UNBELIEVABLE: Yes on 8 to out businesses that contribute to No on 8

[thoreau]

So YES ON 8 - is writing extortion letters to contributors to No on 8 promising to publish them on a list of companies that don't support 'traditional marriage'... and apparently such letters and unmitigated intimidation is not illegal.

These people are EVIL!

from the SF Chronicle:

Leaders of the campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California are warning businesses that have given money to the state's largest gay rights group they will be publicly identified as opponents of traditional unions unless they contribute to the gay marriage ban, too.

"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."

Sonya Eddings Brown, a ProtectMarriage.com spokeswoman, estimated that 36 companies were targeted for the letter and said those that do not respond with a contribution would be highlighted in a press release and on the campaign Web site.

She called the tactic "a frustrated response" to the intimidation felt by Proposition 8 supporters, who have had their lawn signs stolen and property vandalized in the closing days of the heated campaign.

Comments

Do unto others as they have . . .

[(Anonymous)]

Same playbook different team. Early on the "dishonor roll" published names of individuals and businesses that donated money to http://www.protectmarriage.com These people and businesses were harrassed for weeks because they did what they thought was right.

Check it out yourself

http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/

And remember that protecting marriage with tollerance is a far cry from "evil" or "hate." If you don't believe in free speach for those whith whom you disagree with then you don't believe in it at all!

Cheers.

Re: Do unto others as they have . . .

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

wow!! just as bad! yikes!!!

Re: Do unto others as they have . . .

[eric-mathgeek.livejournal.com]

Yes, but... there *is* a subtle difference between "here are the companies that donated, don't patronize them" and "Hey company, if you don't give *us* money too, we'll start attacking you." The first is free speech; the second is extortion.

[ironbark.livejournal.com]

While this country of Laos has many of its own deep problems with human rights and abuses the one thing that makes it a delight is the respect and tolerance it has for peoples personal religious and social beliefs.

I think it is largely a Buddhist thing, which is not a proselytising religion like Islam or Christianity. But I also think it is in the nature or people who can so placidly accept diversity while still being proud of their own culture.

I talked to a girl once about her brother who was a katuey. She looked at me and with a verbal shrug of her shoulders said, "he just think he is a girl", and went on with her work.

Compare this with the religious extremists in our own western democracy where every group thinks they and only they have the "truth" and it is their right and duty to impose their beliefs and values on everyone else.

[(Anonymous)]

'The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.'

If this quote is correct, I have one word for this... Extortion.

[ogam.livejournal.com]

I honestly cannot say I am surprised.

"By their fruits ye shall know them." We have witnessed times & time again the unspeakably evil fruits of their beliefs and actions, most especially the bald-faced lies spewing right now from Yes on 8 commercials, and the very real violence they incite and preach against fellow citizens who do them no harm.

Proposition 8 supporters are only too lucky that in spite of their unforgivable attempt to suppress legitimate human rights and contract law in the name of an alien, truly antediluvian Middle Eastern bronze age mentality, that they are not being treated the ways that they have treated us. Treatment, in my view, that they have more than richly earned.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

actually someone did earlier in the campaign - see the other comments? - a group published a "dishonor roll" of folks financing the Prop 8 Campaign. but the Yes on 8 folks take it one step farther by suggesting that the folks that donated to No "should" donate to Yes on 8 in kind. What kind of person gives a matching donation to BOTH sides of a social issue? That'd be like asking abortion activists to fund abortion clinics. It's a silly concept.

[osodecanela.livejournal.com]

there's a word for this - extorsion.

[airporter.livejournal.com]

Narrow-minded creatures seem to be appearing on both sides of the fence. Stealing signs? Publishing lists of supporters? Let's just shame the johns while we're at it, k?

I'm going to hope that it backfires on all the players threatening businesses and individuals with these tactics - that general consumerism principles will hold sway over people and they'll shop for best price and service, not who their mother, father, or church told them to go to.

Stones and glass houses.

[musicbearmn.livejournal.com]

I simply can not believe what is happening with this. It simply blows my mind.

But, in a way, it doesn't. This is going to sound so weird, but it seems like the Alamo, or Custer's Last Stand, or some war-oriented battle.

the devil's advocate says:

[whiskerfish.livejournal.com]

Do you think you should be speaking ill of one of your station sponsors?

Re: the devil's advocate says:

[squalidbear.livejournal.com]

Oh no she did'un! Oh yes, she went there LOL

btw - isnt pink last decade's hair color?

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

actually the Yes on 8 ad was paid for by the Knights of Columbus... but a political advertisement is not a sponsor - its a paid political announcement expressing views that are not the views of KDFC or Entercom Communications. so I think it is okay. (edit) bitches! (end edit)

Re: the devil's advocate says:

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

actually the Yes on 8 ad was paid for by the Knights of Columbus... but a political advertisement is not a sponsor - its a paid political announcement expressing views that are not the views of KDFC or Entercom Communications. so I think it is okay.

Re: the devil's advocate says:

[whiskerfish.livejournal.com]

So, I guess I have questions.

You mean the Knights of Columbus that gave $1.25 million to Yes on 8?

(It is so nice that the KoC, based in Connecticut, is taking such a robust interest in California, the rights of its people, and its constitution.)

That's a fairly slim delineation, don't you think?

If those advertising dollars aren't sponsorship what would you call it?

Where, exactly, does all that money go if it is not into the KDFC/Entercom coffers?

Re: the devil's advocate says:

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

the difference is that we can't refuse to run political advertising - and we must charge the very bottom of our rate card. Prop 8 showed up with the lowest rate card amount - and by FCC mandate we can't refuse to run their ads. wherein - if it were not a political season - we would turn them away in a heartbeat. You have no idea the shitstorm that hit when their ads hit the airwaves - and how much work we went through as a station to get No on 8 to get their ads on to compete. It took over two weeks of phone calls and finally forwarding a large sampling of the hate mail we were receiving for No on 8 to run ads on KDFC. KDFC didn't take a side of the issue - but were simply following the FCC mandate on political advertising. We could have refused to run either side - but then we'd have some traditional marriage whackjob screaming free speech. As far as political ads are concerned? its lose-lose situation.

[squalidbear.livejournal.com]

Like PG&E or Google cares whether people know they love faggots! Cos you have sooo much choice over where you get power from... "I'm boycotting that horrible sodomite company PG&E and getting my heat from my burningly passionate belief in creationism!" Good luck with that.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

LOL - I totally love that quote.

You - missy - are incorrigible...

[notdefined.livejournal.com]

You are missing the point. It seems to me that PG&E has tried in the last few years to improve their image and corporate citizenship (even I have noticed that!). This is trying to shame them for supporting equality. I really think that PG&E legal should take a long look at this and put an end to their threats.

[squalidbear.livejournal.com]

I have no problem with transparency in donations. I am fine with the fact that my name is on the donor list for NO on Prop 8 because, conversely, I want to see who donated to YES, so I can elect to withdraw my funding from them. What I really objected to about this letter was the threatening nature of it, like donating to NO was some shameful act that these corporations had been called on. "help us correct this error" - FUCK YOU!

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

yeah - the smarmy church lady bullshit voice - of "we know you didn't mean to do this" loving caring scary stepford wives horseshit.

[notdefined.livejournal.com]

This will continue unless one of the companies says enough it enough and presses charges. Slanderous comments are one thing, but extortion is something else entirely and very illegal. If it was proved that this qualifies as such they would be in very deep weeds on several fronts.

[transmodal.livejournal.com]

ARG!!!!

Bring on the asteroid!

Granted, Civil Rights were not at stake but...

[major7.livejournal.com]

Back in the day, the gay community threatened Coors and Miller Lite with boycotts if they would not start donating money to gay causes. When they did not, we stopped carrying their products. When they did, we resumed carrying their products.

Re: Granted, Civil Rights were not at stake but...

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

but this is different don't you think? saying boycott is one thing - but - you gave $200 to this social issue campaign - and unless you give us $200 too - we'll publish your name? that isn't boycotting someone - its a really poorly executed version of extortion. I don't think it'll have any affect at all - except negative press for Yes on 8 - which is welcome as far as I'm concerned.

Re: Granted, Civil Rights were not at stake but...

[major7.livejournal.com]

No. I do not feel that it is all that different.
I think we have a double standard sometimes.
Knowing full well how the gay community operates:
Are there gay groups that are publishing who is voting Yes on 8 and encouraging gay people to look at their associations with those groups?

Re: Granted, Civil Rights were not at stake but...

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

yes - the difference with the Yes on 8 is that they are saying 'donate to our side as well, or we'll publish your name in a press release'. meaning - a boycott of a community over a corporation's stance is one thing - but saying - either give us the same amount of money you gave No on 8 or we'll publicize you as an enemy of traditional marriage goes a step further.

But Did You Answer My Question?

[major7.livejournal.com]

Are there gay groups that are publishing who is supporting Yes on 8 and encouraging gay people to look at their associations with those groups?

Additionally, even from this side of the continent, I am reading about the pressure being put on celebrities and various organizations with what I feel is a thinly veiled threat: You know you really should be supporting our cause.....

Now, I know what you said about us coming from opposite sides of the political spectrum so if you'd rather me just keep my opinions to myself, in your journal, I will. But just know that I am against hypocrisy and the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality I have seen so much of lately in print and other media. If it is ok for me to do something, say something, print something, bring attention to something, post a picture, etc. then I can't tell someone else NOT to do it. And the opposite is also true.

I have been bashed, insulted, laughed at, cussed at, defriended, and linked to some of the worst names in history just because I have a different political view than others this election. I'm a big guy, I can take it. But it is surprising. I really thought people were more enlightened and would be willing to have a *real* discussion with not just people who support their point of view, but with others who may have a differing point of view. Sadly, I am finding that to more the exception than the rule.

Re: But Did You Answer My Question?

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

people unassociated with the official campaign put up a "dishonor roll" - and that is bad politics.

Do you think it's bad to ask successful celebrities like Rosie to pony up if they live in California?

I have to agree this is the most emotional, divisive, unfriendly political season I can remember. TO make sure things are even - now I'm getting hatemail from KOIT users because I'm running No on 8 advertising on a station they thought was "good for the family."

Sorry, I Do Not Know The Backstory On Rosie and Prop 8

[major7.livejournal.com]

But I do know that Rosie has taken on many issues alone without the support of other gays, and even if she never does another thing for the gay rights causes, Rosie, solely by being a shining example of loving partner and caring mom, and fighting the fights she has already won for our cause, has already done way more than her share.

But to go on and answer your question:
Do you think it's bad to ask successful celebrities like Rosie to pony up if they live in California?
It is not bad to solicit donations. And if someone wants to love or hate someone based on their donation is entirely up to them. If someone wants to choose which search engine they use, which cellphone program they buy, which movie star they want to go see, etc., based on whether or not they donate money to Prop 8 is their right. But just don't be a hypocrite. If you expect them to pony up, then you'd best be ponying up, too.
God is watching.... and so is Santa.

Re: Sorry, I Do Not Know The Backstory On Rosie and Prop 8

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

Santa is a liberal myth! everyone knows that.

no - thats God's a liberal myth and Santa is a consevative myth.

ohh...

I get so confused...

Re: Sorry, I Do Not Know The Backstory On Rosie and Prop 8

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

yeah - gays can sometimes be the worst and DO WHAT I SAY DO NOT WHAT YOU SEE ME DO. its tough.

I really appreciate that our discussions on politics while rough - stay above the belt and adult. THANK YOU for that.

Re: Sorry, I Do Not Know The Backstory On Rosie and Prop 8

[major7.livejournal.com]

You're welcome.

Good For The Family

[major7.livejournal.com]

So many times we see our world through a gay-centric point of view. We are, however, a very small minority. The reason that "those people" call themselves "traditional" is because they are. The "traditional family" is a man, a woman, and the children. (Most of us come from such families.) Gay and lesbian families with children are almost as rare as a golden ticket to American Idol's Hollywood.

We live in a world where we are minorities! You do have to remember that a radio station is broadcast into many homes, and the radiowaves do not stop and ask where the occupants stand on political issues. The "Yes on 8" people will think that you are pandering to the "No on 8" people with commercials and vice-versa. Rock, meet hard place... with low_fat_muffin squished in between. It is up to your station to inform your listeners about the FCC ruling. Can you make your OWN commercial explaining the ruling? It shouldn't cost the radio station any money, and it would be then crystal clear that you are not taking one side over the other. And if you are going to take one side over the other, then you have to deal with your decision.

But still, it is a very sensitive debate for y'all in California. And I wish you success. I still think that it would have been an easier fight if the gay community had asked for Civil Union with all the benefits of traditional marriage, instead of calling it gay marriage.

[budmassey.livejournal.com]

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but how can it possibly matter to me, or anyone else, whom someone else wishes to marry? It's like the old adage "Against abortion? Then don't have one."