Claims of Mormon discrimination found wanting

Recently, a senior authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints delivered a speech at BYU Idaho, in which he said:

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California's adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. Fortunately, some recognized such retaliation for what it was. A full-page ad in the New York Times branded this "violence and intimidation" against religious organizations and individual believers "simply because they supported Proposition 8 [as] an outrage that must stop." [xv] The fact that this ad was signed by some leaders who had no history of friendship for our faith only added to its force.

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of "violence and intimidation" are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation. (Emphasis added)

First of all, all would agree that violence against members or property of any church is wrong. If anyone out there disagrees, please go shoot yourself in the head right now. I'm serious - kill yourself so we don't have to deal with you.

Second - "In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation."?

Seriously?

I want to make sure I get this straight. You have black people who were brought to the United States as slaves, families forcefully separated. Bought and sold as property. Whipped, beaten, raped and killed at the whim of their owners.

Upon getting freedom, black people in America were then discriminated against with "Jim Crow" laws to find reasons why they couldn't be allowed to vote. Or own businesses. Or even use the same drinking fountains or schools simply by virtue of being black.

When they did ask for their equal rights, they had houses set on fire, churches bombed, people hung in public without the law doing anything against it.

Now, let's compare the reaction to the Mormon church over the whole Prop 8 issue.

1. The LDS church encourages members to limit the civil rights of another group of people. Last time I checked, the civil rights movement didn't start with Rosa Parks saying "I ain't sitting in the back of this bus because there's a Hispanic back here! They shouldn't get any civil rights!"

2. LDS church members donate money to support Proposition 8 - which is set up to limit the ability of consenting adults to get married. A right they already had under the courts, until the LDS church and other religious groups decide to change it.

3. Under US and California law, those donations must be publicly tracked and listed.

4. People then say "Person ABC in this town donated to support Proposition 8 - I will not do business with them until they reverse their decision."

5. People say "Because the LDS church supported Proposition 8, I will not do business with companies that are owned or majority owned by the LDS church."

6. If you decide to boycott a person or business because of the action of supporting a proposition to limit the ability to get married - according to Mr. Oaks, that's the same as how black people were targeted during the civil rights movement.

I think the distinction being lost on Mr. Oaks is twofold. First is in the severity - last time I checked, anybody that is calling for Mormons to be hurt or killed, or for their property or churches to be defaced is properly called out for being the rotten bastards they are.

Secondly - this isn't a boycott against beliefs. It's a boycott against action.

Last time I checked, I'm allowed to do business with or without whomever I please - as long as I'm not doing it for religious/ethnic/gender/sexual orientation reasons.

But I'm certainly allowed to decide to do business with or against people because of their actions.

If the LDS church wants to stand up and say "gay marriage is wrong", that is their right. Their statements do not effect me or other people only so far as they choose freely to act upon them.

However, the second they give one red cent of money to curtail the civil rights of others, or the moment that another Mormon, or any other religious or non-religious person goes out and works to pass a law to prevent consenting adults from acting in the same way that all other consenting adults act (ie: preventing two people from getting married purely on the basis of their gender) - then yeah, I reserve the right to say "I find your actions wrong."

Yes, there's a fine line, and I'm sure some asshole will split hairs. But the distinction is this: whatever your actions are to *yourself* - that's your beliefs, and I have no right to discriminate against you for it. Want to give your money to a church? Cool. Want to cut yourself with knives? Knock yourself out. Want to tie yourself down so people can tickle you with feathers? Great.

The second that your actions are forced upon *another* without their consent, then I have every right and obligation to say "No."

Not just "No", but "Hell no, and I will not have anything to do with you until you have changed your actions."

That's the line that Mr. Oaks is missing on. People aren't boycotting the LDS church or its members because of their beliefs. They're doing it because the LDS church's and some of their members *actions* violated the freedom and rights of another group.

So I'm sorry - you can't go around, force your religious beliefs upon other people, then call "discrimination!" when people decide they don't want to associate or do business with you. Especially when LDS beliefs state:

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Well, I guess that stands in allowing others to "...worship how, where, or what they may" - unless they believe that they can get married. Then, I guess they should check with the LDS church first to make sure that it doesn't interfere with LDS beliefs first.

I mean - we wouldn't want to be accused of discrimination in not letting the LDS church discriminate, you know.