Anti-Gay Marriage Initiative Funders Being Unfairly Forced to Accept Responsibility for Their Actions
When will the cruel persecution of people who persecute homosexuals come to an end?
Look, these people just want to live their lives the way they prefer — making sure that a small minority of the population is denied the right to live their lives the way they prefer — in quiet, anonymous isolation from consequence. Why can't we just leave these people alone, so that they can get back to interfering with our personal freedoms in peace…
A federal judge Thursday denied a request by Proposition 8 supporters to withhold disclosure of late campaign donors to California's same-sex marriage ban, saying the public has a right to know.
Claiming donors have been harassed, attorneys for Proposition 8 had sought a preliminary injunction to keep secret the identities of 1,600 donors who made contributions just before or after voters approved the measure on Nov. 4.
They asserted that First Amendment rights to be free from retaliation outweigh the state's interest in disclosure.
The judge, unfortunately, disagreed, stating that "the state is not facilitating retaliation by compelling disclosure."
Well, maybe not. But it's certainly not facilitating a bunch of covert gay-bashing, either. And isn't that really what the state is supposed to be doing? (I mean, secretly. Like, on the DL.)
Here's the problem with this: If people aren't allowed to anonymously shovel money into campaigns against minority groups, then shoveling money into campaigns against minority groups suddenly gets less fun. Because then you might have to take responsibility for your actions and convictions, and nobody wants to do that if your actions and convictions are mean-spirited and petty.
So, what happens is you get less people funding these hate campaigns against minorities, and then you get less people hating minorities. And then, eventually, people start to think about minorities as if they were actual people who live actual lives full of actual emotions and relationships. And that's when things start getting totally out of control.
I mean, look what happened with the blacks.
RSS
Hey, Becky: I honestly believe that I should have the right to kick you in the face. I'm taking donations to the "let me kick Becky in the face act" (also known as Prop. 9) fund. Please send all monies to any anti-prop 8 group you like.
I promise never to tell Becky who these Becky-hating bigots are. Whoops, I mean people who are simply expressing their right to be a bigot. I mean people who are expressing their right about how they feel about Becky. Yeah…
"Many people though are opposed and will then harrass and harm people because of their, say, religious beliefs….subjected to harassment and violence because they choose to fund a cause they believe in" Right I see. I totally understand, I mean, if homosexuals were subjected to harassment or violence because of who they are, that would be, like, totally wrong and stuff. The bigots deserve to be called who they are publicly.
Becky, when you have to preface your post with, "…I am not a gay-hating bigot…" you're a gay-hating bigot. If you want to stand up for something, stand up for it. But expect people who disagree with you to stand up as well. The power of one's conviction is not compatible with cowardice.
Those that fought for the civil rights of American citizens paid for their convictions with beatings and lynchings, the perpetrators of which hid from responsibility for their crimes. Those who try to deny the civil rights of American citizens today must not be allowed to cower and hide from what they have done. If you hate America, Americans and Freedom that much at least stand up and be proud of it.
Let me preface my comment with I am not a gay-hating bigot. I simply understand the logic behind not wanting to release people's names. Some people, because of religious, moral, and other reasons (all protected by the Constitution) honestly believe that being gay is horribly wrong. Whether they are right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is that if that is what they honestly believe, they have every right to help fund their cause. Many people though are opposed and will then harrass and harm people because of their, say, religious beliefs. Then we have hate crime which I think we all agree is bad. I have several gay friends and another friend who is strongly opposed to gayness because of her religious beliefs. She and I agree that our gay friends are pretty kickass people but she is simply opposed to their "choice." The state shouldn't be allowed to force people to be subjected to harassment and violence because they choose to fund a cause they believe in. That would be a way of swaying the vote which would then result in skewed voting stats. The government would be making the choice first and the votes wouldn't necessarily matter because they results are already determined because the government allowed people to be threatened if they donated a cause in which they believed.
Right on the money. I have a small quibble, though. It's "fewer people," not "less people." Sorry to be such an English nerd.
Beautiful
props dude, this is one of the best posts i've seen on this site. snark at defcon 1