Now, when someone actually does say no that’s too far, they act like spoiled children, lashing out at everyone around them because they dared not let them have their new toy. They have no interest in the community as a whole, only what satisfies them. They do not care how it effects religious liberties, they do not care how it will effect schools, laws, and adoption agencies. They do not care that they have the same rights under a different name, they want marriage on principle. Why, because it’s there. How long are we going to pander these people who obviously are taking advantage of the tolerance of others?

So we disagree.

What I *am* disagreeing with is the characterization of the motivation. The motivation of the protestors is not anarchy and hate; the motivation is anger. People who are motivated by anger are expressing their anger in a way which is probably harmful to their cause, and some of them are expressing their anger in a way which is illegal.

They’re doing bad things because they are angry. This doesn’t excuse their bad things, but it does make the statement “they’re doing bad things because they are anarchic and hateful” untrue.

You called my response “pure twaddle”, which it is not; as I said before, I know people who have protested, and I know why they are protesting because we’ve talked about it.

Also note: not everyone who is protesting is engaging in violent acts; only a minority are.

Why don’t activists try the democratic way of convincing the electorate instead of intimidating everyone?

“Depending on what form this underlining takes, it’s a threat: we will use our clout with our supporters to get them to boycott you, for example.”

The letter referred to the company’s clientle being split on the ballot measure.

It was not a threat but an accurate statement of the political reality. The electorate was evenly divided so a company could show it was even-handed — and neutral — by withdrawing a one-sided contribution or making a like contribution to the other side.

As I said, this was about fundraising, sure, but there was no extortion threatened in the letter.

The NO side had already publicized the company’s donation. So a “reveal” could pose no threat.

The company had openly chosen one side and did so for reasons it defended quite openly. So, again, they were not threatened with the use of the Yes side’s clout.

A boycot is not a threat, per se. But no boycott was threatened, anyway, by the letter.

A reasonable person might, at worst, conclude that the Yes side was going to draw attention to the one-sided pro-No companies. But both sides were doing that, anyway, in terms of the support they got from companies who had chosen sides.

You’d have to substantiate an actual looming threat in the letter to keep to your last stated opinion. Or else you don’t rely on the evidence that is available.

Remember, the only company to have complained was an open ally of the NO campaign. That certainly colors the very public complaint the company rep voiced. And there have been no criminal charges by the proper authorities; and neither the No campaign nor their company ally has pressed for charges.

It was a political gamesmanship — on both sides. I think the Yes side’s letter was blunt and although they recieved negative publicity, it was publicity that both the No campaign and the company relished because it played to their own fundraising efforts. The Yes side, as I said, probably found a way to benefit form the publicity over the letter — it may have prompted people to try to match Abbot & Associates.

We just need to cool down the rhetoric, especially in the wake of these angry protests.

The story that Michelle brought to the attention of her readers is a legit news story that has not been reported very well in the larger news outlets. She has done a service by blogging about.

The evangelical group did nothing wrong or tasteless. Castro district is NOT gay turf and there is NO law barring nongay people from using the public space there.

On the other hand, gay activists have pushed for a Methodist organization in New Jersey to lose tax exempt status for not giving a permit for same-sex “civil union ceremonies” on their own property.

I called the Los Angeles County Registrar’s office and left a message. I have not been called back.

Tom @ 211,

Whether it’s “effectively being transmitted” or not, it is still their calling to evangelize. Wilberforce petitioned to end slavery for decades before he was finally successful, should he have stopped just because his message wasn’t “effectively being transmitted”?

No, I think you will find that the circulating of the petitions was in response to the Court taking the issue.
The Pro-8 groups felt that it would be good insurance to have the petitions in hand to put on the ballot when the Court invalidated P-22
Yes, they had already turned in the petitions prior to the Court ruling; however, if the Court had ruled the other way (upholding 22), they could have withdrawn the petitions, and the matter would have been moot.