What if traditional Christians, Jews and Muslims got the list of Californians who donated to the anti-Prop 8 campaign, and began to boycott businesses where they worked on the grounds that these people gave money to a cause that would take away a substantial part of their freedom of religion?
Would that be okay? If not, why not?
The only freedom that is being discussed in this matter is the "right," discovered the day before yesterday, of same-sex couples to be married. But there are competing rights at stake here -- First Amendment rights pertaining to freedom of worship -- though these are not the kinds of rights that interest the news media.
So, my question remains: if the gay boycott of businesses that employ or are run by people who gave money to Prop 8 to take away the right of gays to marry is okay, why is it not okay for pro-Prop 8 people to similarly threaten or ruin the livelihoods of anti-Prop 8 donors?
Oh, and by the way, when the gay rights protesters move from the Mormon churches down to black or Latino churches or institutions, let me know. They're going after the Mormons because the Mormons white and middle class, therefore safe to attack.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Would that be okay? If not, why not?
No, it isn't ok for the majority (traditionally religious people) to throw its weight around against a minority, a persecuted one at that. Such a suggestion should turn our stomachs with disgust.
The trouble with this case is that the targets, members of the LDS, are (or have been) also a persecuted minority.
Now we know we're in dire straits when persecuted minorities go after one another instead of banding together.
"There is no respectable basis for pretending otherwise: no person with integrity and any experience can sincerely believe that gay people have no souls or cannot connect them in love."
****
Love? Connecting souls via homosexual activity?
What twaddle.
Everyone should love everyone else, but you don't get to, ah, connect physically with everyone you love because of it.
Max, darling: the selective sexual prudery you advocate, with its remarkable vulgarity, contains no knowledge of love.
I'm pretty sure they are going after Mormons because they contributed about 50% of the funding... pretty good for a small group.
And, I have to say, as a Christian, I don't shop at merchants that don't support Christian beliefs. So, while I don't like that gays would boycott Christians, a boycott is not an unheard of thing to do. In fact, it sounds like good American way of making yourself heard.
Jillian: Max, darling: the selective sexual prudery you advocate, with its remarkable vulgarity, contains no knowledge of love.
*******
Thanks for judging my heart and soul there.
I'm not too worried about it though. I say that love is not enough to warrant sexual relations, and you call that sexual prudery.
Do you love your grandfather? Your dog? Your brother? If so, you think me sexually prudish for claiming you shouldn't have sex with any of them.
Got it.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.