How is it tolerant of other opinions to punish those holding opinions that differ from your own?

But these people just didn't hold opinions. They've tried to legalize discrimination.

All law is based on opinion, and all law is somewhat discrimitory. Unfortunately in a democracy there are always going to be laws that we disagree with, that we find overly discrimatory or not enough. I'd also note that California was not alone in this law, but little notice is taken of the many other states that also passed a similar law.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You make it sound like all they did was hold different and equally vaild opinions.

And those that oppose what they did make it sound like they did something illegal. They put those opinions to the vote and the people spoke. Unfortunately that is what we call a democracy. Attacking people because they disagree with you is intolerance regardless of how you want to dress it up.

 

[Upchurch]

I'd also note that California was not alone in this law, but little notice is taken of the many other states that also passed a similar law.

The difference is that California already had legally married gay couples, whose rights and marriages were forcibly taken away.

 

[TriskettheKid]

And those that oppose what they did make it sound like they did something illegal. They put those opinions to the vote and the people spoke. Unfortunately that is what we call a democracy. Attacking people because they disagree with you is intolerance regardless of how you want to dress it up.

Physically attacking? Yeah, that's over the line.

Social protest in the form of a boycott? Not at all.

You see, they put opinions to vote in order to push through an unjust initiative that is unconstitutional. As a result, people are going to protest in the form of a boycott of those who financially supported the measure.

This isn't a case of someone protesting because of an opinion. It's a protest based on action taken because of said opinion.

There is a world of difference between saying "I support Prop 8" and "I donated $3000 to help pass Prop 8."

 

[PhantomWolf]

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, any form of protest not aimed at authority is bigoted??

It depends on the form the protest takes and why it is done. Protesting another person's religous or political beliefs simply because they disagree with you is bigotry. Intolerance is intolerance regardless of how you dress it up. Putting into pretty clothing that guilts people into following that line of thought because it is PC do so doesn't make it any less intolerant. Trying to force people to think the same as you is bigotry whichever side it comes from. It's easy to sit here and say, it's okay to be intolerant to those against gays or blacks or jews cause they are wrong and and I am right thus they are evil and I can do and say whatever I like to them. The problem is that this is exactly what they are saying, that it's alright to be intolerant of gays, or blacks, or jews because they are evil and so doing so is the right thing to do. Intolerance breeds intolerance. Only by accepting that people have different opinions and airing those opinions without attacking the individuals that hold them can true tolerance come into being. By targeting individuals, all you are doing is creating more bigotry and hate.

 

[Cleon]

I think you are missing what I am saying. Choosing not to buy something from a store because you don't like what it stands for is not being bigotted, that is exercising free will. Targeting the store with a boycott and trying to run it out of business because you don't like what it stands for is.

That's even more ridiculous. If you do it as a person, it's "free will," but if you try to get other people to join in, it's bigotry? That just doesn't make any sense.

The definition of "bigotry" is not dependent on whether the bigot is one individual or a group of people. If you don't like gays, Blacks, Jews, or southpaws, you're a bigot; it doesn't matter if you're part of a group that shares these opinions or not.

If it's free will to decide not to do business with an organization or individual for repugnant opinions and actions (you seem to forget that part), it's no less free will to try to convince others to do the same.

As to the SA issue, once again is seems that people are having trouble separating actions against Authority (in SA the Government) because oif legislation and actions against private individuals for opinions.

And now you're missing what I'm saying. People refused to do business with South African companies, and didn't buy South African products. It went way beyond not doing business with the South African government, which most people don't do anyway.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The difference is that California already had legally married gay couples, whose rights and marriages were forcibly taken away.

I have to admit that I have little knowledge of the ins and outs of the California law, however if this is true, then then anger should be aimed at the State for anulling marriages that were previously created.

 

[Upchurch]

And those that oppose what they did make it sound like they did something illegal.

In some cases, they did. But, we were talking about the moral high ground.

Those who supported the passing of Prop 8 actively subjugated a minority and took rights away from them. You don't see that as different from merely speaking out against those people and not supporting their businesses?

 

[TriskettheKid]

Only by accepting that people have different opinions and airing those opinions without attacking the individuals that hold them can true tolerance come into being. By targeting individuals, all you are doing is creating more bigotry and hate.

But you're missing the point.

It's not about OPINION.

This is a key, but VERY distinct difference.

It is an OPINION to say something like "Gays should not be able to marry." Targeting someone merely because they said such an opinion would be over the line.

However, once your OPINION results in ACTION, then it is ok to protest them, because now their OPINION has manifested in something overtly discriminatory.

This boycott is about targeting those who ACTED on their opinions, not the opinions themselves.

 

[Ocelot]

Frankly, I think that if somebody wanted to vote for this proposition then it's between them and the ballot box. That's the way it is and I have no problem with that.

I happen to disagree with them, but the same wooly headed leftish bolshie politics which are offended by the sentiment also support their right to vote as they feel best fits their concicience. That same sense of democracy demands that the ballot be secret.

However we're not talking about people whole just voted on the issue, we're talking about people who wanted to buy more influence than that afforded to them by the franchise.

As I understand it the law in California clearly states that political donations must be declared. A token defence against plutocracy - rule by the wealthy.

Fair enough you want to do more than just vote, you can put you name behind the campaign. You can put you name and your money behind the campaign but to ensure that the infuence of vested interests remain transparent you cannot put your money behind a politcal campaign without also attaching your name to it.

Changing that could set many a worrying precident.

No doubt Voltaire would be fighting to the death to prevent people from trying to silence these modern day Rousseaus but I can't see him placing his life on the line to protect anonymity for people to use the influence their wealth affords in secret.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Physically attacking? Yeah, that's over the line.

Physically attacking is also a crime, and should be treated like it.

Social protest in the form of a boycott? Not at all.

So if members of the KKK Boycott a store that was owned by and employed Blacks, this would not be bigotry?

You see, they put opinions to vote in order to push through an unjust initiative that is unconstitutional. As a result, people are going to protest in the form of a boycott of those who financially supported the measure.

Surely that protest should have been done prior to and at the Ballot Box not after the people of the State declared what they wanted? Whether we like it or not the People of California voted and they could have turned it down, they didn't. Turning around and attacking those that supported it because of the way the vote went is showing intolerace of will of the majority of Californians.

This isn't a case of someone protesting because of an opinion. It's a protest based on action taken because of said opinion.

There is a world of difference between saying "I support Prop 8" and "I donated $3000 to help pass Prop 8."

Strangely people often say "If you believe something you should put your money where your mouth is". It would seem to me the only difference between the two is that it's easy to say you support something, it's harder to actually stand behind it by putting your money where your mouth is.

Anyway, well and truely time I was in bed.

 

[Cleon]

So if members of the KKK Boycott a store that was owned by and employed Blacks, this would not be bigotry?

Of course it would! That boycott isn't based on anything the store said or did, it's just based on the race of the people who own it.

That's the difference. A boycott based on the actions of the business is not in any way, shape, or form, an act of bigotry.

 

[fishbob]

It could never be becauise they don't want their homes being fire bombed by those that are equally bigoted, I mean totally liberal as long as you hold the same view as them, on the other side.

There is nothing liberal or conservative about this.

Even the utterly vile White Supremacists (my opinion) stand up and publicly state their opinions. These Chicken$#!+s paid to have somebody else front their opinions for them - apparently to avoid the consequences of their bigotry.

 

[drkitten]

Surely that protest should have been done prior to and at the Ballot Box not after the people of the State declared what they wanted?

It was. I don't see any reason why the protest should stop, however.

Whether we like it or not the People of California voted and they could have turned it down, they didn't.

That's right. But just because a position is popular doesn't make it moral or correct.

Turning around and attacking those that supported it because of the way the vote went is showing intolerace of will of the majority of Californians.

There are certain acts that are wrong no matter how popular they are, which is why things like the Bill of Rights exist.

Or are you going to suggest now that the police are "intolerant" of the criminals they arrest? Is this another attempt to misuse "tolerance" as a tu quoque fallacy?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Personal attack noted

So calling people bigots is not a personal attack, and calling someone a loon is now?

I note also that you are putting words into my mouth, nowhere have I say anyoine is an evil bigot. I would inquire as to what you would think of people that choose not to eat at a resturant that employed openly gay waiters though.

It is their decision. Just like someone can choose not to go anywere that employs blacks. Mexicans would be tough to find a resturant that didn't employ them in some fashion though.

You also seem to be differentiating bigots in a strange fashion. Are you claiming that this is bigotry but it is acceptable bigotry now?

How is a Governer who was selling political positions and taking kick backs relevant to this disussion?

He lost his job for what he said. Here people might loose some business for the political possitions that they support.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The Montgomery bus boycott was not an attempt to target individual people over political views, it was targeting the city and the state because of legalised discrimination. Totally different issue. If those that disagreed with Prop 8 were targeting the State with their anger then you might have a point, since it's being aimed at private citizens and organisations which have a right to hold different and equally vaild opinions, you don't.

Please give examples of what sorts of businesses it is acceptable to boycott and which it is immoral to boycott.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think you are missing what I am saying. Choosing not to buy something from a store because you don't like what it stands for is not being bigotted, that is exercising free will. Targeting the store with a boycott and trying to run it out of business because you don't like what it stands for is.

So we have to prevent people from expressing their free speech rights in such ways then. To promote free speech.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I have to admit that I have little knowledge of the ins and outs of the California law, however if this is true, then then anger should be aimed at the State for anulling marriages that were previously created.

Why? They state had to follow the law that the voters passed. The people voted on if those marriages should continue to have legal force and they voted against it. The state had no choice.

 

[ravdin]

I think this will have a chilling effect. I am opposed in every way to Prop 8. But I am also opposed to blacklists and intimidation. I see no reason that an individual should not be able to anonymously make a $100 donation to a political cause.

Making Soviet style lists is not the way to advance the cause of democracy and equality. If this has any effect, it will not only make people angry and less likely to change their minds, it will also make all of us a little more wary of participating in the political process.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think this will have a chilling effect. I am opposed in every way to Prop 8. But I am also opposed to blacklists and intimidation. I see no reason that an individual should not be able to anonymously make a $100 donation to a political cause.

So at what dollar value does someone have to declare that they are the ones supporting something? Or are you against ever having anything in politics report their donors?