Man oh man. After the walkway kiss in front of Mormon Church property between Matt Aune and Derek Jones spawned a rallying cry between gay advocates and Mormon discriminators, the battle rages on. Sunday saw the two sides square off again: It’s the same-sex kissers vs. the opposite marriage haters.
We especially like this clip of the man calling gay advocates anti-Mormon, anti-God, and anti-nature … and the “puppets of a campaign designed to destroy America.” If the Mormon Church was smart, it would keep this guy off camera, because his arguments are not only ridiculous but unwind the church’s entire anti-gay campaign with non sequiturs.
It’s a sad day when Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church sounds more reasonable.
terrwill
Can someone please clue me in on why a church which was founded on pologymy has any right to try and deny anyone else the right to have only one partner??????
Cam
What a lot of the newspapers haven’t picked up on is that that land was sold to the chuch, but with the agreement that the church agreed to keep it a public space with a public easement, a court decision demanded that they can only enforce public laws.
Therefore since two men kissing isn’t illegal in Salt Lake City, the Church had no right to try and kick them off. But you just watch, the mormons are great at rewriting history. Even though the police report is already out there saying what REALLY happened, the church will NOW try to say that the two men were verbally assaulting somebody, or tried to hit somebody, something like that. They would have lied aboutt his at first but in their world two men kissing IS an arrestable offence, they are just shocked that they are getting any fallout from this.
Additionally, this area is a common picture point for newlyweds to go and get pictures of themselves kissing in front of the church building. So the Church trying to claim that the kissing was innapporpriate is idiotic. I loved a comment made by my friends long time mormon mother “Oh, if it was an older man fondling a 15 year old girl they would have let it pass.”
Michael vdB
He who is without sin cast the first stone.
JNYCA
amazing. Incredible to stand on the steps of your church, and lie about kissing in front a child? Why? These people are so tiresome.
Alleyne
@Cam: The church already did try to rewrite history and said that Matt & Derek were loud, confrontational and disorderly with security and that is why the cops were called. Lying liars who lie. You know, last I checked, there was a little something about bearing false witness against one’s neighbors in the ten commandments, but nothing there about not kissing your loved ones in public places. Pick and choose, pick and choose. Way to go, Mormon hypocrites.
galefan2004
I don’t think you can just dismiss the fact that the kiss in couples are a miss of straight and gay/lesbian. The biggest part of this whole thing for me has been how much support we have had from allies.
galefan2004
@Alleyne: Lets get even more hypocritical. If you follow the Bible you understand that Jesus was into getting kissed by and kissing other dudes. Hell, he was even into having his disciples lay all over him. Its funny the the church is trying to go against Jesus now.
Helga von ornstein
I totally disagree with the last sentence of this article. There is no way possible the ignorance and hatred of Fred Phelps and company could/can/will be topped. Phelps & company are a hate group if ever there was one.
The guy on the camera in #2 is clearly a foreigner who came here with nothing and is now able to pay of over priced mortgage and is under the impression he has made it so he joined an organization he figured was responsible for it all.
Not once has/was the fact that religion is NOTHING BUT A BELIEF ever brought up. I think that is the real issue with these zealots that should be debated.
M Shane
It stricks me as being interesting at least that the Mormon Church would make an issue of such an insignificant insident. My brother lives a short ways outside of Salt Lake City in Idaho and knows quite a lot of gay Mormons. I met some friends of his who are Mormons and veruy supportive of their gay son who died of AIDS a while back. The living sone strikes me as decidedly being one of us.
I know that the church leadership was accepting of gay people not terribly long ago, possibly because they have such heavy family ties.
I’m inclined to think that this is some kind of infection from the other Christian extremists who want an issue to whip their congregations in shape to fight the Devil, with,among other things all kinds of money. That is what this all boils down to with the leaderships of these churches anyway.
wars against something outside always pull people together.
galefan2004
Is it just me or is the Mormon church obsessed with sex? Damn, this Eric dude needs to be a spokesman for gay rights. He turned that bitch from bigot to idiot in 2 minutes.
galefan2004
@Helga von ornstein: Yeah but that is why this group tops Fred Phelps. People wrote Fred Phelps and his bigot loving church off years ago. Hell, even Fred Phelps wrote himself off as a bigot. These people are trying to pass as non-bigots and still preach hate. That makes them worse than Fred Phelps because they might actually cause someone to believe them.
galefan2004
@M Shane: Yes, but if you notice. When the war in this country is about something outside it always splits the church in the long run. Eventually, enough Mormons will stand up and say that this call to arms is bull shit and then the Mormon church will split. It has happened in every other major church. The ones that haven’t split yet are hemorrhaging members more friendly churches.
schlukitz
@terrwill:
Can someone please clue me in on why a church which was founded on pologymy has any right to try and deny anyone else the right to have only one partner??????
Technically, it should not have the right if we are observing our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately, the sad fact is, that our government (both the repugs and the Dems) look to the Religious Right to get re-elected, just like Obama is doing now, and that is how they get the right!
Don’t you just love majority rule?
I call it tyranny. And we are supposed to have laws to protect us against that too….
Dabq
Let’s see know, loving gay kiss or Mormon’s kissing their many wives and trading their magical underwear. Which is more offensive, all things Mormon of course to people who have a clue!
And, its shocking that this CULT of hate is even able to spew its hate when it allows grown men to have sex with and marry girls for their “celestial” love or whatever quackery they claim as a faith.
homofied
Lord people, watch the damn video. This woman isn’t Mormon, she’s just really upset and clearly a wee tad nuts. Somebody gave her a kiss and really set her off. Her point was that had some male anti-gay protester kissed a gay woman all hell would have broken loose. And at the end of gay male protester is attempting to make sure she is ok. ALl in all, another lovely day at the protest march. And one wonders why so many people opt out of participating altogether.
edgyguy1426
Hey You, Woman with the baby, yeah you! I LOVE YOU!!!
Rikard
I predicted last week the mormon church would claim drunkness and others scoffed. I will now predict there are security cameras that caught the alleged groping, but the footage will never be seen because it shows only affectionate, G rated m2m contact. We will have to keep the pressure on the mormons and force them to accept equality, but must remain “super nice” while making the point. No tipsy traipsing through the plaza with your hand down the back of your bf’s pants. M-kay?
Namaste85
The woman with the baby is what I like to call awesome. the woman who thinks you can be gay after you turn 18 is what i like to call, an idiot. The mormons are a bunch of hypocritical idiots and in the end gay america will prevail. if you want to see mormons really get owned in their logic, watch this video http://www.break.com/index/christian-guy-totally-owns-mormons.html
scott ny'er
i think i’m in love with the woman and her baby. Altho, i feel a little bad for her baby, because it’s hearing her mom (i assume) get worked up and shouting at that mean, fat woman.
scott ny'er
one of the best parts was “sandra, don’t lie”.
ha. caught the beyotch in her lies. I hate hypocritical people. That was good. Altho, a smarter person would’ve seen the road he was taking and not fallen for that attack.
scott ny'er
@homofied: i think that’s a mormon who’s trying to see if sandra rodriguez is ok.
Mike in SLC
@Cam: as has been pointed out, the church already has changed their story… twice now actually… to add that the couple was drunk and belligerent (which to their credit, they do not deny having had drinks that night, but drinks does not drunk equal). They are now also saying the couple was doing more than hugging and kissing (funny that they should say that now, after filing a police report with that exact phrasing).
One thing I will correct you on though, the plaza is now entirely private property with no easement. The city rather than enforcing court rulings that as being a public easement must follow public law caved in and released the easement… this was back in 2003, and still, up until this last week now that the church has made a big deal about it, very few people actually knew about it because it was an under the table deal.
@M Shane: You are correct, the church used to be much more accepting of homosexual members. That is because Gordon B Hinkley was a moderate. His official stance was that while the church would not condone the behavior, the church would recognize at least that it is not a choice, it is how the person was born… then Thomas S Monson replaced him and went back to the hardline position that it is a choice and a sin.
homofied
@scott ny’er: COuld be. Mormon’s and gays all look alike to me.
The Bishop's Balls
“The city rather than enforcing court rulings that as being a public easement must follow public law caved in and released the easement… this was back in 2003, and still, up until this last week now that the church has made a big deal about it, very few people actually knew about it because it was an under the table deal.”
And wasn’t that deal made by an overwhelmingly Mormon-dominated city council?
Seriously, the city of SLC has a population of what..about 200K? It wouldn’t take THAT many gay voters to move to SLC, take over the city politically, and make life less comfy for the Mormon bigots. Hit those child-fuckers where they live.
4getit
And in the past, say forty years ago, black people weren’t allowed to be Mormons…A religion created by a demagogue over a hundred years ago.
Can’t take the Mormons seriously. Or anything against reality and Love.
No More Mormon Child Molestors!
These poor kids engaging her…..
Do they bark back at dogs too?
Jaroslaw
OMG- I just watched part 4 and “Sandra” says her problem is that the protesters are engaging in “sexual acts” in public. “Eric” says he isn’t being sexual and how does she know even if he is Gay or Straight! She then says she doesn’t want to know anymore about him other than his name. (ie keep your private life private) So then Eric asks her if she’s ever kissed in front of a child; she says “no” and he cheerfully calls her a liar! Then she turns away from the camera. Unbelievable. What a repressed, mentally ill person.
Jon B
At the risk of getting completely bashed here, I think everyone who is responding with such contempt for mormons (the people, not the church, bash away at the church all you want) are going overboard here. First of all, to try to extract any generality from the two pillars of reason shown in the video is tantamount to generalizing humanity based on a conversation with a scarecrow. Those two people are obviously incompetent, and while it is easy to laugh at them, and stand on our high horse and feel proud of ourselves for being better than them, what does that accomplish? Congratulations, you’re better than the bottom of the barrel, good on you.
More to the point, I think the approach that we, as a community, are taking with mormons, and religious communities in general, is totally counter productive. I just graduated from law school, and while I was there, I made two very close friends, both straight guys, one a non-practicing catholic, the other a very devout mormon. I was out to the mormon friend from the beginning of our friendship, and it never stood in the way. We went to dinner together, and birthday parties, etc. He sat with me and our other friend in class, despite having all of his other mormon friends a row over. Anyway, when we first became friends, he told me flat out that he was conflicted about gay rights. He believed it was a moral issue, and that homosexuality was immoral, but that everyone was a sinner, and Jesus said to love everyone, and so it’s no different than anything else, but that maybe the government shouldn’t support immorality. Needless to say that was a point of contention, and over the past three years we have had PLENTY to argue about concerning the relation between the LDS church and gay rights. Last week we were talking during a break from BAR prep, and he told me that he’d reassessed his beliefs, and now supports gay rights, and disagrees with his church on this issue. He “is a Meghan McCain Republican” now. He told me that the change of opinion was in large part due to our level headed conversations in the midst of some pretty ugly rhetoric from both sides.
I guess my point is, people are people. We win more support by engaging them as such, instead of lumping them together and dismissing them as one cohesive unit. That beind said, I think criticism of the organization itself is completely fair and called for.
TANK
@The Bishop’s Balls:
Yes, but then we’d be living in SLC next to the child fuckers…there’s a big tradeoff…living near mormons–surrounded by them…and in SLC…phew…it’s a terrible city.
TANK
@Jon B:
You’re a lawyer and you rely on anecdotal reasoning after saying that these people aren’t representative of mormons? LOL! ha ha ha…goodness, I hate lawyers…well, some of them are actually smart (I have a few family members who are lawyers)–but most of ’em are like you…oy
M Shane
@ galefan2004 You are clearly right about the dissent within various churches in america w/regards to homosexuality: While I’m not religious at all, I moved to an area in the Midwest where there are large gay churches; many churches are Gay friendly and the whole movement toward monogamy was done years ago because gay people sought parental(&religious) approval). It’s really very strange for people who have lived in real urban settings.
This is just hypothetical on my part; but I think that a lot of the marriage movement is promoted by gay Church people who feel caught up in a religious war of sorts, but don’t want to represent the issue that way because of the fear of dragging religious parents etc. into open conflict with other Christians.
I say this because America is overwhelmingly religious and I can’t see that people brought up by religious parents all want to leave religion behind because of their sexuality. Maybe it’s just that I have it all around me, but I can’t help believing that it’s everywhere to some degree.
It strikes me as being strange that , besides me ,all of the gay people who are friends of my brother’s are Mormons.
And he doesn’t know a lot of Mormons otherwise. Considering how large the Mormon church is currently, A split might be plausible.
Also , they are not as absolutist as the Catholic Church, where strangely the American church was pro -gay when I was in college and switched around when the Pope started making pronouncements.
@Helga Von Ornstein: The fact which is understood is that religion is just a belief, but one that trumps reality unfortunately all the time. I personally have always wondered about that but it seems to be the case and is not too argueable.
Jon B
@TANK: I think you mistook my point and responded in an unnecessarily rude manner. First of all, I wasn’t saying that we should never generalize, but rather that we shouldn’t take these people as the basis for a generalization. They are obviously the lowest common denominator when it comes to intellect. It never behooves a group to take their opposition for granted, and by making these two out to be the exemplars of a group doesn’t serve us well at all.
Additionally, I wasn’t saying that my friend should be taken as an example of all mormons. My point was only that if you engage people in reasoned conversation, and treat them like individuals, rather than a collective enemy, you’re likely to get a better result than shouting in their face.
I just don’t think it makes sense for anyone to conflate these two idiots in the videos with mormons in general. While you can generalize other mormons beliefs to be as idiotic as those espoused by these two, it is not wise to assume that because the beliefs are the same all mormons, or religious zealots in general, will come off looking like such bafoons.
PS: Go fuck yourself
eden
I’m afraid I can’t say that “our” side gained any points with this footage.
Treating flawed and limited individuals (like the two in the footage), with a smug and snotty, emotion-fueled haranguing does not benefit us.
If it were only an issue of facts and logic…we would have already won marriage equality.
duttybarb
Gay friendly churches….is that even possible….
Im so glad we can just ignore the simple clear english of the bible and somehow read homosexuality is not a sin.
U people are funny and in denial…
TANK
@eden:
Neither does treating them with compassion and outreach. That tactic has failed. We are no better off amongst evangelicals, mormons, catholics baptists or any of the other fundamentalists than we ever were.
TANK
@Jon B:
That’s not true, either. Treating bigoted people with respect and compassion and trying to reason with them not only legitimizes their bigoted beliefs by acknowledging them as worthy of engaging, but it doesn’t change their minds. Contrary to your values and limited understanding of dogma and the world around you, reason is the last thing that appeals to unreasonable people.
And I do think it’s perfectly legitimate to generalize traits (psychological or any other) amongst people. From this video alone? That’s not sufficiently rigorous, but it certainly doesn’t rule out the possibility that your average mormon is any more intelligent or less bigoted than these people are simply because they lack an accent…
schlukitz
@Jon B:
@TANK: I think you mistook my point and responded in an unnecessarily rude manner.
Pot…kettle…black? You then went on to say…
PS: Go fuck yourself
Obviously, you don’t believe in taking your own advice. Do as I say, but not as I do, seems to to be your modus operandi.
Tank stated his honest feeling about lawyers, one which I might add, is a viewpoint commonly expressed about legal beagles. Nowhere in his reply to you, however, did he toss any epithets or four letter words at you, as you saw fit to do with him. It was you, Sir, who was unnecessarily rude.
Apparently, you do not need much provocation to resort to hard ball tactics, which flies in direct opposition to your message of “engaging in reasoned conversation.” Had the Mormons shown us a bit more desire to engage in “reasoned conversation” with their own shit-slinging fest called Yes on Prop 8, perhaps those of us who are still wiping feces from our eyes, might be a tad more inclined to seek such engagement with the enemy.
Boot-licking apologists like you are worse than the Jews who kissed the asses of the Nazi’s during WWI in order to curry favor with their Masters at the expense of their brethren. They and people like you are the lowest of the lowest and more to be feared than the enemy itself.
You’d sell us out in the snap of a finger. There is a word for people like you, but I won’t stoop to your level of hypocritical arrogance and homophobic effrontery.
TANK
@TANK:
And this in spite of polling which shows that a slight majority of catholics believe that homosexuality is morally okay–that doesn’t mean that they support same sex marriage. It’s a slight majority of catholics…that’s not promising–that means that almost fifty per cent of catholics in the united states believe that homosexuality is morally wrong…if that comforts you, then you’re damaged goods.
TANK
@TANK:
It doesn’t even mean that they think gay and lesbians should be allowed to openly serve in the military.
schlukitz
@eden:
Im so glad we can just ignore the simple clear english of the bible and somehow read homosexuality is not a sin.
And I’m so glad that we can just ignore the legitimacy of a piece of hate literature that mad people like you insist is the inerrant word of god, without a shred of empirical evidence or proof to back it up.
How much did the tooth-fairy leave under your pillow for the last molar you lost? I also hope that Peter Rabbit left a lot of nice, colored eggs for you to find this past Easter.
And I do hope that you’re being a good, little girl this year. I wouldn’t want Santa Claus to not leave that vibrating dildo you’ve been wanting so much, under the Christmas tree.
Santa told me that he would have left it for you last Christmas if you’d just been a tad nicer to the gays.
Hint. Hint. 😉
schlukitz
@Jaroslaw:
What a repressed, mentally ill person.
Absolutely. Sexual repression is one of the leading causes of mental illness.
Not gettin’ any nooky makes a person meeeeeean! LOL
Pete
A week ago Sunday there was no one at the plaza supporting the Mormon position, this past Sunday there was Sandra and her crew. Some background regarding Sandra and her crew they are very very right wing. They make a conservative mormon look like a liberal.
About one of the prior comments about security cameras, I have no doubt that there is video showing what happened, I doubt security was on their rounds and saw it, it had to have been called in to investigate. Someone may file a suit hoping to release the tape since it recorded the public easement, but it won’t be released unless the couple is found guilty and they request discovery when they appeal.
Lloyd Baltazar
Like what Joe Solmonese of HRC Campaign said, it’s a matter of generational lines. Look how brave young people [like myself] are speaking out for equality for all. This is America, and everyone are entitled to their own personal freedom and happiness.
Jaroslaw
#31 M Shane – The marriage issue has nothing (or very little) to do with religion. It has been on the table for years but not pressed by Gay rights movements because we were trying to get our names out of the front page of the paper for being arrested which led to losing jobs, getting kicked out of apartments, etc. Marriage was frosting, keeping your job and staying out of jail was the cake.
In the last decade or so people are now comfortable being out, comfortable to have families, children etc. they want the legal benefits marriage provides since they are paying the same taxes as straight couples.
There is certainly a large measure of respect and acceptance involved with obtaining a real marriage license, but again this has nothing to do with religion. It is simply equal rights to marry the PERSON of your choice.
Jaroslaw
#34 nuttybarb should be banned from this post, her comments are so ignorant. If there is ONE thing we should be able to agree on, is the Bible was written over many many CENTURIES in many different languages and translators inserted their own biases and often it is anything but clear. How do we know this is true? Look at our own language, Pick most any word, and there is more than one meaning, and nuances within those meanings depending on context. And that is current english, not centuries old. I teach english as a second language also, and let me tell you it is very hard trying to get the correct meaning across when I don’t speak my student’s native language AND they learned British english in their own country.
Seth R.
I don’t really care how the rest of this debate shapes up, but one thing needs to be cleared up on the legal status of the Plaza in question.
Originally, the plaza was sold to the LDS Church, but the City of Salt Lake retained a public access easement over the property.
When deranged Baptist ministers started screaming through bullhorns at Mormon wedding parties, the LDS Church started giving people the boot on the theory that it was private property. Protesters countered that because of the city easement, they were within their rights to protest there.
It ultimately went to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and the court agreed with the protesters that while the LDS Church might privately own the property itself, the public access EASEMENT was still a public forum and free speech had to be protected.
After that, the issue kind of dropped off the public radar, so a lot of people didn’t notice what happened NEXT.
The LDS Church then BOUGHT-OUT the public access easement from Salt Lake City. They traded some other property that Salt Lake used to build a community center.
So as of today – that entire plaza is completely private property with no public access easement. The LDS Church keeps it open to public access out of community good will. But it’s really just as much private property as the nearby Temple Square is. And they have a legal right to boot anyone they please from the property – no matter whether the reasons are good or bad.
When the couple was told to leave and refused, they were legally guilty of trespassing.
Carry on.
Jaroslaw
#33 Eden – did you look at the last video with Eric? He was very nice with (crazeeeee Sandra). He told her he was in favor of immigration rights, he said he was speaking about adults not children and then she LIED and said she never kissed a man in front of children.
#46 Seth R – well, if the city sold out the easement, they may have the right to do whatever, but again, I will never believe that involves the right of private security HANDCUFFING people. If the city really did sell everything, then the Mormons should just put a fence around it. Then it would be ISSUE CLOSED but they don’t want the accompanying negative publicity obviously.
galefan2004
@Jon B: Now when he leaves the church and becomes a human being I will support what you say about him. The problem is that when you are part of the organization you are condoning its official stance on everything, and when you decide not to condone that official stance then you leave the organization. Its nice that he came around, but honestly I probably would have gotten him out of my life the second he told me loving my boyfriend was a sin. While you feel it is better that you didn’t because he came around, I still don’t agree with you if he is still part of an organization that teaches him to hate for any reason.
galefan2004
@duttybarb: Go stone your child I’m sure they were bad. Go stone yourself I’m sure you ate pork and shrimp at some point in your life. The problem with people like you is that you like to pick and choose what is convenient to you.
Actually, no its not possible. Gay friendly churches are insane. You don’t need god to be in the mix. Weak minded retards such as yourself can’t live without god because it requires you to use your brain to think instead of relying on blind faith and that would be a problem for you. Maybe you should try reading exactly how fucking ridiculous the bible really is instead of having your homophobic asshole of a pastor that probably mentally and physically abuses his wife in his desire to be head of the household explain only what he wants to explain from the bible to you.
galefan2004
@TANK: Actually I disagree with her when she says that logical arguments have failed because they simply have not. If we weren’t using logical arguments we would be using emotional and faith based arguments, and at the end of the day although this country is religious, the majority of people think logically not religiously.
galefan2004
@Seth R.: Two things are wrong with that:
1) You can’t buy public easement because it doesn’t belong to the city.
2) You can’t get around the pre-established ruling of the courts.
That means that the Mormon church can think they own the easement to this property all they want, but chances are if it goes to an actual court (see state/federal court not city court) then they are going to lose yet again.
JimW
@GALEFAN2004
Sorry, but wrong. You need to read the decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/04/04-4113.pdf
The city CAN sell an easement, and in this case, they did. It is completely private property.
TANK
Obviously the joker above me doesn’t understand why that decision was WRONG, and why it will be contested again.
http://www.acluutah.org/mainstreetplaza.htm#background
Bitch Republic
@51 Yah, it was actually the 10th Circuit Court which said the city could solve the problem (of crazy Baptists yelling at wedding parties) by selling the easement to the church.
Bitch Republic
In an October 3, 2005 decision, the Tenth Circuit dismissed all of our [ACLU] claims, ruling that the Main Street Plaza is no longer a public forum and that the city’s decision to sell the easement did not violate the Establishment Clause.
JimW
Obviously, Tank can’t read his own source. Despite the ACLU’s position on the matter, the plaintiffs lost. There is no pending challenge to the sale of the easement. Read the decision.
planktonshampoo
@Lloyd Baltazar:
You can’t call yourself brave. Egoist
TANK
@JimW:
Did I say that there was a pending challenge, idiot? I said that the ruling was WRONG, and that it will be challenged again. And if the crazy insane morons keep discriminating against those in the main plaza because of BIGOTRY, it will happen. They will continue, and it will be challenged.
TANK
You’re a fuckin’ joke, jim.
Bitch Republic
Group plans ‘kiss-in’ at San Diego LDS temple
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705318259/Group-plans-kiss-in-at-San-Diego-LDS-temple.html
JimW
@TANK:
You seem to have anger management issues. All your comments are ridiculously caustic. In any case, challenge away.
TANK
@JimW:
You seem to be a mormon asshole. Hang yourself.
JimW
Point proven.
planktonshampoo
@JimW:
Anger management issues? Who made you the fucking queerty armchair psychiatrist? Sometimes passion requires colorful ennunciation. As for Tank’s ridiculously caustic exchanges with people…aren’t they necessary in a forum where controversial topics are discussed everyday between people who have no clue and those with too many?
Get off your high horse asshole.
JimW
@planktonshampoo:
“aren’t they necessary in a forum where controversial topics are discussed everyday between people who have no clue and those with too many?”
Not when you have a reasonable argument to make. When you’ve got nothing…see Plank.
planktonshampoo
@JimW:
you, my dear sir, are insufferable.
JimW
@planktonshampoo:
Hugs.
planktonshampoo
@JimW:
fine.
TANK
You haven’t provided any reasonable arguments for WHY it should be lds property–it’s a major public throughway (for example)–other than citing the court decision when that is what is being contested. You’re a total jagoff.
JimW
@TANK:
Well, it’s pretty simple. The LDS Church bought it by agreement with the city, and in exchange for additional property previously owned by the LDS Church, the city vacated the easement. The legal arguments and precedents are laid out in the court decision. Read it. The onus is now on you to show why those arguments are invalid and why it should not be private property.
Is it possible for you to post something without calling someone a name? Just curious.
Jaroslaw
Tank – you certainly make for interesting reading- I often agree with you- and I don’t mind your caustic comments, but Jim has a point – do you have to call someone a name almost everytime?
And I don’t see where Jim said he agreed with the decision, but the city did sell it. I mean it is one thing to say “it’s public property” and then when you or whomever find out you’re incorrect then the argument becomes “it’s wrong.”
TANK
@JimW:
No, I understand how it happened, I’m asking you to justify why it should have happened. I, and the, apparently, the utah ACLU don’t think it should have happened, and that the court decision was a miscarriage of justice. The main plaza constitutes a major public walkway, as such it seems similar to a public accomodation. It is wrong to make a major public walkway private property for it inconveniences the public due to the arbitrary rules (potential and actual in this case) that determine access set up by the owners. Private businesses aren’t allowed to discriminate against people because of their skin color, so why should the mormon church be allowed to discriminate in the main plaza because of sexual orientation? I see no justification for this.
TANK
And why wouldn’t I call you a name? You’re clearly a mormon apologist. Schmuck.
galefan2004
@planktonshampoo: I don’t think Tank ever goes head to head for anyone that isn’t 1) asking for it and 2) able to defend him/herself. Don’t make him out like some sort of bully because he simply stands up for his ideals no matter who disagrees with him.
galefan2004
@JimW: Because the federal government has a long standing tradition that a public easement doesn’t belong to the city it belongs to the people. The only way for this deal to have been completely legal is if it was voted on by the entire city of SLC and not a back door deal with the city council. This argument will be contested in the court again and again now. If the Mormon church does something stupid like block this property off then the SLC and Mormon church will have two very big black eyes towards the gay community. MLK Jr. would have led a march on SLC by now, but we are going to Washington to “demonstrate” for our rights instead.
galefan2004
@TANK: However, the federal government has given religious organizations a pass on minority rights issues for quite some time. Churches can deny membership to black members in a completely legal fashion. Church organizations don’t have to practice affirmative action. Freedom of religion legally trumps equal rights in this country. Isn’t it grand?
On the flip side, states rights supposedly trumps the right to bear arms (although the constitution clearly states that state rights are only those not mentioned in the constitution while the right to bear arms is clearly mentioned). So basically, the people of this country that love to pick and chose the bible started picking and choosing the constitution. That is going to lead to the downfall of this country.
TANK
@galefan2004:
Right, and that’s fine–but not concerning public space, which I and apparently most other people believe the main plaza is. Your first amendment rights should not disappear in central park anymore than they should in the salt lake city main plaza.
JimW
@TANK:
The very arguments you are using are addressed and rejected in the appellate court’s decision. You simply need to read it. Salt Lake City initially approved the plaza deal in an effort to increase pedestrian traffic in the downtown area. The LDS Church wanted to join two adjacent properties. Despite your opinion, there’s nothing inherently illegal or “wrong” about either of those goals, so long as adequate consideration is rendered. Salt Lake City received $8 million in exchange for the initial plaza purchase and then donated a property valued at over $5 million for the easement (which was only valued at $500,000). If the court’s decision is so obviously wrong, you should be asking yourself why the plaintiffs and the ACLU did not appeal to the Supreme Court.
JimW
@TANK:
“Your first amendment rights should not disappear in central park anymore than they should in the salt lake city main plaza.”
Again, this is addressed in the decision. The difference is that Central Park is a city-maintained park. New York City pays for the maintenance. Salt Lake City does not pay any money to maintain the plaza. Another case is cited as a precedent in the court decision.
JimW
@TANK:
“And why wouldn’t I call you a name? You’re clearly a mormon apologist. Schmuck.”
Knock yourself out. I find it comical.
TANK
@JimW:
No, I don’t think the aclu used those exact arguments. In any event, I don’t agree with the ruling or the rejection, and have explained why on several different occasions now. They should have appealed to the supreme court–though it likely would have been rejected not for any principled reason. It will be appealed again, I’m confident, as this violates the rights of those who rely on it as a walkway (the public).
TANK
@JimW:
That shouldn’t the case. YOu’re simply not addressing the substance of the disagreement here by citing the transaction costs and who pays for the upkeep. YOu’re completely missing the point.
JimW
@galefan2004:
“Because the federal government has a long standing tradition that a public easement doesn’t belong to the city it belongs to the people. The only way for this deal to have been completely legal is if it was voted on by the entire city of SLC and not a back door deal with the city council.”
I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken. The easement DID belong to the city and the city DID have the right to sell the easement. And it doesn’t require a vote by the entire city of SLC to be legal. You’re inventing constitutional law.
JimW
@TANK:
No, I’m explaining to you why the deal is legal and why the plaza should be considered private property. You simply don’t want to believe it.
TANK
@JimW:
And that represents a conflict of interest, given that the city officials who b rokered the sale were, for the most part, mormons. That’s wrong, too. Considering it is used by more than just the mormon church, but residents as a major public walkway, it should have been up for a city wide vote. Once again, you COMPLETELY MISS the point of the argument.
TANK
@JimW:
I am not disputing the deal was legal, so the description of the decision that I dispute made by both the city and the 10th circuit is completely irrelevant to the argument ANYONE is making. I and others are claiming that its legality constitutes a miscarriage of justice. Hopefully, this miscarriage of justice will be disputed.
TANK
@JimW:
No, you’re simply explaining why it’s legal, not why it should be considered private property. Explaining why it’s legal merely explains why IT IS, in fact, LDS property, not why it should be.
TANK
Tremendous difference between is and ought, and there’s an equally infinite gulf between what’s legal and what’s right.
TANK
I can dismiss your idiotic apologism as mormon propaganda. WHy would a mormon (one of the most despised and rightfully derided religious bigoted minorities in the country), be here on a gay blog? It doesn’t make sense…unless you’re a closet case. I hope your religion disappears, and that all mormon owned businesses fold.
JimW
@TANK:
“And that represents a conflict of interest, given that the city officials who b rokered the sale were, for the most part, mormons.”
Well, I’d have to research the constitution of the Salt Lake City Council at the time to know how many Mormons there were on the council, but I know for a fact that Deeda Seed (non-Mormon councilwoman and gay friendly) and Dee Dee Corradini (Mayor) were not Mormons. And the decision to vacate the easement was done under Mayor Rocky Anderson, an ex-Mormon and the most gay-friendly mayor SLC has ever had. Perhaps you can provide a source to backup your statement that the council consisted primarily of Mormons and, regardless, that there was a conflict of interest. All we have so far is your opinion.
JimW
@TANK:
“No, you’re simply explaining why it’s legal, not why it should be considered private property. Explaining why it’s legal merely explains why IT IS, in fact, LDS property, not why it should be.”
No, Tank, I did explain why it is private property. The city sold it. The LDS Church bought it. There is no easement.
TANK
@JimW:
60% of SLC is mormon. I think it’s a safe bet. But even if one of them were, that is a conflict of interest.
TANK
@JimW:
You’re not comprehending. Read what I wrote again. You’re explaining why the LDS church owns the property, not why it SHOULD own the property. That’s what’s being disputed (the sale and 10th circuit court decision).
JimW
@TANK:
“I can dismiss your idiotic apologism as mormon propaganda. WHy would a mormon (one of the most despised and rightfully derided religious bigoted minorities in the country), be here on a gay blog? It doesn’t make sense…unless you’re a closet case. I hope your religion disappears, and that all mormon owned businesses fold.”
Love it. Tank, you are entertaining. You see, there’s this little thing called Google that can take you to all sorts places to view or participate in all sorts of interesting discussions. All you’ve been able to provide to back up your opinion is your opinion.
TANK
@JimW:
No, actually I’ve provided a few arguments. One’s first amendment rights should no more disappear in central park than in the main plaza. Stating that the city doesn’t pay for upkeep simply fails to address any of the arguments I’ve made. You’re not very intelligent…but, you’re mormon, so I suppose that’s par for the course.
JimW
@TANK:
“60% of SLC is mormon. I think it’s a safe bet. But even if one of them were, that is a conflict of interest.”
Wrong again, Tank. Salt Lake City is only about 45% Mormon. http://www.pbs.org/mormons/faqs/structure.html
TANK
@JimW:
And ogden, it’s about sixty per cent. Doesn’t matter, though, as that’s a sizeable concentration of crazies in one city. And even if one were mormon, that would be a conflict of interest–not to mention the political influence the lds might have over the council.
JimW
@TANK:
“Stating that the city doesn’t pay for upkeep simply fails to address any of the arguments I’ve made.”
That IS the issue. If the city sells property but continues to pay for it’s upkeep, then your argument is valid. The courts have already determined by precedent (again cited in the decision) that if the city is not paying for the upkeep or otherwise expending taxpayer money for the maintenance of the property, then the notion of the city having the right to require free speech on the property goes away. You are failing to understand the legal argument.
TANK
@JimW:
Wrong again. I dispute that the lds should pay for the upkeep of the plaza, and obviously I dispute that it should own it. You’re just a stupid person…LOL!
And I realize that you may have happened upon this site looking for gay content on google, but isn’t that…against your faith, crazy?
JimW
@TANK:
“And even if one were mormon, that would be a conflict of interest–not to mention the political influence the lds might have over the council.”
Great. Then for consistency you would of course require any gay member of the San Francisco or West Hollywood city councils recuse her/himself from any discussion of gay marraige or any other issue related to gay rights. You know, conflict of interest and all.
TANK
And once again, legal does not equal right. One can disagree with legal arguments and provide arguments against those arguments as I have done…just because a court decides something doesn’t mean it’s right. LOL! You are one dense customer.
JimW
@TANK:
“Wrong again. I dispute that the lds should pay for the upkeep of the plaza, and obviously I dispute that it should own it. You’re just a stupid person…LOL!”
This is too easy. “I dispute…” Is that all you have? Give me a source or legal precedent to back up your claim that a) the LDS Church shouldn’t pay for the maintenance of property it purchased and b) it should not own what it purchased to begin with. Take your time.
This just keeps getting better and better.
TANK
@JimW:
Um, no, as their decision wouldn’t adversely impact non gay members of san francisco or west hollywood. But you know all the hot spots, crazy…wear a condom–I know you closet cases aren’t very careful or smart about those things, but you don’t want to bring something back to the misses…
JimW
@TANK:
“One can disagree with legal arguments and provide arguments against those arguments as I have done…just because a court decides something doesn’t mean it’s right. LOL! You are one dense customer.”
Well, the problem is you have to base your argument on something more than “I don’t like Mormons and I don’t want them to own the plaza.” You have nothing to back up any of your argument so far.
TANK
@JimW:
WHy should I provide a legal precedent for that when I’ve already stated that the law is not ethics… You don’t get what I’ve written at all…I could repeat the arguments for you, but I don’t think that would reach you.
Obviously if I think that the LDS shouldn’t own the property (for arguments anyone on this page can read), then I don’t think that it should pay for the maintenance of the property…that wouldn’t be right, would it?
TANK
@JimW:
And I have based it on more than that I dislike mormons intensely…LOL! In fact, nowhere in any of my arguments was that as a premise.
JimW
@TANK:
“Um, no, as their decision wouldn’t adversely impact non gay members of san francisco or west hollywood. But you know all the hot spots, crazy…wear a condom–I know you closet cases aren’t very careful or smart about those things, but you don’t want to bring something back to the misses…”
Tank, if you learned how to make and back up coherent arguments you wouldn’t have to resort to all these personal attacks. Just FYI.
TANK
@JimW:
Well, I think the personal attacks are fun, actually. My arguments don’t depend on them (my coherent arguments–obviously they’re not coherent to you, but that’s clearly not saying a whole lot about whether or not my arguments are actually coherent). And I also think you’re a mormon bigot, which only adds to the enjoyment of the personal attacks. See, I don’t care for you people…I think you’re…bigots.
Now how about you provide a rejoinder.
JimW
@TANK:
You have failed to rebut a single argument I have made. The ball is still in your court.
TANK
@JimW:
Well, this isn’t really about interpretation. You haven’t addressed any of the arguments I’ve made with your own. So it seems that you’re still in idle, as you’ve been talking past me and others for basically all of this thread. I do like your tenacity, though. It’s not pathetic that you fail to comprehend any of the arguments against the main plaza being lds property, or that you don’t understand the difference between what should be the case and what is the case (that you don’t understand what ethics is…or even a legal argument which deals with what should be the case, it would seem); rather, it’s amusing that you’re just repeating yourself like one would the bible when they have nothing left to argue in defense of their faith.
JimW
@TANK:
“Well, this isn’t really about interpretation. You haven’t addressed any of the arguments I’ve made with your own. So it seems that you’re still in idle, as you’ve been talking past me and others for basically all of this thread. I do like your tenacity, though. It’s not pathetic that you fail to comprehend any of the arguments against the main plaza being lds property, or that you don’t understand the difference between what should be the case and what is the case (that you don’t understand what ethics is…or even a legal argument which deals with what should be the case, it would seem); rather, it’s amusing that you’re just repeating yourself like one would the bible when they have nothing left to argue in defense of their faith.”
You’re rambling now. You are making this about interpretation. You are claiming that despite the decision of the appellate court the plaza deal is “wrong,” presumably based on your own sense of ethics or morality. You have studiously avoided the legal discussion and even refused to provide any precedent for your “legal arguments.” All you have is your opinion about what is right and wrong based, apparently on some absolute metric only you have discovered, but which for whatever reason you are unable to share with the rest of us. Give me a source or something to back up your claim or admit defeat.
TANK
@JimW:
This is nonsense. Who’s really rambling here? It looks like you are; and equivocating, too. What’s not about interpretation is that you haven’t addressed a single argument I or anyone else (including aclu) has advanced for why the main plaza shouldn’t be lds property. Parlor trick rhetoric doesn’t work on me or anyone else.
As to this absolute metric–I think we can safely say it’s not your god (the mormon god)…LOL!
TANK
My arguments aren’t legal arguments. I never claimed that they were. I am not a lawyer. That doesn’t diminish them in any way, as the law doesn’t deal with what’s right and what’s wrong; it deals with what’s legal.
JimW
@TANK:
Stop being evasive and tell me why the plaza deal is “wrong.” And back it up.
TANK
@JimW:
I did several times throughout the comments section, and I’m not being evasive at all. I’m not going to repeat myself. Anyway, I don’t think mormons are christians. There was this baptist guy I was talking to who said that they’re not even people…I disagreed with him about that, but he said that they weren’t christian, too. I wouldn’t want offend his religious sensibilities, so I’ll go along with it. Baptists trump mormons.
JimW
Fail. Try again. Why is the plaza deal wrong?
TANK
@JimW:
He was adament that we should round up all of the mormons, put them in cruise ships armed with explosives, send them out to the middle of the pacific ocean and blow them all up. Now, I don’t think that’s what we should to mormons…that’s just wrong. Instead, maybe we should send them all to canada.
JimW
One more time. Tell me why the plaza deal was wrong. If you can’t (and obviously you can’t or you wouldn’t be trying to avoid the discussion), then admit that you have nothing on which to base your argument.
TANK
@TANK:
Just out of curiosity, do you mormons have dietary restrictions like we jews do? Like, for example, mormons can’t eat wonderbread mayo sandwiches after a certain hour? And do those special undies come in eggshell?
JimW
Checkmate. Piece of cake.
TANK
@JimW:
First, I did several times. Just scroll back and read.
Second, are you affiliated with the FLDS? Now they have all those wives, right? THe polygamy child abuse thing? What’s with mormons and polygamy? Sounds creepy and unamerican. Didn’t mitt romney’s grandfather have like six wives? Do you look up to warren jeffs?
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
You’re on some sort of diet?
Was this recommended by your doctor, a nutritionist or some other medical professional?
JimW
Tank, debate is not your thing. I suggest that you get yourself a bullhorn and become a Baptist street preacher. That’s more in line with your skill set.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
What? The sandwich? No. I don’t require a nutritionist. I don’t observe, either…
TANK
@JimW:
That must be a sore spot for you mormons. Those baptist crazies warring with mormon crazies with bullhorns on the main plaza…LOL! Which empty dogma can be yelled louder? I trounced your sad arguments. The best you can do is say that the lds pays for the upkeep of their property…which simply doesn’t address why it SHOULD be there property.
I’ll pass on the bullhorn thing, though. It’s not my style.
TANK
Are you on a diet, strumpet? If not, you probably should be.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
You just confused me for a moment when you said “we” Jews.
And I also notice you seem to be a bit creeped out by tattoos.
And of course if we want to talk about polygamy let’s not forget where Joseph Smith got his idea from in the first place (though he didn’t take it as far as having sex with slaves like Abraham did).
But I would have been a bit surprised if you actually associated yourself with religious Judaeism.
Anyway, never mind. Carry on making fun of the Mormons.
(and for your information, they do have dietary restrictions)
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Yeah, polygamy’s really big in judaism…idiot.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
I thought joseph smith got his ideas from the gold plates…and found out about those from the angel MORON…I.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Well it’s all there in the book.
You have said a few times that it doesn’t matter what people profess to believe and what rules they follow in this century. If it’s in the Bible (or Torah) we have to hold them responsible for that.
I think you said something like that, no?
TANK
You have said a few times that it doesn’t matter what people profess to believe and what rules they follow in this century. If it’s in the Bible (or Torah) we have to hold them responsible for that.
I never said that. If they’re christian and are gay friendly, they’re not gay friendly for any christian reason, for you can equally justify antigay attitudes with the bible as you can any other…though I think it’s rather desperate to try to whitewash the bible from the horrible passages it contains.
ANd further, you are validating the same book those within your faith use to justify their bigoted attitudes, helping them, though indirectly.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Yeah, polgyamy’s in the book…and people are opposed to polygamy not for any reason found in the bible or christianity.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Okay… so you don’t think we should judge all modern Christians based on a literal reading of the bible, and hold them responsible for everything that is in it?
And it’s not my faith, by the way.
JimW
“I trounced your sad arguments.”
Which ones?
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Only if you can prove that a lot of christians do not justify their homophobia with the bible, and genuinely believe that homosexuals are evil because of the bible that they believe is the word of god. I don’t think you can do that.
TANK
@JimW:
Well, the invalid argument in which you claimed that because the city sold the property to the lds church, that it SHOULD be lds property. That’s logically invalid.
JimW
@TANK:
If the LDS Church paid for it and there is no easement or legal reason why they can’t own it, then why is it wrong? Give me a reason. Even the ACLU doesn’t make that silly argument. The issue in the litigation was whether or not it should remain a public forum, not whether or not the LDS Church should own it. The onus is on you to show why it is wrong, which you are unable to do.
TANK
@JimW:
So basically you’re stating that because the lds church does own it, it should own it. Hmmmmm, that’s just an invalid argument. I have already explained why it’s wrong to trample the civil liberties of the public by making a major public walkway private property.
JimW
@TANK:
If the transaction was legal, and you already acknowledged that it was (see No. 86 above), then you must be appealing to some other standard to make the argument that it is “wrong.” Now what is that standard?
As for “trampling the civil liberties of the public by making a major public walkway private property,” please explain how the public’s civil liberties were trampled by virtue of the plaza deal.
TANK
If the transaction was legal, and you already acknowledged that it was (see No. 86 above), then you must be appealing to some other standard to make the argument that it is “wrong.” Now what is that standard?
Now you’re coming around. That took a while. That it is a major public walkway, and the public’s civil rights shouldn’t be trampled when they use it. This ruling trampled the rights of large numbers of people who would be greatly inconvenienced (the actual effect of this ruling) if a major plaza were (and is) made private, where their civil liberties are no longer respected.
TANK
please explain how the public’s civil liberties were trampled by virtue of the plaza deal.
Well, you see now moron security can arbitrarily enforce moron policies they apply to the land, like hassle couple’s for kissing because they’re gay.
JimW
@TANK:
Swing and a miss. Which civil liberties were trampled by virtue of the plaza deal? Please answer the question.
TANK
@TANK:
That, even if they never exercised it, is a threat to the civil liberties of those who use the plaza for public purposes, such as a faster more efficient way of getting from point and to point b without having to walk all the way around it. They shouldn’t be hassled by religious zealots.
TANK
@JimW:
I just explained it to you.
JimW
So you acknowledge that a) the LDS Church owns the property and b) the deal was legal. So are you saying that the LDS Church does not have the right to set the rules of behavior on private property it purchased and which the courts have affirmed is actually private? If so, on what basis.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
I think homophobic people should be challenged no matter what the grounds for their discrimination. And that goes for religious sects which condemn homosexuality.
I am more concerned with reformed Christians and Jews who support gay equality – just like those who eat shellfish, and do not believe in killing disobedient children, murdering everyone when they move into a new neighbourhood, or practicing polygamy.
Given the many discrepancies between scripture and modern judeochristianity, can you justify condemning all faiths by tarring them with the literal word of the bible?
Because if you do, then Judaism winds up wearing a lot more than just polygamy.
JimW
@TANK:
“That, even if they never exercised it, is a threat to the civil liberties of those who use the plaza for public purposes, such as a faster more efficient way of getting from point and to point b without having to walk all the way around it. They shouldn’t be hassled by religious zealots.”
So having to walk around a city block (less than 1/4 mile) is a violation of your civil right to not exercise? Is that what you’re saying?
TANK
@JimW:
LOL! I never denied that the LDS owned the property nor that the transaction was ruled legal when the aclu lost. And the rest is another stupid rhetorical trick called strawman.
I just provided you the basis for which I disagree that the property should be private…you’re merely repeating yourself like one does the bible when they run out of arguments to contest those against their faith.
TANK
@JimW:
Of course it is when it’s arbitrary–it is clearly in a public space. I mean, if central park were ruled the property of the catholic church, you’d be making the same stupid argument that it’s right…and is no inconvenience.
JimW
@TANK:
So the issue is your constitutional right to what exactly? I’m trying to figure out what you’re saying. I really am.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
No, not all faiths, all christian and jewish and islam faiths, yes. Because there are christians (and a great deal of them) who rely on their faith to condemn homosexuality. That’s the reality. THere are great numbers of these people (most, worldwide), and assisting the fairytale by claiming the same faith (christianity), and appealing to the same book–though choosing different passages to acknowledge–strengthens that superstitious harm by affirming the same source.
Christianity is not harmless. If it were, I’d not care…but it’s not.
TANK
@JimW:
You’re just repeating yourself. YOu haven’t addressed my argument.
JimW
@TANK:
“Of course it is when it’s arbitrary–it is clearly in a public space. I mean, if central park were ruled the property of the catholic church, you’d be making the same stupid argument that it’s right…and is no inconvenience.”
You could save yourself some embarrassment by actually reading the decision (http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/04/04-4113.pdf).
First off, you don’t have a constitutional right to convenience. That’s just plain goofy.
Second, if you want to make a civil rights or first ammendment case out of this, stop acting like it’s not a legal issue. Now what have the courts said?
“It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state.”
Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 513 (1976)
The fact that a section of street “used to be a public street
does not render it a traditional public forum.” Hawkins v. City & County of Denver, 170 F.3d 1281, 1287-88 (10th Cir. 1999)
A governmental entity “always retains authority to close a public forum[] by selling the property.” Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 699-
700 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring)
I know this is all hard for you to grasp, but keep trying.
TANK
Well, it’s certainly a threat to one’s first amendment rights–even if it was never acted upon. Just like holding rights up for referendum is a threat to the fourteenth amendment.
TANK
@JimW:
I didn’t say you had a constitutional right to convenience. I said that the inconvenience of the public is a violation of one’s civil liberties–namely, access to and use of public property and, of course one’s right to free speech. I mean, the same reasoning does apply to the possibility of making ANYTHING church property, from the pentagon to central park. In fact, what it does is undermine the very notion of public space, by stating that there’s no such thing. To be consistent, you’d have to argue the legitimacy of such a decision, too.
And you can save yourself some embarrassment by actually providing an argument, and not appealing to another’s unargued for opinion.
JimW
@TANK:
“Well, it’s certainly a threat to one’s first amendment rights–even if it was never acted upon. Just like holding rights up for referendum is a threat to the fourteenth amendment.”
So go test out your constitutional theory by going to your local grocer and staging a protest in the produce section. Let me know how you come out.
No one has threatened your right to free speech in public fora, but like it or not, a property owner does have the constitutional right to dictate what happens on property that is privately owned. You, for example, have the right to tell Mormons to stay off your property. Or are you saying you can’t do that?
TANK
Um, no, human rights (which is what I ground the first amendment in) do not rest upon manufactured law and legal stipulations. The law comes after them.
TANK
@JimW:
But that doesn’t extend to barring black people from that property because they are black, which, in essence, is what you’re saying it should.
Of course someone has threatened my right to free speech/expression in a public forum if I can’t exercise it without security handcuffing me and calling the police.
TANK
You clearly don’t believe that public space exists. I, on the other hand, do…and moreso, in this case, I think it SHOULD exist.
JimW
@JimW:
“I didn’t say you had a constitutional right to convenience. I said that the inconvenience of the public is a violation of one’s civil liberties–namely, access to and use of public property”
It’s not public property. You are making the absurd argument that a city cannot sell a portion of its property to private owners. You’re just dead wrong about that, because it happens all the time and it has been repeatedly upheld by the courts.
“and, of course one’s right to free speech. I mean, the same reasoning does apply to the possibility of making ANYTHING church property, from the pentagon to central park.”
I don’t know why anyone would buy the Pentagon, but if the feds decide to sell it, then it is no longer public property, plain and simple.
“In fact, what it does is undermine the very notion of public space, by stating that there’s no such thing.”
How does someone owning private property negate the existence of public space? Ridiculous. You can stand on the sidewalk and protest to your heart’s conent.
Quit throwing me softballs. Give me a real argument.
TANK
@JimW:
You’re just begging the question by assuming that because it’s not public property, it shouldn’t be. Where did you learn how to reason? This simply isn’t a valid argument. I know it’s owned by the lds…you’re just repeating yourself with no effect, and addressing none of my arguments.
TANK
You are making the absurd argument that a city cannot sell a portion of its property to private owners.
No, I’m not. You’re arguing against the possibility of public space. I’m merely saying that a space used by the public and that serves a benefit to the public is to be treated as public space, and that the city should not have the right to sell that land.
JimW
@TANK:
“Um, no, human rights (which is what I ground the first amendment in) do not rest upon manufactured law and legal stipulations. The law comes after them.”
So you can’t bar Mormons from your property. After all, they are humans with human rights (however arbitrarily you interpret that phrase).
TANK
@JimW:
Simply because their mormon? Of course not. If I owned a store and banned mormons from purchasing what was sold simply because they’re mormon, that would be wrong, and illegal.
JimW
@TANK:
“You’re arguing against the possibility of public space.”
False. See No. 160.
“I’m merely saying that a space used by the public and that serves a benefit to the public is to be treated as public space, and that the city should not have the right to sell that land.”
Why, because you say so? The courts disagree.
JimW
@TANK:
No one is barred from entering the plaza. The LDS Church has left it open to the public, although it doesn’t have to. However, like it or not, the LDS Church, as the property owner, is entitled to dicate the rules of behavior on the plaza. If you choose to enter the property, you have to abide by those rules and, again, like it or not, the rules are determined by the property owner, who can decide that you are no longer welcome. That’s the way it is. If your local grocer thinks you are acting up in his grocery store, he can in fact ask you to leave, and you are required to do so.
TANK
@JimW:
No, becuase it’s used as public space and would inconvenience the public if it were taken from that domain, and stripped of that status by limiting their access to it, and rights while there. I don’t care if the courts disagree (the courts have been wrong throughout their history)–I’m not making a legal argument, and never was.
And you are arguing against the possibility of public space by claiming that anything classed “public space” is subject to sale by the government for whatever reason…that means that it’s not the public’s space as the public does not have a say in its disposal, though pays for its maintenance.
TANK
@JimW:
That it doesn’t have to is the threat to one’s first amendment rights. They also selectively choose whose first amendment rights to limit by harassing them while they’re in the plaza. That they have the right to determine access and dispose of the property as they see fit threatens the public’s rights.
JimW
@TANK:
“No, becuase it’s used as public space and would inconvenience the public if it were taken from that domain, and stripped of that status by limiting their access to it, and rights while there. I don’t care if the courts disagree (the courts have been wrong throughout their history)–I’m not making a legal argument, and never was.”
You are making a legal argument, but you have nothing to back it up with. That’s what’s so comical about this whole discussion.
“And you are arguing against the possibility of public space by claiming that anything classed “public space” is subject to sale by the government for whatever reason…that means that it’s not the public’s space as the public does not have a say in its disposal, though pays for its maintenance.”
Public space is not determined by an inherent feature of a particular geographical point in space. It is a public space because of how it is currently owned and used. It is not a permanent characteristic.
TANK
You are making a legal argument, but you have nothing to back it up with. That’s what’s so comical about this whole discussion.
No, I’m not. And it speaks for itself. I don’t need the unargued for opinion of a judge to back it up…it IS an argument.
TANK
Public space is not determined by an inherent feature of a particular geographical point in space.
Right, I never claimed it was.
It is a public space because of how it is currently owned and used. It is not a permanent characteristic.
Not necessarily currently, but how it is used as I already affirmed.
JimW
@TANK:
“That it doesn’t have to is the threat to one’s first amendment rights. They also selectively choose whose first amendment rights to limit by harassing them while they’re in the plaza. That they have the right to determine access and dispose of the property as they see fit threatens the public’s rights.”@TANK:
It’s private property. The property owner can limit speech and determine acceptable behavior as long as you are on the property. As soon as you step outside the property, the owner has no further control. You are simply against the concept of private property.
TANK
@JimW:
Begging the question, and missing my point. I know it’s private property–I disagree that it should be for the…probably fifteenth time.
JimW
@TANK:
No, I’m not. And it speaks for itself. I don’t need the unargued for opinion of a judge to back it up…it IS an argument.”
So if civil rights, the first ammendment and public space are not legal concepts, what are they? Perhaps you need to look up the definition of “civil right.” It is a legal term by definition.
What you are failing to understand is that the LDS Church has the right to close the plaza. They leave it open voluntarily and not because of any goverment restrictions. The fact that they leave it open does not mean they have surrendered their private property rights.
TANK
Surely you can wrap your small mind around what it means to disagree, yes? You realize that even supreme court justices write dissenting opinions when they disagree, right? Now how is that possible?
TANK
@JimW:
Of course you’re begging the question. I’m not disputing the fact that the lds church owns the property. LOL! I never was.
JimW
@TANK:
“Begging the question, and missing my point. I know it’s private property–I disagree that it should be for the…probably fifteenth time.”
And for the fifteenth time, you have failed to provide anything to back up your argument that it shouldn’t be. All you have is your opinion.
TANK
Civil rights can be used as legal concepts, but they aren’t arbitrarily created ex nihilo by a government any more than it is logically possible for something to be wrong because god says so (arbitrary and vacuous). What’s right and what’s legal…these very different things that occasionally intersect, and no one with a mind could deny that.
TANK
@JimW:
But I have, you just didn’t comprehend the argument, and you certainly addressed it.
TANK
@TANK:
Have not addressed it. YOu simply said I haven’t backed it up…of course I have–it’s an argument.
TANK
“No, becuase it’s used as public space and would inconvenience the public if it were taken from that domain, and stripped of that status by limiting their access to it, and rights while there. I don’t care if the courts disagree (the courts have been wrong throughout their history)–I’m not making a legal argument, and never was.”
Now this is an argument. Addressing it does not amount to saying “you haven’t backed it up”.
JimW
@TANK:
“Civil rights can be used as legal concepts, but they aren’t arbitrarily created ex nihilo by a government any more than it is logically possible for something to be wrong because god says so (arbitrary and vacuous).”
Wrong. You have no idea what civil rights are. They are created and guaranteed by the government and the laws of the land. That’s why you don’t have the same civil rights in Russia that you have in the U.S.
“What’s right and what’s legal…these very different things that occasionally intersect, and no one with a mind could deny that.”
So, once again, if you admit that something is legal but maintain that it is wrong, then you have to show why it is also wrong. This is very possible in theory (e.g. Jim Crow laws).
Unfortunately, all you’ve done thus far is take legal terms (civil rights, first ammendment, public space) and invent new meanings for them while denying that they are even legal terms to begin with. They are terms of art that have defined meanings. You can’t simply invent your own meanings to suit an arbitrary opinion for which you cannot cite a single source or precedent in defense.
TANK
Wrong. You have no idea what civil rights are. They are created and guaranteed by the government and the laws of the land. That’s why you don’t have the same civil rights in Russia that you have in the U.S.
Now you’re getting into legal philosophy and what constitutes a social law–specifically legal naturalism vs. legal positivism. Oy…just because a government does not extend a right to a class of individuals does not mean that that class of individuals do not have a right to demand it, nor that it does, in fact have that right no more than a person saying that killing is right makes it right.
Of course the government can act to protect rights, but it denies them–that is what it is doing; it is DENYING a positive claim that a person or group of people have against the government.
I can say right now that with regard to jurisprudence and the philosophy of law, you’re way out of your depth.
TANK
Unfortunately, all you’ve done thus far is take legal terms (civil rights, first ammendment, public space) and invent new meanings for them while denying that they are even legal terms to begin with.
See, this doesn’t address the argument I’ve made.
JimW
@TANK:
“No, becuase it’s used as public space and would inconvenience the public if it were taken from that domain, and stripped of that status by limiting their access to it, and rights while there. I don’t care if the courts disagree (the courts have been wrong throughout their history)–I’m not making a legal argument, and never was.
Now this is an argument. Addressing it does not amount to saying “you haven’t backed it up”.”
Summary of your argument.
1. The LDS Church owns the plaza (acknowledged).
2. The deal was legal (acknowledged).
3. The plaza used to be a public space.
4. If a public space is sold, it may be considered inconvenient for some people.
5. Therefore, public spaces should not be sold.
6. Therefore, the LDS Church should not own the plaza.
Is that a fair summation of your argument?
JimW
@TANK:
“Now you’re getting into legal philosophy and what constitutes a social law–specifically legal naturalism vs. legal positivism. Oy…just because a government does not extend a right to a class of individuals does not mean that that class of individuals do not have a right to demand it, nor that it does, in fact have that right no more than a person saying that killing is right makes it right.
Of course the government can act to protect rights, but it denies them–that is what it is doing; it is DENYING a positive claim that a person or group of people have against the government.
I can say right now that with regard to jurisprudence and the philosophy of law, you’re way out of your depth.”
No, you have simply failed to show how ownership of the plaza by the LDS Church is a violation of your civil rights. Try to stay on subject.
TANK
@JimW:
Of course it isn’t.
If a space allocated or not to the public, and is deemed by the public to be communal and used as such*, then it is public space. The plaza was allocated to the public and deemed by the public to be communal, and was used as such. Therefore, the plaza was public space.
It is wrong to for a city or governmental body to sell a public space.
SLC sold the main plaza to the lds.
Therefore, it was wrong for the city to sell the plaza to the lds.
IF it’s wrong that the city sold the property to the lds church, then the lds church shouldn’t own the property.
See where this is going to go?
*such that they have access to full civil rights as citizens in a public accomodation, and are not legally discriminated against.
TANK
@JimW:
NO, you just didn’t understand what I wrote.
JimW
@TANK:
“If a space allocated or not to the public, and is deemed by the public to be communal and used as such*, then it is public space. The plaza was allocated to the public and deemed by the public to be communal, and was used as such. Therefore, the plaza was public space.
It is wrong to for a city or governmental body to sell a public space.”
This the problem with your argument. The second paragraph does not logically follow from the first, and you have failed to show why it the sale was wrong. The city received $8 million, the benefits of a pedestrian plaza with the goal of increasing foot traffice in downtown SLC to boost local businesses, as well as donated property valued at over $5 million for a west side community center. That was deemed to be adequate consideration and value to city to justify the sale of a block of the street to the LDS Church (actually one public space was traded for another).
You STILL have to show how that is wrong. If you believe it is a violation of your civil rights, then you have to show how.
First ammendment rights have to be balanced against the constitutional right to private property. You can’t simply focus on one right without considering other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. My right to be arms does not entitle me to shoot out your windows.
TANK
This the problem with your argument. The second paragraph
does not logically follow from the first,
Well, I don’t what you mean by logically (there were to arguments)…as it’s valid.
and you have failed to show why it the sale was wrong.
Because it was the city’s property and used as communal space. Taking that away from the public without consent is wrong. Not illegal, obviously, but wrong nonetheless.
The city received $8 million, the benefits of a pedestrian plaza with the goal of increasing foot traffice in downtown SLC to boost local businesses, as well as donated property valued at over $5 million for a west side community center. That was deemed to be adequate consideration and value to city to justify the sale of a block of the street to the LDS Church (actually one public space was traded for another).
I don’t think that that makes up for it. In fact, that is entirely separate from the civil rights of the public that’s being trampled by the church and the city.
TANK
First ammendment rights have to be balanced against the constitutional right to private property. You can’t simply focus on one right without considering other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. My right to be arms does not entitle me to shoot out your windows.
This is hot air. A total nonsequitur.
JimW
@TANK:
No, it’s an example to help you understand that there are multiple rights that must be balanced. In this case the LDS Church’s rights as a property owner. Focus, man.
TANK
@JimW:
That’s begging the question again. LOL!
JimW
@TANK:
“Well, I don’t what you mean by logically”
Yes, I can see that you don’t understand that term. Let me help you out. In order to have a valid argument, your conclusion must be supported by its premises.
You put forth the premise that the plaza was a public space. You then make the jump to saying that it’s wrong to sell a public space, yet you fail to provide a premise to show why it is wrong.
Hope that helps.
TANK
@JimW:
No, I do understand the term…LOL! It was a VALID argument. SO your use of the term “logically follow” isn’t covered by strict logical entailment…instead, it’s some non logical use of the term. What you probably meant was that you don’t believe it’s sound…well, you haven’t demonstrated that.
JimW
@TANK:
“That’s begging the question again. LOL!”
I don’t think you know what “begging the question” means. Here’s a quick example:
It’s wrong to sell a public space.
How do you know it’s wrong.
Because it violates my civil rights.
How does it violate your civil rights?
Because it was a public space and it’s wrong to sell a public space.
Hope that helps.
JimW
@TANK:
“No, I do understand the term…LOL! It was a VALID argument. SO your use of the term “logically follow” isn’t covered by strict logical entailment…instead, it’s some non logical use of the term. What you probably meant was that you don’t believe it’s sound…well, you haven’t demonstrated that.”
What kind of squirming response is that? See No. 196 for an more info on why the second paragraph does not logically follow. And no, there is no “strict logical entailment” in anything you have said thus far.
TANK
@JimW:
Here’s a better example to clarify what you were doing.
the lds church should own the plaza.
therefore,
the lds church should own the plaza.
Here’s an example of an invalid argument that you were making.
The lds church owns the property
therefore, the lds church should own the property.
TANK
@JimW:
But I wasn’t begging the question. REad it again.
JimW
@TANK:
Weak attempt, Tank. Here’s my real argument.
The LDS Church purchased a block of main street to convert it into a pedestrian plaza.
Adequate consideration was agreed upon and paid.
The city vacated its easement on the property in exchange for additional consideration.
Details of the sale (specifically whether or not it was a public forum) were challenged in court.
The district and appellate courts ruled in the LDS Church’s favor.
The plaza is now private property.
======
All this nonsense about should or shouldn’t is your very subjective invention. You have no legal or constitutional theory or precedent to back it up. It’s just a little hunch you have.
JimW
@TANK:
“But I wasn’t begging the question. REad it again.”
That is the very definition of begging the question. Your conclusion is simply assumed in your premises.
TANK
@JimW:
How so?
If a space allocated or not to the public, and is deemed by the public to be communal and used as such*, then it is public space. The plaza was allocated to the public and deemed by the public to be communal, and was used as such. Therefore, the plaza was public space.
How have I begged the question here? LOL!
Is this begging the question, too:
all men are mortal
socrates was a man
therefore, socrates is mortal?
TANK
The LDS Church purchased a block of main street to convert it into a pedestrian plaza.
Adequate consideration was agreed upon and paid.
The city vacated its easement on the property in exchange for additional consideration.
Details of the sale (specifically whether or not it was a public forum) were challenged in court.
The district and appellate courts ruled in the LDS Church’s favor.
The plaza is now private property.
LOL! This isn’t an argument. Do you consider a history book an argument?
I went to the store earlier today…–is that an argument to you?
JimW
@TANK:
“How so?
If a space allocated or not to the public, and is deemed by the public to be communal and used as such*, then it is public space. The plaza was allocated to the public and deemed by the public to be communal, and was used as such. Therefore, the plaza was public space.
How have I begged the question here? LOL! ”
Not yet. You’ve simply stated that the plaza was previously public. The circular argument is the little bit about it being wrong because, well it just is.
And I’m well acquainted with the old Socrates syllogism. That has nothing to do with begging the question.
TANK
You don’t know the difference between a string of sentences and an argument…
TANK
@JimW:
Not because it just is, but because it was a public space.
JimW
@TANK:
It is an argument. I didn’t say it was a syllogism. Try to read the actual words I’m typing.
JimW
@TANK:
“Not because it just is, but because it was a public space.”
And selling a public space is wrong because…keep going. The fun part is coming next.
JimW
@TANK:
JimW:
“The circular argument is the little bit about it being wrong because, well it just is.”
Tank:
“Not because it just is, but because it was a public space.”
Man, this is just too easy. Selling a public space is wrong “not because it just is, but because it was a public space.”
Circular reason. Begging the question. Thank you very much.
JimW
This is fun. So, Tank, let’s say your city owns a vacant chunk of land. Maybe they had some concerts on the land since it was a large enough space to accomodate such gatherings. Later on the city decides to sell the land for residential development. Are you saying that a) the city doesn’t have the right to sell the land, and b) that any houses on that land purchased by private entities are public spaces?
HayYall
Tank, don’t ever get in a argument with a lawyer. Your forum skills are no match for a trained bastard, and I mean bastard in the most Christian way possible!
TANK
@JimW:
Oy vey. You don’t know what an argument is. An argument isn’t a set of sentences. A valid argument consists of one or more premises that entails its conclusion; or valid argument is such that if its premises are true, its conclusion must be true; soundness is a valid argument with true premises. A stanza of poetry isn’t an argument–a description of a desk isn’t an argument.
TANK
@HayYall:
LOL! You don’t know what an argument is.
TANK
@JimW:
Right selling public space is wrong because IT IS public space just like stealing someone else’s property is wrong because it’s someone else’s property. That’s not circular reasoning.
TANK
@TANK:
Murder is wrong not because murder is wrong (that would be circular reasoning) but because it’s murder…LOL!
TANK
This is fun because it’s easy–you’re right. I’ve raked you over the coals. Tomorrow, the city of new york decides to sell central park to the catholic church in exchange for a visit fro mthe pope, let’s say. I’d argue that that’s wrong because it’s public space, and would violate the rights of those who presently use it as such.
JimW
@TANK:
“Oy vey. You don’t know what an argument is. An argument isn’t a set of sentences. A valid argument consists of one or more premises that entails its conclusion; or valid argument is such that if its premises are true, its conclusion must be true; soundness is a valid argument with true premises. A stanza of poetry isn’t an argument–a description of a desk isn’t an argument.”
Each sentence validates my assertion that the plaza is private property and that as the owner of the property, the LDS Church can set the rules of conduct on the plaza.
You are still trying to figure out how to make the argument that that it is somehow wrong to sell a public space under any circumstances (a made up “principle” that has been violated thousands of times throughout the U.S.), but you can’t articulate why it is wrong other than a circular argument that public spaces shouldn’t be sold because they are public.
JimW
@TANK:
“Murder is wrong not because murder is wrong (that would be circular reasoning) but because it’s murder.”
What does that have to do with selling a public space? As if your public space theory is some sort of absolute truth. Please.
JimW
@TANK:
“This is fun because it’s easy–you’re right. I’ve raked you over the coals.”
Yup. I’m no match for your circular arguments and name calling.
“Tomorrow, the city of new york decides to sell central park to the catholic church in exchange for a visit fro mthe pope, let’s say. I’d argue that that’s wrong because it’s public space, and would violate the rights of those who presently use it as such.”
What kind of goofy analogy is this? Why on earth would the City of New York sell Central Park in exchange for a visit from the Pope? Still, I’ll humor you. I’d say that is wrong based on the sheer stupidity of the concept.
JimW
@TANK:
“Right selling public space is wrong because IT IS public space just like stealing someone else’s property is wrong because it’s someone else’s property. That’s not circular reasoning.”
In order for it to be stealing, it has to be taken without remuneration or consideration. That not the case with the main street plaza issue or the scenario of the residential development I asked you to respond to. No that part is not circular reasoning. It’s just avoiding the question.
TANK
@JimW:
But that’s my point again. You’re slipping between that it’s legal for them to set the terms of conduct because it’s private property inferring, from that alone, that they should be allowed to do it, and that property that represents a legitimate public interest to maintain as public should be privately owned. It’s invalid. You think that they should be allowed to do it simply because they do it. But you’re also begging the question by assuming that they should be allowed to do it simply because they should be allowed to do it…that’s not a good argument.
TANK
@JimW:
It’s an example to demonstrate that I was not engaging in circular reasoning. It’s the same principle. YOu’re dense.
TANK
@JimW:
LOL! THen you’re inconsistent, because it’s basically the same PRINCIPLE. THem taking property which was public and represented a legitimate public interest to remain public property, and selling it to the lds… You are just too stupid for words.
TANK
@JimW:
That’s not true. The public had no consent when the property was sold. The parallel is almost exact.
TANK
And separately, I’d argue that the public has a legitimate interest in having the property revert back to the city’s ownership because of the violations of the couples in this entry. It was on par with security handcuffing people and calling the police for reading and discussing the torah in the plaza. THat’s the harm that’s being caused here.
HayYall
@TANK: Compared to your non sequitur drivel in this thread, I’d say I do.
TANK
@HayYall:
That’s a great argument… I take it that you are siding with enemy… Now either you provide an argument or you don’t.
TANK
In fact, you should be holding up one of those signs.
schlukitz
I have been waiting for a TKO.
Anyone know what round this is? LOL
HayYall
@TANK: My argument is that you can’t provide a cogent one. Namely, as Jim pointed out earlier, that you can’t articulate your own code of morality. I’m not hating on you, as I agree with you on a lot of other issues, but in this thread you seem a bit, um, befuddled let’s say.
TANK
@HayYall:
What does articulating a “code of ethics” have to do with anything? I don’t need to articulate a code of ethics to pronounce racism and genocide wrong, nor do I bigotry in main plaza. Nor do I need to do so when I’ve argued (and persuasively) that the main plaza should revert back to city ownership based on the legitimate public interest in maintaining as public property…
But feel free, answer that first question, you staggering moron.
TANK
I am not the least bit befuddled. My arguments are valid and they’re sound, too. It was wrong for the city to sell this property to the mormon church. It is a major public area in a city, and people’s civil rights are being violated in principle, and in practice (re: the two men who were arrested that sparked this protest).
HayYall
@TANK: See, Tank, the thing about you, for all you hoo-hah aggressive BS is that you’re equating your morals to the rights of the city. If the city says it’s fair to sell a chunk of town to the church, then by the laws of the city and the state of Utah, it’s fair.
You might want to bitch about it all you want (and I’d agree with you), but as long as they can do it legally, it’s fair.
Suck it up.
TANK
@HayYall:
But it’s not fair. What’s fair isn’t legal, and what’s legal isn’t necessaril right. I am not equating the city’s legal right to what is equitable. How many times have I said that on this board? Countless. Obviously, the city had the legal right to do it, and did it. That, I’ve argued is ethically wrong…daaaaa I will not suck it up. I will remind everyone on this board that it is wrong–that what the city did was WRONG. That the 10th circuit court of appeals ruling making it the exclusive property of the LDS was WRONG. That it violates people’s civil liberties.
TANK
I suppose when Harry Blackmun (god rest his soul) dissented in bowers v. hardwick, he had to admit (by your reasoning) that the ruling was FAIR. He did not…and, in fact, dissented. He could admit that was legal, though…and perhaps not even that if you’ve read the dissent (it was a stunner). That is called an example to illustrate the flaw in your reasoning. Now that other person, what’s his face, freely admitted that my central park example was ABSURD. NOw if only he could be logically consistent and apply that same absurdity to the 10th circuit ruling, and the city’s decision. But he can’t…because he’s a mormon, and biased to the extent that he can’t be consistent.
JimW
@TANK:
“You think that they should be allowed to do it simply because they do it. But you’re also begging the question by assuming that they should be allowed to do it simply because they should be allowed to do it…that’s not a good argument.”
I have cited the decision of the courts in this case, established practice, other legal precedents, and the public benefit.
Thus far, all you have provided in defense of your position that they shouldn’t own it is your moral judgment that public property should never be sold to private entitites.
I don’t need to argue against myself. The onus remains on you to provide evidence that outweights all the reasons I have cited.
JimW
@TANK:
“That’s not true. The public had no consent when the property was sold. The parallel is almost exact.”
Wrong. Payment was made to the city. The city council is authorized to conduct the business of the city on behalf of the citizens. That’s why we elect city councils. There is no parallel.
JimW
@TANK:
“Now that other person, what’s his face, freely admitted that my central park example was ABSURD. NOw if only he could be logically consistent and apply that same absurdity to the 10th circuit ruling, and the city’s decision.”
No, your Central Park example was absurd, because a visit from the Pope doesn’t amount to adequate compensation to the city for giving Central Park to the Catholic Church. It was a poor analogy.
In the case of the plaza, adequate compensation was paid.
JimW
@JimW:
I should also point out that in addition to the money paid the city, the city received the benefit of a pedestrian plaza to increase foot traffic in the downtown area (which the city does not have to pay to maintain) and land (previously owned by the LDS Church) for a community center on the west side of the city. The public interest was served.
JimW
@TANK:
“And separately, I’d argue that the public has a legitimate interest in having the property revert back to the city’s ownership because of the violations of the couples in this entry.”
You have already admitted that it is legally private property. On what basis would it revert back to the city? Tank’s special moral judgment that it shouldn’t be what it legally is? And whose going to do that? The Tank Morality Squad?
“It was on par with security handcuffing people and calling the police for reading and discussing the torah in the plaza. THat’s the harm that’s being caused here.”
Wrong. Both parties behaved badly in this incident (and I’m not referring to the smooching), which is why it escalated. IMO the security guards should have left the couple alone, not because they don’t have the right to ask someone to leave the plaza, but because it wasn’t worth all the fuss. The couple became belligerent and refused to leave, a reaction I understand to a certain extent, but which did not contribute to a positive outcome.
The Torah is read and discussed in the plaza on a regular basis.
JimW
@TANK:
“But it’s not fair. What’s fair isn’t legal, and what’s legal isn’t necessaril right. I am not equating the city’s legal right to what is equitable. How many times have I said that on this board? Countless. Obviously, the city had the legal right to do it, and did it. That, I’ve argued is ethically wrong…daaaaa I will not suck it up. I will remind everyone on this board that it is wrong–that what the city did was WRONG. That the 10th circuit court of appeals ruling making it the exclusive property of the LDS was WRONG. That it violates people’s civil liberties.”
I suggest that you write your congressional representatives and ask them to introduce a bill making it illegal for cities, states or the federal government to sell property. Or alternatively, they can introduce legislation banning private property. Either way, it will ultimately require a Constitutional ammendment, so be patient.
Jaroslaw
Jim – I was on your side until now. Your argument that the city should never sell property or private property be made illegal – yeah I know what you’re driving at but you’re taking it to the extreme just like Tank is.
Of course the city can sell property, but if this plaza is in the middle of downtown and directly adjacent to a street was this the right thing for the city to do? Is it a major inconvenience for the citizens should LDS decide to fence it off?
Further, if the LDS agreed to public use and then changed their mind and/or LATER bought the rights of easement from the city, you can’t see why this would be controversial? Come on already.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY (sorry if I missed it there is so much to read here) DO YOU THINK IT IS OK FOR PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS TO HANDCUFF ANYONE? I don’t. Period.
JimW
@Jaroslaw:
Jaroslaw,
I was not advocating either course of action. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of Tank’s extreme position. All he has offered so far are normative statements about what he believes should or should not be based on his moral judgments. That is an insufficient argument.
If he believes the matter is legal but wrong, as he has stated, then he should work to change the laws. It’s as simple as that. I believe his position is absurd, however, and that was my point.
The plaza is controversial, but the convenience issue has to be weighed against other benefits the city has received. Life and traffic in Salt Lake City has not ground to a halt as a result of the plaza. Main street light rail and downtown construction have had a much greater effect on traffic flow.
And no, I’m not comfortable with private security guards handcuffing people.
TANK
@JimW:
No, I didn’t say that. Read it again. I never argued that public property should never be sold to private interests. I did argue that public space used as such shouldn’t be, because it goes against a legitimate public interest to maintain it as public space.
TANK
@JimW:
I don’t think that’s an equitable transaction in light of the violations of people’s civil rights that have transpired in this formally public space. Thus, it should remain a public space.
TANK
@JimW:
No, wrong again. It wasn’t held to a public vote, which would constitute the public’s consent.
TANK
@JimW:
Of course the central park example was absurd–you’re defending the position that the city has the right to sell the land for whatever reason. That was deliberately meant to be absurd show the absurdity of your reasoning.
TANK
@JimW:
On the basis that people’s civil rights are being violated–and wouldn’t be if the space were public.
TANK
@JimW:
And your opinion (that it wasn’t worth the fuss) is also a violation of the civil rights of those who were harassed and handcuffed against their will simply because they were exchanging a PDA, is also a violation–for even if they didn’t, they’d have the right to do this. You don’t take rights very seriously. I do.
TANK
@JimW:
And further, your claim that the torah is read and discussed in the plaza on a regular basis COMPLETELY sidesteps the issue–being that what the security personnel did to this couple (which wouldn’t have happened if the space were public; they’d have no grounds to violate their freedom of expression) is tantamount to them harassing and handcuffing people for reading and discussing the torah.
TANK
And what exactly is my extreme position? Can anyone articulate it such that it’s not a strawman? Not you, jim, as you only deal in strawman with you attributing to me a position I never held; namely, that public space can never be sold to private interests. And when you articulate it, can you provide actual quotations of mine that irrefutably demonstrate it in this thread?
TANK
And also, where in this thread did I claim that the sale of the property by the city is wrong simply because I said it’s wrong? I never claimed such a thing. I’ve got news for you relativist idiots: moral truths exist. Regardless of what ANYONE says or believes, slavery was wrong, and discrimination against gay and lesbians simply because of that trait is wrong. And nothing is right simply because someone believes it–that’s an invalid inference on strictly logical grounds.
JimW
@TANK:
Tank, it would be helpful if you would quote what you are responding to.
“No, I didn’t say that. Read it again. I never argued that public property should never be sold to private interests. I did argue that public space used as such shouldn’t be, because it goes against a legitimate public interest to maintain it as public space.”
What you are failing to see is that there are many legitimate public interests. Simply having a public space is one, but public spaces can be created or relocated. It is not tied to a particular geographical point, as you previously admitted.
Others compelling public interests may include increasing pedestrian traffic to support downtown businesses, beautifying an area of the city to attract tourists and conventions, providing an entertainment venue, encouraging development of housing in a particular area and the associated construction jobs, additional commercial development to increase the tax base, etc.
Your appear to be saying that the ONLY legitiamet public interest is maintaining a public space, even if that is a big empty parcel of land, as in my analogy above (No. 210). That is simply not the case.
JimW
Dang typos…
*legitimate
JimW
@TANK:
“I don’t think that’s an equitable transaction in light of the violations of people’s civil rights that have transpired in this formally public space. Thus, it should remain a public space.”
If it is legally private property, which you concede, and the couple refused to leave when asked, then specifically – and please be specific – what civil right was violated?
JimW
@TANK:
“No, wrong again. It wasn’t held to a public vote, which would constitute the public’s consent.”
City governments have the authority to conduct the affairs of the city based on the city charter and bylaws. You don’t get to vote on every decision.
JimW
@TANK:
“And your opinion (that it wasn’t worth the fuss) is also a violation of the civil rights of those who were harassed and handcuffed against their will simply because they were exchanging a PDA, is also a violation–for even if they didn’t, they’d have the right to do this. You don’t take rights very seriously. I do.”
My opinion is a violation of someone’s civil rights? Also, where exactly do I find this “civil right” to exchange PDA on someone else’s property and the right to refuse to leave the property when asked? Again, please be specific.
I do take civil rights seriously. I just don’t make them up, like you do, and pretend they are the law of the land.
JimW
@TANK:
“And further, your claim that the torah is read and discussed in the plaza on a regular basis COMPLETELY sidesteps the issue–being that what the security personnel did to this couple (which wouldn’t have happened if the space were public; they’d have no grounds to violate their freedom of expression) is tantamount to them harassing and handcuffing people for reading and discussing the torah.”
You keep trying to make this a HYPOTHETICAL “if it weren’t private property” scenario, and then on the basis of that HYPOTHETICAL scenario, you claim an ACTUAL civil rights violation. That is why your argument is absurd.
If HYPOTHETICALLY it were NOT private property, then HYPOTHETICALLY, the couple’s civil rights WOULD have been violated.
However, in ACTUALITY it IS private property, therefore in ACTUALITY there was not ACTUALLY a civil rights violation.
JimW
@TANK:
“And what exactly is my extreme position? Can anyone articulate it such that it’s not a strawman? Not you, jim, as you only deal in strawman with you attributing to me a position I never held; namely, that public space can never be sold to private interests. And when you articulate it, can you provide actual quotations of mine that irrefutably demonstrate it in this thread?”
Tank in No. 213 above in response to my 210:
“Right selling public space is wrong because IT IS public space just like stealing someone else’s property is wrong because it’s someone else’s property.”
As you clearly state, the very fact that IT IS public space makes it wrong to sell it. Therefore, a public space can never be sold, because its very essence makes it unsellable, because it would be tantamount to stealing the public’s property.
I’d say you made your position pretty clear on that one. And that, my friend, is your extreme position.
JimW
“And also, where in this thread did I claim that the sale of the property by the city is wrong simply because I said it’s wrong? I never claimed such a thing.”
You have failed to cite a single source to back up your theory that it is wrong to sell public spaces. Therefore, the only reason we have for why it is wrong is because you say it is.
JimW
@TANK:
“I’ve got news for you relativist idiots: moral truths exist. Regardless of what ANYONE says or believes, slavery was wrong, and discrimination against gay and lesbians simply because of that trait is wrong. And nothing is right simply because someone believes it–that’s an invalid inference on strictly logical grounds.”
I am not a moral relativist. I do believe in moral truths. However, I’m not clear on your point in saying this. Please clarify how this applies to the discussion at hand. Thanks.
JimW
Correction on my comment No. 259. Tank’s comment I quoted was No. 214. Another typo!
TANK
@JimW:
I never claimed that public space was inherently tied to any geographical space. IN fact, that goes against my description of a public space.
Unless you can prove to me that those compelling public interests
1. Outweigh the civil rights of those at the plaza
and
2. Couldn’t have been achieved without selling the main plaza to the lds
You simply haven’t established your point.
TANK
@JimW:
Once again, this assumes that the reason why it is private property is legitimate and justified. I take issue with the main plaza being private property held by the church BECAUSE it can and has resulted in the violations of the rights of those who use it as public walkway. I don’t assume that it was an equitable and legitimate sale by the city to begin with because of these violations and potential violations, and because the objectives fleshed out in the transaction could have been accomplished without selling the public space to a private interest.
TANK
@JimW:
I’m obviously disagreeing with the bylaws and charter which enabled the city to sell public space without the consent of the public in a referendum.
TANK
@JimW:
You don’t take rights seriously, though. You hold an opinion which preferences the rights of a special interest (the lds church and city) above those of everyone (the public). Rights aren’t for one or a few people, they are for everyone. You simply can’t take the possibility of human rights seriously if you don’t acknowledge this, and you don’t.
Your opinion is inconsistent (not principled, but founded upon the “Fuss” the detention and calling the police because of a same sex PDA kicked up) with the possibility of human rights because it preferences the rights of special interests (the sale of the land, and ownership of the main plaza by the lds) above those of the civil rights of those who now can both in principle and in practice be discriminated against. You don’t take rights seriously, as your opinion is inconsistent with the very possibility of doing so.
TANK
@JimW:
All social law is “hypothetical”…it is man made fiction (there aren’t truth conditions for social laws) written down on paper and enforced at gunpoint (the threat of violence) sometimes for good reasons. Social law exists for one reason and one reason only–to negotiate the conflicts that arise from more than one competing interest (and any social is measured against its usefulness in promoting social cohesion, which itself is not a social law). Only occasionally does a social law connect with an ethical truth, and that truth is founded upon the reality of human social interaction (causing unnecessary suffering or deprving people of their freedom and property for no good reason). The entire reason that social laws change is because they are answerable to a higher authority than themselves–ethical truths and the arbitrary whims of social pressure, not itself equal to ethical truths.
But back on track. Conventional or social laws ONLY make sense in the hypothetical realm in their potential to be violated and enforced–their applications are specific. Enforcing a law does not make it any less “hypothetical”– any more than reading charles dickens makes great expectations makes it nonfiction.
In this case, the potential for people’s rights to be violated (and the violation that would not have been allowed to occur legally if the property were publically owned and maintained) does NOT justify the city selling the property. It’s as simple as that.
TANK
@JimW:
That’s not true. I said that selling public space as I described it (deemend and used by the public at large as a space communally owned and maintained and in which people’s freedom of expression is acknowledged by law enforcement–not a legal definiton) is wrong because it’s public space (as I defined it), and this can change–its status can change. People can stop using the space as such or hold a vote to sell the space which is comunally owned and used. How is that an extreme position? I’m not saying that any geographic location is NECESSARILY public space such that it can never be sold. It is wrong to sell public space without the consent of the public who has mantained it as used it as such, just like it’s wrong to sell what doesn’t belong to you.
TANK
@JimW:
A single source? Instead, I’m providing arguments–not the unargued for opinions of other people. That’s what a lawyer would do. “this authority said it’s good, so it’s good!”
TANK
@JimW:
This wasn’t addressed to you. The point was that RIGHT and WRONG do come from sources other than people merely saying things are right and wrong (something you would seem not to believe given your arguments). In this case, it doesn’t matter what’s legal; it’s inconsistent with what’s right.
TANK
@JimW:
I think you are a moral relativist, too. I think that your beliefs about right and wrong probably originate with divine command theory (as you’re likely a mormon). That means that you’re making the same logical error of equating what people say is right and wrong (in this case, god), with what is actually right and wrong. If it doesn’t work for you or I, it doesn’t work for god, either (and can’t, logically).
JimW
@TANK:
How can one subscribe to a universal theory of morality like divine command theory and, at the same time, be a moral relativist? They are, by definition, opposing theories of morality. Ridiculous.
JimW
@TANK:
“Unless you can prove to me that those compelling public interests
1. Outweigh the civil rights of those at the plaza
and
2. Couldn’t have been achieved without selling the main plaza to the lds
You simply haven’t established your point.”
This is a false dilemma. You have not demonstrated that the LDS Church’s ownership of the plaza violates anyone’s civil rights. If you think you can cite a specific civil right that was violated in this specific case, then cite it and stop retreating to your unprovable absolute truth argument.
JimW
@TANK:
“I take issue with the main plaza being private property held by the church BECAUSE it can and has resulted in the violations of the rights of those who use it as public walkway. I don’t assume that it was an equitable and legitimate sale by the city to begin with because of these violations and potential violations, and because the objectives fleshed out in the transaction could have been accomplished without selling the public space to a private interest.”
What civil rights violation occurred? Please be specific.
Are you making the argument that property shouldn’t be sold to certain individuals or organizations? What if it was sold to the Utah Gay and Lesbian Coalition for a LGBT? I doubt very seriously you would have any problem with that, because in your mind, they’re the good guys.
JimW
@TANK:
“You don’t take rights seriously, though. You hold an opinion which preferences the rights of a special interest (the lds church and city) above those of everyone (the public). Rights aren’t for one or a few people, they are for everyone. You simply can’t take the possibility of human rights seriously if you don’t acknowledge this, and you don’t.
Your opinion is inconsistent (not principled, but founded upon the “Fuss” the detention and calling the police because of a same sex PDA kicked up) with the possibility of human rights because it preferences the rights of special interests (the sale of the land, and ownership of the main plaza by the lds) above those of the civil rights of those who now can both in principle and in practice be discriminated against. You don’t take rights seriously, as your opinion is inconsistent with the very possibility of doing so.”
Zero credibility in this post, Tank. You keep flip-flopping between your absolute morality argument and a civil rights argument, which is a legal argument. If you’re going to make this about civil rights, then you have to prove the following:
1. That the civil rights of the couple were violated. Again, be specific.
2. That the property owner does not have the right to a) set rules of conduct on the property and b) ask someone to leave.
Even Derek Jones does not agree with you:
“The security guards then changed their strategy and went the route of telling us that the easement is privately owned by the church and they can basically kick-out anyone they deem being offensive or inappropriate. This is technically true, but at the time I thought that it was a public easement and they had no rights to kick us out for holding hands.”
http://blueinredzion.com/2009/07/basic-civil-rights-v-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-part-2/
JimW
@TANK:
“All social law is ‘hypothetical’…”
Tank, you can’t baffle me with BS. The police can’t come to your house and say, “Tank, if you hadn’t paid for that car sitting in your driveway, you would be guilty of stealing it from the dealer, so I’m going to charge you with auto theft.” The facts don’t support the conclusion that an actual offense has occurred.
Likewise, you can’t say that if the plaza weren’t private property (which you already concede it is), then the LDS Church wouldn’t be able to set rules of behavior on the property, so, therefore, the couple’s civil rights were actually violated. Again, the conditional statement does not agree the facts of the case.
You have repeatedly claimed that the couple’s civil rights were violated, so I’ll ask you once again, what civil right was violated? Be specific and stop avoiding the question.
As for your potential for rights violations argument, that exists with ALL private property, but even limiting to the sale of public spaces, does a vote by the people eliminate that potential? Nope.
JimW
@TANK:
“That’s not true. I said that selling public space as I described it (deemend and used by the public at large as a space communally owned and maintained and in which people’s freedom of expression is acknowledged by law enforcement–not a legal definiton) is wrong because it’s public space (as I defined it), and this can change–its status can change. People can stop using the space as such or hold a vote to sell the space which is comunally owned and used. How is that an extreme position? I’m not saying that any geographic location is NECESSARILY public space such that it can never be sold. It is wrong to sell public space without the consent of the public who has mantained it as used it as such, just like it’s wrong to sell what doesn’t belong to you.”
And what other kind of “public space” is there? If it’s not publically owned and maintained, it’s not public space. Free expression, although not without some limitation, is naturally assumed by virtue of it being public. All of that is implied in the term “public space,” so your qualification is an empty one.
You’re trying to retreat from what you said, so let me remind you.
No. 214:
“Right selling public space is wrong because IT IS public space just like stealing someone else’s property is wrong because it’s someone else’s property.”
And in No. 215
“Murder is wrong not because murder is wrong (that would be circular reasoning) but because it’s murder…LOL!”
Now you are backtracking and saying it is OK to sell it if the public votes, which contradicts your entire absolutist argument AND your potential for abuse argument. If its very essence makes it wrong, just like the essence of murder makes murder wrong (your analogy), how can a public vote change its very essence? That is an inherent contradiction you cannot escape.
JimW
@TANK:
“A single source? Instead, I’m providing arguments–not the unargued for opinions of other people. That’s what a lawyer would do. ‘this authority said it’s good, so it’s good!'”
No, you are making an unprovable statement of belief in an absolute moral truth that you believe should be public policy. That’s what Jerry Falwell would do.
JimW
If you say that the potential for violation of civil rights is sufficient reason to preclude the sale of public property to a private entity, but also claim that the sale is OK if the people vote on it, then you have to accept the proposition that the people can vote away the civil rights of other people.
I’m fairly certain that is not a place you want to go.
strumpetwindsock
@JimW:
I don’t want to get mired in your little tennis match, but you should do a search into privatization of public space.
There are plenty of examples of areas which are technically private (malls are a prime example) which are de facto public space, ESPECIALLY when public services such as libraries, public offices and medical clinics are located there.
Spaces are also de facto public when they are common thoroughfares or gathering places. We have just such a network of tunnels in my old home town which is the only convenient way for many people to get around downtown in winter.
It sounds like this piece of ground in SLC is just such a place, and that is why there was such resistance to the sale in the first place. The church may have bought it to create a buffer zone, and they may have gotten away with it, but that does not make their action and the action of the city just.
strumpetwindsock
@JimW:
And there ARE limits to what a private owner can impose on members of the public. Those limits might be reached if a mall owner tried to bar non-whites from its property.
In fact that most certainly is what is happening in some cases, but if it were actually put on a sign or on paper it could be challenged.
Similarly, I think the main questions about the treatment of these two men are whether they would have been treated that way on a public street, and whether they were treated any differently than a straight couple would have been.
Ultimately, it comes down to whether your government (legislature or courts) is going to recognize any kind of double standard and act to protect the interests of the public.
TANK
@JimW:
Of course they aren’t. Divine command theory is a relative metaethical view. What’s right is right because god said so (commanded it). That means you believe that what’s right [according to me] is right in virtue of someone believing it and saying it (in this case, god). That’s a relativist position. The problem is that if god isn’t describing a standard external to god, then it’s pure arbitrary whim morality (no thought, principle nor reasoning behind it at all that could constrain or cause god’s pronouncement), and if god is reporting an ethical standard external to god, then we don’t need god (euthyphro dilemma). It is also logically invalid, for one cannot infer that because one says something is good/bad, that it is, in fact, good/bad. There is simply no inference that can be had from “right for me” and “right”.
TANK
@JimW:
I don’t know what you mean by “stop retreating to your unprovable absolute truth argument,” and I suspect that you don’t know what you mean by it either.
It is not a false dilemma. A false dilemma occurs when there is a third option that is not enumerated. Short of simply begging the question and assuming that the sale was ethical, as you have done, it is not true that there is a third option. In this case, the city COULD (more than one option) have achieved what it got (or a reasonable substitute) out of selling the public land to a private interest without it, and the violation of the freedom of expression that occurred (and that the lds security reserves the right to continue to perpetuate) as a result of the sale and court ruling does not outweigh a legitimate public interest to not sell the land. It’s a major public walkway, and people’s rights should be respected in a major public walkway.
TANK
@JimW:
This is a lot like the nazis saying to the jews who claimed that their rights were being violated–“not according to our laws. We don’t give you those rights. Not on paper, doesn’t exist.” This is simply ad hoc–like the law itself. Simply reiterating that the property is owned by the lds, and that they legally have the right to discriminate and be bigots does not JUSTIFY their behavior. You don’t understand that. The potential for people’s rights (in this case, freedom of expression) to be violated outweighs the lds’s private interest in owning this property. If it were public property, THEN this violation (and I believe it was a bigoted antigay VIOLATION), would have been illegal. As the lds security SHOULD NOT have done would it did not for any “fuss” that it kicked up, but because targeting people and discriminating against them because of a same sex PDA (or the color of one’s skin) and superstition IS WRONG. It serves no benefit to society to discriminate against individuals because of characteristics that do not harm anyone in any tangible way, and are a part of who individuals are. It is unjustifiable.
TANK
@TANK:
I feel like you need a civics lesson.
TANK
“You don’t take rights seriously, though. You hold an opinion which preferences the rights of a special interest (the lds church and city) above those of everyone (the public). Rights aren’t for one or a few people, they are for everyone. You simply can’t take the possibility of human rights seriously if you don’t acknowledge this, and you don’t.
Your opinion is inconsistent (not principled, but founded upon the “Fuss” the detention and calling the police because of a same sex PDA kicked up) with the possibility of human rights because it preferences the rights of special interests (the sale of the land, and ownership of the main plaza by the lds) above those of the civil rights of those who now can both in principle and in practice be discriminated against. You don’t take rights seriously, as your opinion is inconsistent with the very possibility of doing so.”
Zero credibility in this post, Tank. You keep flip-flopping between your absolute morality argument and a civil rights argument, which is a legal argument.
No, my civil rights argument is not a legal argument. I believe people have rights independently of any document or government. That’s why they can be violated by governments. I don’t know what you mean by “absolute morality”. I suspect you don’t know you mean by that, either.
As for me flip flopping (re: bush tactic), I don’t see how you could say that. I’ve been consistent throughout my posts, as the civil rights argument IS a moral argument.
If you’re going to make this about civil rights, then you have to prove the following:
1. That the civil rights of the couple were violated. Again, be specific.
2. That the property owner does not have the right to a) set rules of conduct on the property and b) ask someone to leave.
False dilemma (! You misused it before, as I wasn’t saying those were your only options–though they were, in fact, the only relevant options–, and it was a disjunct, but a conjunct…surely you know the difference between an AND and an OR, don’t you? It couldn’t have been a false dilemma). For 1., you’d have to say the same thing of the jim crow laws that applied to black people throughout the south. SInce they were on the books, and perfectly legal at the time, they’d have no recourse to a civil rights argument. I disagree. I think that one can make a civil rights argument independently of what the law says if blatant discrimination is permitted by the law. This is because social rights are not contained by any legal document or any government, but had independently of those things.
As for 2., just assuming that what’s legal is what’s ethical does not make it the case.
TANK
Tank, you can’t baffle me with BS. The police can’t come to your house and say, “Tank, if you hadn’t paid for that car sitting in your driveway, you would be guilty of stealing it from the dealer, so I’m going to charge you with auto theft.” The facts don’t support the conclusion that an actual offense has occurred.
WHat does this have to do with the fact that laws deal with their potential to be violated and enforced? That they’re man made fiction?
Likewise, you can’t say that if the plaza weren’t private property (which you already concede it is), then the LDS Church wouldn’t be able to set rules of behavior on the property,
I don’t believe that the LDS should own that property. Do you not understand at all what I’ve said dozens and dozens of times to you thus far in the thread? I believe that their ownership of the property is ethically wrong–it is wrong for a public interest to own a major public walkway and be able to strip everyone who uses it of their civil rights. It is a compelling social interest to make sure that people’s rights are respected in public space. Just stating that the nazis denied certain people human and legal rights doesn’t mean that those they denied didn’t have a right to argue that their rights were being violated even though, on the books, they weren’t. That’s basically what you’re saying, and are obligated to.
so, therefore, the couple’s civil rights were actually violated. Again, the conditional statement does not agree the facts of the case.
See? This is exactly what you’re saying…that the law=ethics. This is the most flagrant form of stupidity I think I’ve encountered on queerty. You are EXTREMELY STUPID, but not immediately so…it takes a while for someone to get just how DUMB you are.
You have repeatedly claimed that the couple’s civil rights were violated, so I’ll ask you once again, what civil right was violated? Be specific and stop avoiding the question.
Freedom of expression that would not have been violated if the space were publically owned.
As for your potential for rights violations argument, that exists with ALL private property, but even limiting to the sale of public spaces, does a vote by the people eliminate that potential? Nope.
Well, in public accomodations, one doesn’t have the right to discriminate against people of different skin color, for example. Even if the accomodation is privately owned. And you didn’t understand the public space should get the public’s consent to sell it. It’s like selling property that doesn’t belong to you with that property owner’s consent.
TANK
without that property owner’s consent.
TANK
@JimW:
No, once again, you’re either deliberately misconstruing what I’ve said or just plain don’t understand (more likely at this point). Selling public space is wrong because it’s public space. Space used, maintained, and is deemed communally owned by the public, is public space. THat doesn’t mean that public space is intrinsically space such that if the space stopped being used, maintained and deemed communally owned, that it would still be public space. And it doesn’t mean that public space cannot be sold to private interests with the consent of the owner (the public).
TANK
@JimW:
No, I’m making arguments. Arguments things that prove statements…LOL!
TANK
@JimW:
Ah, this is the only interesting and good argument you’ve made thus far here. But there’s a difference between voting people’s civil rights away and an owner (in this case, the public) selling its land to a private interest. The potential for violation of one’s rights stops being a violation with consent.
Homolicious
What really is the real agenda of the Mormon Church? To post some bigoted signs in a street gathering for all the world to see how ridiculous they are??
Do they really think that by showing such obvious contempt and hate for what has been going on for tens of thousands of years of homosexuality by preaching their hate, that somehow we gays will surrender our ‘Gay Card’ and devote our lives to become mormon? Gimme a break!!
Maybe they should picket in front of Red Lobster’s, Divorce courts and divorce attorneys because these are also what the Bible consider to be an abomination. Isn’t it just great that they pick and choose what hate/judgement/bias they seem fitting to gays, but leave out all the other numerous “sins” that the Bible speaks of.
It’s absolutely amazing how a church that is suppose to teach the word of the Bible, yet mis-interpret it’s verses, and then have the gull to throw it’s own mormon members out of the church they are a part of just for being gay.
The mormon church is HATE & HYPOCRISY at it’s peak!
SM
LGBT people are on the winning side of history. Your best revenge on the Mormon Church and every other Church is to LET them act like idiots while you go out and do good by the thousands.
You can make signs and call them bigots…or you can go out in mass and prove them wrong.
Let their history be written for what they are.
schlukitz
Babbling Bess is at it again.
She’s been inhaling the Holy Smoke for too long.
SM
@schlukitz:
The ONLY reason it is taking LGBT people to reach equality is because YOU ALL ARE THE BABBLING BESSIES.
African Americans did not have the option of hiiding their skin color. Women did not have the option of hiding their gender.
You blame EVERYONE but your own community.
You are soooooooooooo weak~
JimW
@strumpetwindsock:
Privately owned malles are not de facto public spaces, but some allowance for free expression has been made in California based on Pruneyard Mall v. Robins. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld California State Constitution’s affirmative statement on expression to permit some free expression in malls with reasonable limits imposed by the property owner so long as the expression is not disorderly and does not interfere with business or the interest of shareholders. That case has no bearing on the plaza case and was not even cited by the plaintiffs, including the ACLU.
You are correct that if any public facility is located on the property or if tax payer money is being used to maintain it, then it remains a public forum. None of that applies in the case of the plaza, since it is maintained exclusively by the LDS Church and contains no such public facilities.
The thoroughfares/gathering place argument does not apply either. This is a 500 ft. section of street that was converted from a street into a pedestrian plaza. Downtown Main Street ceased being a main traffic route when light rail was added along Main Street, limiting auto traffic to one lane in either direction. Alternative north/south routes are located 500 feet in both the east and west directions. The area was never a community gathering place. There were no commercial businesses, resaurants or other businesses on the block in question–only Temple Square (surrounded by a wall running the length of the block) on the west and LDS Church headquarters on the east.
Furthermore, in Hawkins v. City & County of Denver, the courts ruled that the fact that a section of street “used to be a public street does not render it a traditional public forum.”
JimW
@TANK:
Divine command theory is a universalist theory that assumes that what God says applies to everyone in every circumstance. Moral relativism holds that morals are situational. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.
JimW
@TANK:
“It is not a false dilemma. A false dilemma occurs when there is a third option that is not enumerated. Short of simply begging the question and assuming that the sale was ethical, as you have done, it is not true that there is a third option. In this case, the city COULD (more than one option) have achieved what it got (or a reasonable substitute) out of selling the public land to a private interest without it, and the violation of the freedom of expression that occurred (and that the lds security reserves the right to continue to perpetuate) as a result of the sale and court ruling does not outweigh a legitimate public interest to not sell the land. It’s a major public walkway, and people’s rights should be respected in a major public walkway.”
The false delimma is contained in #1, which implicitly asserts that either the public interest in selling the plaza to the LDS Church must outweigh civil rights, or the deal is invalid. The third option is that the public interests can be served without violating civil rights. Thus far, despite my repeated requests, you have not been able to name a single civil right that has been violated.
#2 is irrelevant, because the LDS Church has the right to own private property. The fact that it could have been sold to someone else has no bearing on the matter.
Don’t lecture me on logical constructs. You don’t understand them.
schlukitz
SM has a new talking point now.
Babbling Bessies.
Love it. It’s so original.
JimW
@TANK:
“This is a lot like the nazis saying to the jews who claimed that their rights were being violated–”not according to our laws. We don’t give you those rights. Not on paper, doesn’t exist.” This is simply ad hoc–like the law itself. Simply reiterating that the property is owned by the lds, and that they legally have the right to discriminate and be bigots does not JUSTIFY their behavior. You don’t understand that. The potential for people’s rights (in this case, freedom of expression) to be violated outweighs the lds’s private interest in owning this property. If it were public property, THEN this violation (and I believe it was a bigoted antigay VIOLATION), would have been illegal. As the lds security SHOULD NOT have done would it did not for any “fuss” that it kicked up, but because targeting people and discriminating against them because of a same sex PDA (or the color of one’s skin) and superstition IS WRONG. It serves no benefit to society to discriminate against individuals because of characteristics that do not harm anyone in any tangible way, and are a part of who individuals are. It is unjustifiable.”
There you go again…”if it were public property”. It’s not.
There are laws on the books regarding freedom of expression, and the courts have ruled in Hudgens v. NLRB that “It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free
speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state.” The LDS Church is not a state actor, so restricting speech on the plaza does not constitute a free speech claim, as the courts have affirmed in this case.
JimW
@TANK:
Why don’t you test out your theory that laws are manmade fiction. Let me know how you come out.
“so, therefore, the couple’s civil rights were actually violated. Again, the conditional statement does not agree the facts of the case.
See? This is exactly what you’re saying…that the law=ethics. This is the most flagrant form of stupidity I think I’ve encountered on queerty. You are EXTREMELY STUPID, but not immediately so…it takes a while for someone to get just how DUMB you are.”
Tank, you don’t understand what “civil right” means. There’s a reason why it’s called a “civil” right. It has nothing to do with laws=ethics. That is YOUR confusion. It is “civil”, because it is part of the social contract and is a protection offered as a result of citizenship and guaranteed by the laws of the land, specifically the Bill of Rights. Civl right=legally protected right. Keep trying. With a little study and effort, you’ll figure it out.
JimW
“Freedom of expression that would not have been violated if the space were publically owned.”
And fishes were wishes, we’d all have a fry…neither hypothetical is true in this case.
TANK
There you go again…”if it were public property”. It’s not.
Once again, I’m arguing that it should be, because of this antigay violation. Just like Jim Crowe laws shouldn’t have existed…they did, and they were legal…but I disagreed with ’em because they violated people’s rights.
There are laws on the books regarding freedom of expression, and the courts have ruled in Hudgens v. NLRB that “It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free
speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state.” The LDS Church is not a state actor,
But the city is, and that’s where I’ve argued for literally dozens of posts…was wrong. I also think that the LDS church acted wrongly, too in violating these folks’ freedom of expression as a consequence of the city’s decision and circuit court’s ruling..
so restricting speech on the plaza does not constitute a free speech claim, as the courts have affirmed in this case.
Well, be consistent. You obviously didn’t think that jim crowe laws were a violation of people’s rights. That’s your hangup. You have provided no argument for this other than stating that technically, it’s the lds’s property. I’m not disagreeing with that fact and never was. I’m disagreeing that it should be.
JimW
“False dilemma (! You misused it before, as I wasn’t saying those were your only options–though they were, in fact, the only relevant options–, and it was a disjunct, but a conjunct…surely you know the difference between an AND and an OR, don’t you? It couldn’t have been a false dilemma). For 1., you’d have to say the same thing of the jim crow laws that applied to black people throughout the south. SInce they were on the books, and perfectly legal at the time, they’d have no recourse to a civil rights argument. I disagree. I think that one can make a civil rights argument independently of what the law says if blatant discrimination is permitted by the law. This is because social rights are not contained by any legal document or any government, but had independently of those things.”
Please state what the false delimma is. Thank you.
As for the Jim Crow law argument, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. It was a civil rights issue because there WERE laws on the books that eventually led to Jim Crow laws being overturned–the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Ammendment and the Commerce Clause.
I won’t be taking any civics or history lessons from you anytime soon.
TANK
Privately owned malles are not de facto public spaces, but some allowance for free expression has been made in California based on Pruneyard Mall v. Robins. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld California State Constitution’s affirmative statement on expression to permit some free expression in malls with reasonable limits imposed by the property owner so long as the expression is not disorderly and does not interfere with business or the interest of shareholders. That case has no bearing on the plaza case and was not even cited by the plaintiffs, including the ACLU.
I can go on as long as you can, pal. And I will. You’re not gonna win this one. You’re clearly wrong, and I’ll repeat myself until hell freezes over, as you surely are, too. There is no legitimate public interest being served in this major public walkway being privately owned. If this were a public accomodation (which I think it might fall under that category), then this wouldn’t be allowed to occur if the people discriminated against by the LDS were black. I see no substantive difference between that trait and homosexuality–which was why these people’s rights were violated by security.
You are correct that if any public facility is located on the property or if tax payer money is being used to maintain it, then it remains a public forum. None of that applies in the case of the plaza, since it is maintained exclusively by the LDS Church and contains no such public facilities.
ANd it shouldn’t be, once again…for the several reasons and arguments I have provided.
The thoroughfares/gathering place argument does not apply either. This is a 500 ft. section of street that was converted from a street into a pedestrian plaza. Downtown Main Street ceased being a main traffic route when light rail was added along Main Street, limiting auto traffic to one lane in either direction. Alternative north/south routes are located 500 feet in both the east and west directions. The area was never a community gathering place. There were no commercial businesses, resaurants or other businesses on the block in question–only Temple Square (surrounded by a wall running the length of the block) on the west and LDS Church headquarters on the east.
Furthermore, in Hawkins v. City & County of Denver, the courts ruled that the fact that a section of street “used to be a public street does not render it a traditional public forum.”
TANK
Divine command theory is a universalist theory that assumes that what God says applies to everyone in every circumstance. Moral relativism holds that morals are situational. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.
SUre, I don’t know what I’m talking about… Look, those who advocate divine command theory do think of it as universal, but so do those who advocate relativism (they think it applies in all cases). And according to relativism, what makes something right is simply a culture or individuals saying and believing it’s right. Thus, it’s a relativist theory. Now I don’t happen to believe that someone (no matter what the credentials) makes a normative proposition true just because they say it’s true. In fact, that’s just invalid reasoning.
JimW
@TANK:
“Ah, this is the only interesting and good argument you’ve made thus far here. But there’s a difference between voting people’s civil rights away and an owner (in this case, the public) selling its land to a private interest. The potential for violation of one’s rights stops being a violation with consent.”
So the citizens of Salt Lake City (the only ones who would be voting on the issue since it was a city owned street) can vote away the civil rights of any visitor from another city or state who happens to visit the plaza.
Oops! We have a problem here. And I thought you took civil rights seriously. Guess not.
JimW
@TANK:
Once again, Jim Crow laws were overturned because of the Equal Protection Clause and the Commerce Clause, not simply because of someone’s concept of right and wrong. They were in fact wrong, but that’s not why the laws were overturned. Do a little research.
JimW
@TANK:
You still don’t know what divine command theory means. It is universalist in that it is believed by the adherent to apply to everyone. The fundamental premise of moral relativism is that one person cannot impose his concept of morality on someone else. They are opposing theories. You simply don’t understand the concepts.
TANK
“It is not a false dilemma. A false dilemma occurs when there is a third option that is not enumerated. Short of simply begging the question and assuming that the sale was ethical, as you have done, it is not true that there is a third option. In this case, the city COULD (more than one option) have achieved what it got (or a reasonable substitute) out of selling the public land to a private interest without it, and the violation of the freedom of expression that occurred (and that the lds security reserves the right to continue to perpetuate) as a result of the sale and court ruling does not outweigh a legitimate public interest to not sell the land. It’s a major public walkway, and people’s rights should be respected in a major public walkway.”
The false delimma is contained in #1, which implicitly asserts that either the public interest in selling the plaza to the LDS Church must outweigh civil rights, or the deal is invalid.
Implicitly asserts? You’re out of your mind. That’s not true. 1. stated simply stated that there needs to be a legitimate public interest that outweighs the civil rights of those whose civil rights would be violated if the land WERE privatized. So far, there is none. How is that a false dilemma? How is that even a dilemma? A dilemma is a decision between two or more options. A false dilemma occurs when one uses a DISJUNCT (that means an ‘or’) to assert that the options enumerated are the ONLY options available when that’s false. Now how does 1. constitute a false dilemma? If can prove that there doesn’t need to be a legitimate public interest that outweighs in the interest of the public’s civil rights in which it is PERMISSABLE to sell public land without the consent of the public, go ahead…as of yet, you haven’t done that.
The third option is that the public interests can be served without violating civil rights. Thus far, despite my repeated requests, you have not been able to name a single civil right that has been violated.
Once again, you’re relying on what’s legal (the lds owns the property privately)=what’s right. No, that’s not what I’m arguing and never was. I’m arguing that it’s wrong that they own the property–that it was a bad decision to sell it to them, and that the 10th circuit’s ruling upholding that sale was unethical.
#2 is irrelevant, because the LDS Church has the right to own private property. The fact that it could have been sold to someone else has no bearing on the matter.
I’m not disputing that the lds has the right to own private property, and never was. Them owning this property is, again, WRONG for the dozens of reasons and arguments I’ve now provided. YOu’re just repeating yourself, and that’s exactly what I’m going to do until you address an argument. I am disputing their right to own this property–I don’t think that they should own it.
Don’t lecture me on logical constructs. You don’t understand them.
LOL! Logical constructs? LOL! I doubt you’ve ever taken a logic class in your life.
TANK
Why don’t you test out your theory that laws are manmade fiction. Let me know how you come out.
Apparently you don’t get what I mean. I was right, it’s just over your head.
Tank, you don’t understand what “civil right” means. There’s a reason why it’s called a “civil” right. It has nothing to do with laws=ethics. That is YOUR confusion. It is “civil”, because it is part of the social contract and is a protection offered as a result of citizenship and guaranteed by the laws of the land, specifically the Bill of Rights. Civl right=legally protected right. Keep trying. With a little study and effort, you’ll figure it out.
See, that’s where we disagree. I do know what civil rights are, and they have existed for longer than the united states, and other governments which have acknowledged and protected them. No government creates for ether civil rights. Rights, or options that people have, are not pieces of paper or government contracts, or a legal opinions of lawyers in a specific country. Rights exist universally, and apply to everyone. They are a product of biological evolution, and promote social cohesion.
JimW
@TANK:
“I can go on as long as you can, pal. And I will. You’re not gonna win this one. You’re clearly wrong, and I’ll repeat myself until hell freezes over, as you surely are, too.”
I’m sure you will. Ha ha.
“There is no legitimate public interest being served in this major public walkway being privately owned.”
False. Beautifying the city, increasing pedestrian traffic, supporting downtown businesses…all legitimate public interests.
TANK
@TANK:
Many of their specific formulations (rights) are culturally determined, however…through accidents of history.
TANK
@JimW:
No, you’re wrong again, because those ends could have been achieved without the sale of the property.
TANK
@JimW:
Once again, there’s no in principle violation of one’s rights with consent. It doesn’t mean that one can vote away people’s rights, as selling this property was voting on people’s rights.
TANK
@TANK:
Was not.
JimW
@TANK:
“See, that’s where we disagree. I do know what civil rights are, and they have existed for longer than the united states, and other governments which have acknowledged and protected them. No government creates for ether civil rights. Rights, or options that people have, are not pieces of paper or government contracts, or a legal opinions of lawyers in a specific country. Rights exist universally, and apply to everyone. They are a product of biological evolution, and promote social cohesion.”
Wrong. You are confusing civil rights with natural rights (e.g. life, liberty and property).
TANK
@JimW:
No, they weren’t in fact wrong, and survived until they were challenged for a very long time. It was legal. And it was also legal to own slaves at one point…are you’d be calling that right, too.
TANK
@JimW:
If that’s the stipulated difference you’re relying on, it changes nothing in my arguments. Just call them natural rights.
strumpetwindsock
@JimW:
As I said Jim, none of that makes it just. Laws change, especially bad laws.
And I repeat, there are limits to how landowners can treat people on their property, especially if it involves a standard which is not applied evenly.
Shame on your city and your state for letting the church take over public property just so they can have a firewall; and if the church expected it would shield them from public criticism I think they may be in for a rude awakening after this kind of bullying.
JimW
@TANK:
“Was not.”
Was too.
Sheesh, what kind of comment is that?
TANK
@JimW:
That’s not true. You don’t know what moral relativism is. Moral relativism is a metaethical theory. It seeks to explain what ethical judgments are and what makes them true. According to relativism, moral properties (goodness and badness) are relational properties like gravity. They exist only in relation to individual’s beliefs and the circumstance they’re evaluating (much like divine command theory–it’s relative to god’s belief and judgment). Now according to relativism, one can say that something is wrong and universally wrong–and when someone seems to disagree with them, they’re not. IT’s called talking past someone. They have different meanings for right and wrong. Divine command theory is explained perfectly by moral relativism.
JimW
@strumpetwindsock:
Just so they can have a firewall? Where did you get that idea?
TANK
@JimW:
No, I was correcting myself. I said that selling this property WAS NOT a voting on people’s civil rights.
youcanthandlethetruth
Another bunch of immature, intolerant homosexuals demanding that everyone else be tolerant of them!
Have the Noon8 campaign apologised yet for the lying ad they showed depicting Mormons breaking into someone’s house?
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
LOL! It’s jim.
JimW
@TANK:
“That’s not true. You don’t know what moral relativism is. Moral relativism is a metaethical theory. It seeks to explain what ethical judgments are and what makes them true. According to relativism, moral properties (goodness and badness) are relational properties like gravity. They exist only in relation to individual’s beliefs and the circumstance they’re evaluating (much like divine command theory–it’s relative to god’s belief and judgment). Now according to relativism, one can say that something is wrong and universally wrong–and when someone seems to disagree with them, they’re not. IT’s called talking past someone. They have different meanings for right and wrong. Divine command theory is explained perfectly by moral relativism.”
Wrong. Moral relativism is by definition NOT universalist. Divine command theory is. That is why they are opposing theories.
JimW
@TANK:
“LOL! It’s jim.”
Weak, Tank.
TANK
So why is SLC’s decision to sell the main plaza to the lds right?
A: Because Jim said it’s right.
But why did he say it?
A: He just knows…I dunno.
What does he know?
A: That it’s right.
But why is it right?
A: Because Jim said it’s right…
But why did he say it’s right?
A: Because it’s right.
Ah, okay. So why is it right?
A: Because Jim said it’s right.
So what is it about Jim saying it’s right that makes it right?
…he’s perfectly good and all knowing…LOL!
WHy is he perfectly good?
A: Because he said he is.
TANK
@JimW:
I don’t think you know what you mean by universalist. Please, explain.
JimW
@TANK:
“No, they weren’t in fact wrong, and survived until they were challenged for a very long time. It was legal. And it was also legal to own slaves at one point…are you’d be calling that right, too.”
Is this what you really meant to say, or is it just a case of fumble fingers?
TANK
@JimW:
Illegal, as in jim crowe laws weren’t illegal for a very, very long time. Now, according to you, those laws were ethically permissable simply because they were legal.
JimW
@TANK:
“I don’t think you know what you mean by universalist. Please, explain.”
I understand it, but you obviously don’t. A universalist concept of morality applies UNIVERSALLY regardless of culture, race, religion, etc. Divine command theory is a universalist theory of morality. Moral relativism is not.
JimW
@TANK:
“Illegal, as in jim crowe laws weren’t illegal for a very, very long time. Now, according to you, those laws were ethically permissable simply because they were legal.”
It took some time for challenges based on the Equal Protection Clause and the Commerce Clause to overturn them, but both predate the Jim Crow laws.
You just said they weren’t wrong. Is that what you meant to say?
TANK
@JimW:
Regardless of religion? But what about religions which disagree with each other about what gods exist and what gods say what?
Now, if what you mean by universalist is that what god says is right is true regardless of context, then that’s consistent with moral relativism. As I said, you can be a moral relativist (metaethical moral relativist) and believe that murder is wrong regardless of the context because of your standard for determining right from wrong. In your case, you believe that it’s a nonphysical god’s beliefs that determine right from wrong–so that’s your relative standard. And it can apply in every context in which predicates good and bad are used. Because they mean that to you.
TANK
@JimW:
SO while they were legally acknolwedged and enforced, you’d think they were ethically sound. Be consistent.
TANK
@JimW:
But it’s not that far fetched, is it, champ? I mean if you can believe in a supernatural entity who arbitrarily determines right from wrong based on no standard separate from itself, then I think it’s quite plausible that you’re the schmuck who wrote that…being a mormon, too.
JimW
@TANK:
“So why is SLC’s decision to sell the main plaza to the lds right?
A: Because Jim said it’s right.
But why did he say it?
A: He just knows…I dunno.
What does he know?
A: That it’s right.
But why is it right?
A: Because Jim said it’s right…
But why did he say it’s right?
A: Because it’s right.
Ah, okay. So why is it right?
A: Because Jim said it’s right.
So what is it about Jim saying it’s right that makes it right?
…he’s perfectly good and all knowing…LOL!
WHy is he perfectly good?
A: Because he said he is.”
Actually, you just stated your own “argument”, but in reverse.
It was a legal transaction. If you believe it was wrong, you are the one making the normative statement, not me, and the onus is on you. I don’t have to argue your position for you. Initially, you claimed it was a violation of civil rights (a legal argument by definition), but you still haven’t shown that a civil right was violated. Instead, you merely posited hypothetical situations which do not reflect the facts of the case and therefore have no bearing on the discussion. Then you changed strategies and claimed it wasn’t based on a legal argument but rather an absolute moral truth, which is by definition unprovable, because you can’t prove that your concept of moral truth is the absolute moral truth, which you would need to do to prove your position.
My position has been consistent throughout. Until you can prove that a civil right has been violated, or alternatively, that an absolute moral truth is being violated, the onus remains on you.
TANK
@JimW:
No, I’ve never argued that something is right because I said it’s right.
TANK
@JimW:
And I’ve provided several arguments which justify the normative judgment that it was wrong. None of which you’ve addressed, btw…except one, which was, for you…uncommon. And I addressed it with consent.
JimW
@TANK:
“But it’s not that far fetched, is it, champ? I mean if you can believe in a supernatural entity who arbitrarily determines right from wrong based on no standard separate from itself, then I think it’s quite plausible that you’re the schmuck who wrote that…being a mormon, too.”
No. Get a grip on yourself, Tank. You’re losing it.
TANK
@JimW:
Oh, and I was never making a legal argument. I wouldn’t dirty my hands with something so low brow.
JimW
@TANK:
“No, I’ve never argued that something is right because I said it’s right.”
You are asserting moral truths that you cannot prove are actual moral truth. Therefore, the only evidence you can provide that you are correct is the fact that you believe it is.
TANK
@JimW:
Am I losing it? It seems like you’re the one who believes in invisible magical friends.
JimW
@TANK:
“Oh, and I was never making a legal argument. I wouldn’t dirty my hands with something so low brow.”
Then stop talking about civil rights violations. That is by definition a legal argument.
JimW
@TANK:
“Am I losing it? It seems like you’re the one who believes in invisible magical friends.”
Try to stay on topic.
TANK
@JimW:
How am I asserting a moral truth that I cannot prove is an actual moral truth? I’ve provided arguments why it’s wrong to violate people’s rights and sell public land without the consent of the public. And, also, anything that is a major public point of access should be maintained by the public and not sold off to a private interest without a legitimate public concern…you have provided none.
TANK
@JimW:
No, it’s not. I can talk about civil rights violations without making a legal argument.
JimW
@TANK:
“And I’ve provided several arguments which justify the normative judgment that it was wrong. None of which you’ve addressed, btw…except one, which was, for you…uncommon. And I addressed it with consent.”
You didn’t address it with consent. If civil rights are at stake, how can someone from California consent to a vote by the citizens of Salt Lake City. You painted yourself into a corner that you can’t get out of.
JimW
@TANK:
“No, it’s not. I can talk about civil rights violations without making a legal argument.”
Hilarious. See definition of “civil right.” You still don’t understant what it means.
JimW
@TANK:
“How am I asserting a moral truth that I cannot prove is an actual moral truth? I’ve provided arguments why it’s wrong to violate people’s rights and sell public land without the consent of the public. And, also, anything that is a major public point of access should be maintained by the public and not sold off to a private interest without a legitimate public concern…you have provided none.”
If it is wrong because someone’s rights have been violated, then you have to show what right has been violated based on the actual facts of the case. You can’t do that. Therefore, all you have is your belief that it was wrong.
JimW
@TANK:
Gotta go. To be continued…
TANK
@JimW:
LOL! Of course I can get out of it, and have. I’ll just cut and paste repeat. First, I acknowledged the fact that the city selling the property to the lds was not voting for people’s rights. Secondly, I think that property should be sold with the consent of the owner UNLESS an overriding concern is made clear (I added this just then, but I never argued against it, and it is thereby consistent with what I’ve been saying). As no one owns civil rights (or natural rights), they should not be subject to sale or trade by anyone. SO it’s a nonsequitur to claim that I believe that civil rights should be voted on.
Second, I stated that civil rights are being violated here (de facto though not de jure), and that the sale without the consent of the owner (the public) makes it wrong. Does that imply that I think that civil rights should be voted on? No, because civil rights aren’t what would be voted on in this case–it’s the sale of the land. And if you got consent of the owner to sell the property, there can’t be any kind of violation (whether in principle or practice).
TANK
@JimW:
This is boring. You’re boring and stupid.
strumpetwindsock
@JimW:
Initially I made an assumption – it seemed obvious that was part of the church’s rationale. Why else would they need to take over a public street?
But that was confirmed by posts I read from SLC residents in another article on this site, and in comments on SLC Tribune stories I have read on the issue.
Speaking of which. This is just one article that makes it clear not everyone sees things as black and white as you do.
http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_12864692
The article also states that the original deal allowed the city to retain a public right of way, something which is obviously no longer being respected.
TANK
WIth regard to Divine command theory (your metaethical theory that even, I hasten to report, most theists don’t endorse…because of the euthyphro dilemma which asks whether x is wrong because god wills it, or whether god wills it because it’s wrong, and because it’s vacuous if all right0 means is “willed by god”–so god wills what is good means god wills what god wills) being a type of relativism such that there is no objective moral facts, I think this summarizes it better than I have:
DCT [divine command theory] is thus a kind of moral relativism: what’s right or wrong is what one’s God (like one’s self or one’s society) says is right or wrong–and there are no moral standards apart from this. Yet if God said that 2+2=100, 2+2=100 would nonetheless be false because 2+2=4 is true regardless of what God says. The same point holds for moral propositions like “inflicting unnecessary suffering solely for fun is wrong.” If that proposition is true, then it is true regardless of whether God commands or prohibits inflicting such suffering [a possibility left open by divine command theory; and a possibility inconsistent with the very existence of god].
schlukitz
@strumpetwindsock:
An excellent article. Thank you for sharing it with us.
Jaroslaw
#355 Strump – I read the article you cited – it looks pretty clear to me – the current mayor say (a) he’s not planning anymore forums and (b) there’s nothing to be done about the sale of the property.
What’s not clear? Not saying I agree with the decision – and it surely looks fishy when only the (two)non LDS members voted (“dissented”) against the sale but the article clearly says it is water under the bridge.
Now I repeat my question: since it is so controversial, why not just fence it off?