Categorized | backlash, boycott, opinion

Tags | ,

“These Boycotts Aim to Suppress Political Speech”

Posted on 04 December 2008 by admin

This will be a short post.

Hate is still hate, even when it is voted for on a ballot.

We do not seek to suppress political speech. We seek to suppress hate.

A very large number, straight and gay, are with us now.  We have to do something bold.

It’s time we say that supporting anti-gay causes is like supporting the KKK.  The young people in the country are with us on this.  We do NOT need to stay quiet and polite any longer. The energy is with us to say that LGBT DISCRIMINATION IS DISGUSTING.

Nobody gets a free pass anymore in my book.

Book of Mormons in every room at the Marriott is enough for me to boycott and be disgusted.  If the Cinemark CEO had donated to the KKK, would we dismiss that as a private political opinion?

The time is now, and the people are with us, to make it illegitimate political/polite conversation to attack LGBT people.  Hate is hate, and it is disgusting.

No related posts.

2 Comments For This Post

  1. Scotus Says:

    As we already know, when appellate courts look at an issue, they often will discuss and decide it in context of its effect on society in the past, present and future, not just its adherence to the letter of the law. This is the key to this “modest proposal.”

    Let some gay activists–only a few need to be mobilized for this– prepare a ballot initiative that would, in the spirit of Proposition 8, ban Mormons from being able to marry in California.

    The rationale could follow something like this: Proposition 8 stands for the principle that a majority in a society can restrict a civil right of a minority when the majority has concerns that the minority might somehow abuse that civil right. In support of this, one could cite almost any of the talking points of the pro-Prop 8 movement; such as, schools may have to teach that gay marriages are appropriate, etc.

    Our argument is: Proposition 8 restricts the rights of gays to exercise the choice of marrying someone of their choice because there might be some future abuse from the exercise of that right. In fact, we might point out, there have been no incidences of same sex marriages in any way damaging the fabric of society, but irrespective, the majority ruled to restrict that right “just in case.”

    Now, our argument continues, the situation with Mormons is quite something else again. The religion has a long tradition of pluralistic marriages and even though the mainstream Mormon Church no longer condones the practice, Mormon offshoots have had literally thousands of pluralistic marriages; a practice continuing to this day. State attorneys general in Utah, Idaho, Arizona and Nevada admit the practice is rampant in their states but they typically don’t prosecute unless there are extenuating circumstances. Even so, hardly a year goes by without a Warren Jeffs-type scandal about young teenage (and even pre-teen) girls being forced into these plural marriages, all to the great detriment of society.

    As for the danger this might present to our innocent children–these would be the same kids that Prop 8 would protect from being threatened by gay marriage being discussed in schools–they already see Mormon acceptance of plural marriages not only in the news, but in popular TV shows; such as, Big Love.

    Now that is something that society definitely has an interest in. Since the Mormons have demonstrated that in inappropriately high numbers they are simply not responsible citizens to exercise the right of marriage, should not society, in the spirit of Prop 8, restrict that right? Mormons could still have civil unions, but marriage should be out of the question.

    And to those who might argue that there are special Constitutional protections for religions, there are obviously numerous legalistic responses, but for purposes of the public debate, we could simply reduce it to the concept that Mormonism is not a religion anyway; it is a cult–most Christians, particularly the evangelicals (according to polling, the most sanguine supporters of Prop 8) believe this–so they would not properly be afforded the protections of the Constitution.

    Of course, all this is nonsense, but the power of the idea is that by launching the initiative–make the initiative drive easy and limit it to Silver Lake, West Hollywood and the Castro District–you would doubtless garner sufficient publicity (and OUTRAGE) as to come to the attention of the Justices on the Court. When they see how the “rule” of Prop 8 can be used against any minority group, they might elect to put an end to this nonsense immediately.

    Just a thought . . .

  2. Confused Says:

    I am confused. Stop the mormons? Aren’t their a lot of more terrible and evil things in this world to worry about like rapist, murders, drugs and homelessness then a group of people who do nothing but good things in this world? Who have the mormons hurt? The only teach good values about family and love. Maybe you should find a new cause. One that is not about hate but love.

Advertise Here
Advertise Here

Wear The Message

Visit our StopTheMormons shop for t-shirts and more to help you spread the message in your daily life (probably NOT safe for work).


Targeting Mormons Unfair?

Equality California estimates that Mormons donated as much as $20 million to Prop. 8, while the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal group, gave $1.25 million to the effort and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, $200,000.



Follow me on Twitter. I'm "dcweeks" so just text "follow dcweeks" to 40404. My twitter page is here.


Bad Behavior has blocked 158 access attempts in the last 7 days.