Mormons seek law against scary gay protesters

Officials in Draper, Utah, are considering a law curbing protests near the city's future Mormon temple because members fear the throngs of angry homosexuals that other temples have drawn for the church's work on behalf of Proposition 8.      

The Draper temple is scheduled to open in January. Maybe the denomination will have lost its tax-exempt status by then, but I doubt it: The wheels of justice turn true, but slow.      

Comments

[John]

What kills me is they're quick to point out and push separation of church and state when one tries to change things like tax breaks, etc. What happened to the separation in the last few elections and prop 8? Seems the Mormons and other churches like nothing better than to hide behind that law at their choosing.

[corrective_unconscious]

Oh my, don't they have their magic underpants in a bunch?

We didn't try to take any of their rights away...yet.

[meh]

"we didn't try to take any of their rights away...yet." think back to when the LDS (Mormon) religion practiced polygamy. They don't anymore because it is against the law. Not that I agree with their current practices. Because as an out (ex)mormon I have learned what has happened to them as they made their trek from the east to the west. And when Utah became a state, they were required BY LAW to stop practicing polygamy. They have had their "rights taken away" unfortunatly, they are turning their ugly heads on the rest of civilization, and not remembering their own past.

[what-the-fuck-ev]

> They have had their "rights taken away"

Oh wow -- I didn't realize polygamy was ever a right... um. Boob.

[Mace]

Mormons have a long history of being 'persecuted' by the public at large... I don't think that demonstrating outside their temples or intimidation tactics will do little more than to strengthen their resolve. This battle will not be won by throwing temper-tantrums.

[Craig]

It's not about intimidating mormons or weakening their resolve. It's about bringing as much negative publicity to them as possible. Anyone with any familiarity with the mormon church knows the only thing that will EVER influence their policies is widespread, negative publicity. We must keep demonstrating, not for them, but for the negative visibility it will keep generating for them.

[corrective_unconscious]

>Mormons have a long history of being 'persecuted' by the public at large...

The gay community - a relatively recent phenomenon - has not tried to take any of the Mormons' rights away. Yet.

The fucking, cultish, sanctimonious bigots should understand what it means to treat others as they would wish to be treated...if they're going to insist on being considered Christians. They want to take people's rights away, I say it is only fair for them to consider the same happening to them.

I am aware of the persecution of Mormons and J. Witnesses, etc., in the past.

[FeralCatt]

From a legal standpoint, the proposed law is a laughingstock. The First Amendment to the constitution grants us the freedom to assembly. In this country, that supersedes state law and Mormon discomfort. So I say let 'em pass it, then challenge it in court the moment they try to enforce it. Then we get a clear precedent on the books.

Otherwise, let's consider what the law might mean. Since Mormons aren't any type of privileged group, this law would make any group able to prevent any dissonant group from performing peaceful protests. Which would mean that companies could have peaceful protesters removed from nearby properties, such as workers protesting for wage or working conditions reform. There's no way in hell the lobbyists for the labor unions would stand for a law that could be used in that manner, and they are one of the more influential groups that lobby our lawmakers.

So yeah, I'm not concerned. The law's dead as soon as it gets signed. And I don't mind. I'd rather see stupid people that try to get their whims codified into law get a public reality check ANY day of the week.

[FeralCatt]

I don't however think we should gather en masse and shame them.

Instead, we should gather en masse, point, and laugh about their ridiculous beliefs. We can start with the supposed semitic roots of the Native Americans and let the laughter snowball from there.

And we'll be ladies and gentlemen and agree to stop laughing at their beliefs when they agree to believe something that's not as funny.

[corrective_unconscious]

>Since Mormons aren't any type of privileged group

The Mormon Church/Cult is subject to the same tax requirements governing political activities that other religions or cults masquerading as religions are subject to.

Whether the tax and speech benefits afforded to religions in this country - along with their obligations under the law - amount to privileged or not is a matter of opinion. I happen to think religions are privileged. The Catholic Church has far more real estate than its strictly religious or charitable or educational activities require. The Catholic Church is a major, wealthy landlord for many secular tenants...and it enjoys the advantages of a non profit organization plus some.

[James Clark]

What is interesting to me is that in California there were three bans on their ballot. One addressed caging farm animals, one addressed preventing minors from not telling their parents that they were having an abortion, and one on banning gay marriage. Each of the three propositions raised $7.5M, $7.5M and $26.5M in support of the bans, respectively. For a group of Christians, such as the Mormon's would suggest that they are, I find it interesting that they didn't throw their financial weight behind the abortion proposition, ensuring that minors DID have to tell their parents that they were getting an abortion. The last I recall, according to Christian beliefs, abortion is murder. Are the Mormon's, with their overwhelming support of the ban on gay marriage saying that it’s worse to want gay marriage or to cage farm animals than to commit murder?

[Victor]

WoW! How angry they get when the shoe is on the other foot! Gonna cost them tax dollars huh? What about Fred Phelps and his haters coming out to gay funerals and soldiers funerals and protesting godhatesfags.com they should take that site down and stop the hatred there!!! but have they? NO! it cont's so what is the difference?

[Todd]

Did you know that they even perform marriages and baptism by proxy for dead people in their temples. I think there should be proposition to ban this, then they would sit up and take notice. Take away something that means something to them.

[YeahImaGayChristian]

I don't believe in "privileged'' groups. I'm willing to guess that's where all of the trouble starts.

In NYC Guiliani (Mayor McLoser) banned porno stores from being within 500 feet of churches, schools, housing zones and each other.
With the judges in his pocket: Rights to free speech lost.
"PRIVILEGE".

I can see 'schools and residences' or 'schools and each other', but all 3??
---and as far as churches go: Screw that!

The churches should fight their own battles for people's hearts and minds (and souls) TALK ABOUT LAZY.

Now Manhattan is just a watered down, Walmarted version of it's former self.
Less crime is good, but what's the reason for being there?
Broadway musical remakes of tired movies which were the remakes of non-musical broadway plays.

(Read that one slowly. Lol.)

I digress but the point is: Churches aren't above the law.
Tip-toeing around churches while they stomp on us is a REALLY good reason to make them asmiserable as is legally possible.

I say get 500 gay lawyers together and have each one draft 5 lawsuits.
Bogus or not think about 2,500 lawsuits x ALL of those billable hours the Mormons will have to shell out.

Churches are not above the law.

God is and he's not talking...Unless you count the wild fires in California after prop 8 passed.

-SO GLOVES OFF.