[flv:http://videos.ksl.com/video/widget/7149731.flv https://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/2009/07/utahpolicereportkiss.jpg 600 320]
After Sunday’s kiss-in to protest the treatment of two men who kissed on Mormon Church property in Salt Lake City, a police report reveals what the cops saw June 9 in the case of Matt Aune and boyfriend Derek Jones, whose kiss turned into a violent affair. Most notable is the conversation between the police and church security, which Aune Jones say slammed them to the ground while handcuffing them after spotting the pair “kissing and hugging” on a walkway on church property.
The security guards say they did not slam them Aune or Jones to the ground. But, uh, the private security force handcuffed them?
For alleged trespassing, the church claims, and not because they are homophobic. Which even the cops intimate is bullshit.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
(Video: KSL)
bystander
intimidate => insinuate ….maybe?
galefan2004
This is an issue I am very torn on. I accept myself for being gay, but I don’t feel the need to be gay in public. However, this wasn’t about being gay in public. This was about being human in public. So, although I would most likely avoid direct physical contact with my boyfriend in public (mostly because in order to work in the area I live in you almost have to be in the closet), I respect the right of a man to kiss and hold hands with his boyfriend in public. I know this is contradictory to what I have said before, but after much soul searching, I totally admit to what I said before based on fears from the area I live in.
Jaroslaw
This stuff makes me want to get petitions together to remove all Churches’ tax exempt status……. then again our own Federal government lets corporations claim one telephone in a grass covered shack in the Caymans as their headquarters to avoid paying taxes…
Jaroslaw
Would have liked to see some footage on the video of the “kiss-in” protest…..love to see two guys kiss 🙂
galefan2004
@Jaroslaw: I don’t know how many times I really have to say this for it to sink into people, but here it goes again. The gay community will NEVER beat the church if it takes it head on. Its just simply not going to happen. The best we can hope for is to either get around the church or change the church from the inside out. Make no doubt about, the actual face of the church is changing from “all sinners go to hell” to “love everyone cause Jesus did”. Its just changing more slowly than I would personally like. Until that transformation is complete, the church is an enemy that defeats us every time we take it head on.
galefan2004
@Jaroslaw: Also, you do realize that removing the tax exempt status form a church would be pointless right? Churches don’t have actual income. They are not for profit. They spend more money in their community than they normally take in and then have to solicit even more donations to spend even more money. I think you are making a mistake by lumping them all together. Although churches have done a lot of bad things in the name of equality, they have done a lot of good things in the name of human rights. The question is, does the good they do outweigh the bad that they do?
TANK
@galefan2004:
This isn’t about you. I don’t like PDA’s, either; I don’t even like walking near people. Don’t travel…don’t go to italy; esp. not Rome, or you’ll be seeing some nasty fucking breeder shit! They do it all over europe; and worse things that you can imagine. It’s disgusting (they’re animals, after all), but you know what, it’s not me… That’s the beauty of it–I don’t have to stare at it. I can gag and look/walk away. Do I think it should be outlawed because of distaste? Of course not. I also don’t think it’s right that the church owns this land which would inconvenience many people if they were to close (instead of just harass), and I hope it’s contested in court again.
TANK
@galefan2004:
This is a false dilemma. All of the good could have been achieved without superstition (i.e., the church)–so arguing that the church has fed hungry people while exploiting third world poverty and ignorance, and accelerated their decline in many cases–doesn’t argue that any church should be preserved; the good could (and does–doctors without borders and unicef) occur without the superstition, i.e., without the church.
Jaroslaw
Galefan2004- you’re making a lot of assumptions about what I posted. Where did I advocate taking the church head on? There is nothing in the Constitution that I know of that says churches have the inalienable right to….tax exempt status!
I said I wanted to gather petitions, not that I would actually do it. I’m aware that many churches have incredible lobbying power – my own (RC) included. And whether a kiss-in changes anything or not, there is a video posted above and since it was an event which already occurred, seeing some guys kiss would have been nice.
Also, there is a link to this above, “Sunday’s kiss” where a guy named Jimbro seems fairly knowledgeable about what goes on in Utah and he states Mormons give less than $2 per head to charity. That sounds about right as their religion is pretty internal. They don’t have food banks and homeless shelters and nursing homes or hospitals that serve the public right? Or if they do, the numbers pale in comparison to Methodist, Catholic and Jewish hospitals etc.
What exactly is a PDA anyway, by your definition? I’ve said over and over on this site groping, fondling, excessively long French kisses etc. are to impress others (the vast majority of the time) because one can find even outdoors a tree or bush to hide behind. But if someone wants to hold hands, put their head on their partner’s shoulder etc. WHY WHY WHY would that bother anyone?
Alexander
It’s quite simply OUTRAGEOUS that any religious body should be allowed to be this discriminatory in a public setting! Even if they own the property perhaps they ought to perhaps start putting up signs: NO FAGGOTS ON OUR PROPERTY!!!!
As a European in his twenties it is shocking to see that the country regarded by his parents and grandparents as a BEACON OF MODERNITY to be so stuck in the dark ages in terms of social development! Say what you want about European socialism (which is incorrect, anyhow) but it’s the government’s duty to impose secular standards everywhere regardless of what religious minorities might believe.
Since I’m not in the US right now, what’s the media coverage right now? Had this been Northern Europe there would have been moral outrage… really really disappointing.
🙁 I think of you my American brothers and sisters!!!
galefan2004
@TANK: Historic precedent and present organizations seem to indicate that the church is very much the driving force when it comes to community service. Could it have been done without religious interference? Possibly. However, then why is it that most people that aren’t “religiously” minded (by which I mean they believe in love for their fellow man not in judging and condemnation) step up, but those that you claim don’t need religion to do something simply don’t.
In order for your argument to be true, you need to give me more than two examples of organizations that cater to the needs of others that aren’t religious organizations. Nothing is stopping non-religious organizations from forming and doing good deeds, but yet its left to the religious organizations to actually do the work. Then we attack them because they were founded with a religious focus.
I get it, you hate religion; however, trying to brand all religion together and just saying its bad and should be done away with is absolute fallacy.
galefan2004
@Jaroslaw: You just proposed a budget increase of every church by at least 10% (so that they can pay these new taxes). If trying to make it more expensive for someone to operate just because you don’t feel they have the right to operate isn’t taking them head on then I would LOVE to see what you think is.
Mormons spend their money on fighting gays and teaching others about Jesus. While I find that morally reprehensible, they consider that good work. So, in their twisted warped minds they consider organizations like NOM charity, so I would have to say much more of their money goes to what they consider to be charity than the $2 you stated.
Personally, it doesn’t bother me if someone wants to hold hands or put their head on their partners shoulders. They have the right to do that. I personally, would not do it in public, simply because of my mentality and the area I’m from. That doesn’t mean I don’t support other people’s rights to do it.
galefan2004
@Alexander: This is America. In America our media ignores stories like this all of the time. What is even sadder though is that this type of discrimination isn’t limited to religious property. Hell, in this country we kick gays and lesbians out of public parks in most all of our states just for holding hands.
TANK
Historic precedent and present organizations seem to indicate that the church is very much the driving force when it comes to community service.
And genocide and murder and exploitation of third world communities…yes, it’s a driving force behind those things, too. I’m not denying that the church has had a place in community service…I’m stating the fact that the church and religion isn’t necessary to community service. No one could sensibly deny that. There are millions of examples of non religion related charities… Charity wasn’t invented by jesus… And given the cost, I think it we can do without “religion” and still maintain the charitable aspect….and that we should.
Could it have been done without religious interference? Possibly.
No, definitely. It IS done without religious interference all of the time in every state in this country. Doctors without borders don’t just help religious people, either…
However, then why is it that most people that aren’t “religiously” minded (by which I mean they believe in love for their fellow man not in judging and condemnation) step up, but those that you claim don’t need religion to do something simply don’t.
What the fuck are you talking about? Bill Gates isn’t religious, and he’s done more to alleviate international suffering in terms of monetary contributions than every church on this planet combined.
In order for your argument to be true, you need to give me more than two examples of organizations that cater to the needs of others that aren’t religious organizations.
Because unicef is something to sneeze at, huh? You’re a joke. The problem is that you can’t have religion without conflict. It’s the nature of religion to assert itself as the true fairytale–the one with the answers. It conflicts with anyone who doesn’t hold those beliefs…and the linchpin of all faith is superstition and miracle. It’s certainly not things like do unto others as you would have done unto you…as that simply doesn’t require a religion or faith at all…and hasn’t…for centuries before christianity coopted it.
Moroni's CPA
Churches and other faux-religious organizations like the Cult of Mormon should be taxed. It’s not JUST about income taxes. Churches do not pay property taxes on properties owned by the church, and yet….they consume public services–such as calling the police to arrest gay men kissing in a plaza open to the public, or firemen to put out a fire from flaming homosexuals entering the tabernacle.
The Mormon church in Salt Lake City thus appropriated public services to enforce its bigoted, discriminatory anti-gay policies AT PUBLIC EXPENSE. Just another example of churches bleeding dry the government beast, which many of them so heartily oppose.
Also, I disagree with the poster above who said the Mormon church cannot be defeated. If enough Mormon dissidents and non-Mormons would continually occupy the plaza in a show of public defiance, the church would be forced to back down from this absurd policy.
Further, given the relatively small population of Utah, if enough non-Mormons would move in and take over the political bodies in the state and in places like Salt Lake City, a lot of these Mormon shenanigans would cease. It is doable, not necessarily easy, but doable.
galefan2004
You are ignorant if you think that region itself is behind genocide, murder and exploitation. Its not the religion that is to blame. Its the crazy fucking human asshats that wanted to do such things. They would have gladly found another excuse even if religion didn’t exist.
Please, go find me a list of organizations that are human compassion organizations that exist that are not religious organizations and compare them to the religious organizations. You see, where your argument doesn’t hold water is that NOTHING is stopping non-religious groups from getting into human compassion business, but yet there is still a shortage of agencies. The human compassion business is thrust on the church, and then when the church does it people like you bitch about the job the church does.
I think you link all religion together, and they simply aren’t all linked together. I get it, you hate religion. Most gays hate religion, but like I have already pointed out before, many times, its not religion that judges and condemns our community it is bigoted assholes using religion as an excuse. For you to claim any differently you would have to prove that every homophobe is religious. Some of the most homophobic people I have ever met were atheist in their views and just couldn’t wrap their minds around but sex. HOMOPHOBIA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION AS A WHOLE!
Doctors without borders is one organization. I’m not going to attempt to point out that they don’t make a difference. I never said that there is not organizations out there that help others outside of religion. I simply said that most of the human compassion business is ran by the church. Also, the majority of the church ran programs that are worth talking about don’t refuse to help anyone regardless of their religious belief system.
What the fuck are you talking about? Bill Gates isn’t religious, and he’s done more to alleviate international suffering in terms of monetary contributions than every church on this planet combined.
I’m sorry, I’m not going to say that money isn’t important, but I was talking about people that actually get involved in the causes not people that just throw money at it so they have to pay fewer taxes. Make no doubt about it, Bill Gates is much more concerned with lowering his tax bill than actually promoting charity.
Because unicef is something to sneeze at, huh? You’re a joke.
Do some fucking research. I know that might actually bother you, but everything UNICEF has done has been either been sponsored by or directly involved working with religion. UNICEF relies greatly on religious charity. Actually, every single press release from UNICEF, puts them so in bed with religion that you can’t possibly see that they aren’t working under and with religious organizations unless you never read a press release.
The problem is that you can’t have religion without conflict. It’s the nature of religion to assert itself as the true fairytale–the one with the answers. It conflicts with anyone who doesn’t hold those beliefs…and the linchpin of all faith is superstition and miracle.
This is your opinion. It is not fact. If it was even remotely the truth then the whole fucking concept of the United States would not exist. Do you know how many different denominations and religions exist in this country. Yet, the people that follow these different denominations and religions get along every day with out conflict. They even discuss their religion in an open forum. I know that is like shocking to you, but it happens.
It’s certainly not things like do unto others as you would have done unto you…as that simply doesn’t require a religion or faith at all…and hasn’t…for centuries before christianity coopted it.
This is you trying to rewrite history. Its not even true. Please explain to me why if religion is just a tool to control them masses why it is the first thing removed from every single regime. All dictatorships destroy religion before religion can destroy their dictatorship. Religion is simply a tool, its how it is used that matters, and believe it or not (lets be honest we both know you won’t because its easier to scapegoat religion then its actual followers) many people do use it for good.
galefan2004
@Moroni’s CPA: You are clueless. The only thing that occupying this area constantly would cause is some nice big fences around the area. Once they fence it off no one will be on it without permits. They win, you lose. You will never defeat the church by taking it head on. If you think you can then please give me ONE example where that actually happened.
Its not doable until its been done. Its next to impossible. If you think you can convince enough people to move to Utah to take over than by all means go do it. When you have accomplished that you will have provided the first example of the church and the gay community going head on with the gay community actually defeating the church. I welcome the day that that happens, and I would really like, actually LOVE, for you to prove me wrong.
TANK
@galefan2004:
Religion is absolutely behind genocide and murder. Abortion clinics wouldn’t be bombed if it weren’t for religious faith, and suicide bombers wouldn’t blow themselves up in public areas if it were for their religious convictions. The holocaust was primarily about faith…it was an extension of thousands of years of christian persecution throughout europe masked by national socialism.
In this very era, millions of people have died (within the past fifteen years) around the world as a direct result of religious faith.
TANK
I’m sorry, I’m not going to say that money isn’t important, but I was talking about people that actually get involved in the causes not people that just throw money at it so they have to pay fewer taxes. Make no doubt about it, Bill Gates is much more concerned with lowering his tax bill than actually promoting charity.
And bill gates is one of those people. He’s a great man for what he’s to save lives and alleviate suffering worldwide. He does volunteer his time and millions upon millions of dollars to achieve his humanitarian aims. He has saved countless more lived than mother theresa ever did, yet isn’t revered nearly as much for some stupid psychological accident of history.
dfrw
What bothers me is the news story. Alcohol and implied drunkenness were highlighted, putting the two men in a bad light and that was exactly the intention of the news story. When you think it through, you come to the intended conclusion: bad gays were drinking and causing a problem and the police dealt with it.
We have to be on guard at all times, because our enemies will point out any perceived flaw and use it as a reason to violate our rights.
Even if they had been drinking, they were walking, which is far better than driving. That’s not how people will see in, particularly not in that Mormom hell.
Alexander
@ TANK
You’re wrong about religion: it is the government’s fault for allowing certain sects to propagate their own brand of despicable propaganda and hate-mongering. It is the duty of any government to provide safety as well as a secular public arena in which debates may take place. Furthermore saying that religion is the source of all evil is a rather easy way out.
Jaroslaw
#12 I thought you were referring to the kiss in on the plaza by taking the church head on! Tax exempt status is another matter and simply one that I was mulling around in my head, which I thought I made clear.
Increasing their budgets 10% to pay the taxes because I personally don’t think they should operate? Your thinking is very convoluted. What I think about their operations has nothing to do with what I said: There is no constitutional guarantee that anything religious can exist without paying taxes. This privilege was granted at some point and can be taken away. To discuss this is not to be pro- or anti- religion. Like someone else said here, it is not just the church building or charitable operations we’re talking about, nothing they own including “for profit” businesses is taxed either. And how about if they own a factory or something – then when the state tries to make them comply with non discrimination laws, then they claim religious exemption. Can’t have it both ways.
galefan2004
@Jaroslaw: Apparently, they can have it both ways because those laws aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. You would have to be a political moron to 1) remove the tax exempt status form the church and 2) change the laws to force non-discrimination by churches. No politician is truly that stupid. Even the younger generation, as a whole, respects the church much more than any other aspect of society. When you are the most respected aspect of society you pull a lot of sway at the voting booth. Why do you think politicians have to pander to religion? Its because that is what gets them elected.
Jaroslaw
#23 – Galefan – Yes they can have it both ways FOR NOW because you can see how easily you misunderstood when I simply raised the issue! You say don’t take the church head on, it will never be defeated etc. (I’m not at war with religion) but obviously NOTHING of any subject changes if it is never discussed.
Also, MANY points of view are taken to be very strong in this country when often it is who is the most organized and makes the most noise. We also have a great practice in America of not knowing our own history. In colonial times, people were taxed to support a particular church that they didn’t even attend! How bizarre is that for a country founded supposedly on freedom of religion!
Cam
@galefan2004: You said “@Jaroslaw: Also, you do realize that removing the tax exempt status form a church would be pointless right? Churches don’t have actual income. ”
The Mormon church actually does have income. Mormons in good standing tith to the church and in fact non-tithing is a reason for possible excommunication. So imagine millions of Mormons tithing 10% of their income to the church and you get an idea of just how much that church makes.
And you said…
@Jaroslaw: I don’t know how many times I really have to say this for it to sink into people, but here it goes again. The gay community will NEVER beat the church if it takes it head on. Its just simply not going to happen.
Actually that is what people said when they took on the Mormon church about their rules prohibiting blacks from beomcing members. The church eventually backed down and allowed blacks to gain full membership around 1979. The one thing the Mormon church doesn’t like is any kind of publicity that they are not in control of. If they were sure of their stance they would be admitting that they do not like gays…however, their wishy washy responses claiming to not be an anti-gay organization shows that they are in a dilemma about all the unwanted attention their participation in the Prop 8 campaign caused them. Additionally, on the mormon blogs they are starting to take heat from their own members over their stance. Trust me, their membership is not monolithic anymore, especially when you have high profile mormons like Marie Osmond speaking out in favor of gay rights, that gives the rank and file freedom to speak out without fearing excommunication. Ever since the death of their previous president who was a P.R. wiz they have been making one mistake after another.
Fuck the Mor(m)ons
Re beating the Mormons:
Wasn’t the church forced to “renounce” polygamy in order to gain statehood back in 1890?
Wasn’t the church forced to “renounce” its racist policy of only “ordaining” (or what the fuck ever those idiots call it) White people? And this was just because of bad PR.
Yeah, the Moron church can be made to bend over and take it dry up the ass when enough public pressure gets put on them. That’s also one of the reasons that people have such a low regard of them–non-Morons regognize that the Morons will do a 180 (at least superficially) on deeply-held tenets of their faith in order to gain mainstream acceptance. That’s part of the problem now with the Morons–they are trying to be more oppressive than the other fundagelicals, in order to gain public acceptance. It’s no coincidence that the Moron church’s increased bigotry towards gays and lesbians comes as they trot that fucking mannequin Mitt Romney out onto the national political stage as a presidential candidate.
So yeah…it’s time to step up the pressure on the Morons, by ANY means necessary. They’ve bent over in the past, they’ll bend over again.
TANK
@Alexander:
It’s not an easy way out. It’s damn near intractable. Religion is a central source of suffering around the world (evil) right now and historically. To deny this is to stick your head in the sand. And religious people need to take account of their own behavior, too; and moreso, be held accountable for them. Just saying it’s the government’s fault is like blaming the wind for your misfortune. No, actually, the government certainly has a role to play in separating church from state, but churches need to be held accountable for their deeply unethical, though legal, behaviors. Those church security guards were responsible for their choice and the behavior that choice caused, and were the direct cause of the incident. It’s as simple as that.
Sympathetic In Texas
@Fuck the Mor(m)ons:
Damn straight, dude. I agree. It’s time to grab the Bishop by the balls until he has one of his visions and comes out to announce that it has been revealed that henceforth gays and lesbians are a-ok.
Also dead-on about the antipathy toward Mormons among other less-wacky faiths. I think they underestimate just how reviled they are by other conservative fundamentalist sects, but unlike homosexuals, whom Fundies hate just for the hell of it, they see Mormons as competing for butts-in-seats, which equates to $-in church coffers. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals just can’t swallow Mormon theology either, which also has something to do with it.
Mike Huckabee’s entire candidacy was as a stalking horse to wave Bible-belt Christians (and any others who could be persuaded) off Romney in the Republican primaries.
I grew up in a conservative area of Texas where there was a small Mormon stake, and a few Mormon kids in my school. They were a small enough presence that I had known some of those kids for a few years before it came up that they were Mormon. But then, back when I was still being indoctrinated in X-tian ways, I remember it was not at all uncommon for Sunday School teachers or pastors at the Baptist church I attended to name Mormons BY NAME as an evil which we should never have anything to do with. (To be fair, they also said the same thing about Catholics and Black girls.) I remember thinking that it seemed all out-of-whack for them to be whaling away on the Mormons, when the kids I went to school with seemed nice.
Also, to the poster who thinks the Mormons can’t be engaged–you sound like you grew up in Mormon culture, and got infected by it at an early age. The rest of us are not in awe of them, and we have seen how vulnerable Mormon congregations can be away from SLC. When the State of Texas raided the FLDS compound at El Dorado, mainstream Mormon families ALSO felt the heat from non-Mormon neighbors.
The irony was that while mainstream Mormons kind of tepidly supported the government action against their bastard cousins,
a lot of gays and lesbians I knew felt revulsion at the state action against the FLDS compound, realizing that what happened at El Dorado could happen under different circumstances Montrose or Oak Lawn. And guess what? The TABC and the FWPD raid a gay bar on Stonewall weekend, assaulting patrons, using excessive force with no legitimate cause for even “inspecting” the bar in the first place other than to mack up on some femme gay dudes. And how’s that workin’ for ’em?
Fair to say–there are more gays and lesbians in the world than there are Mormons. Always will be. The Mormons, on the other hand, are more coherently, more regimentally organized, and bound by a more-defeined ideology (theology) than gays and lesbians generally.
But to think that the Church cannot be challenged successfully is not only defeatist, it sounds like a view borne of a traumatic experience within the faith. I can understand that myself–fundamentalist Baptist theology was hard enough to break out from under. I can only imagine how much more virulent and deep-seated the Mormon virus is. I hope you manage to get out from under it at some point in your life. Sounds like you’re not anywhere near there yet though.
galefan2004
@Cam: I used very poor wording. My intent was to say that if you want to change religion your best bet is to start with people that are inside the organization. I have a lot of respect for Marie Osmond for taking that stance. I can only hope that she gets through to the church. In my own experience, it seems like the churches in my area are changing a lot. The gay friendly church has 1500+ members now and the anti-gay ones are losing hundreds of members a year. They actually adopted a new more gay friendly face in order to keep the members, and this in a small town in Ohio.
Jaroslaw
#25 Cam – you addressed me, but we don’t disagree!
#29 – Galefan – can you make up your mind! 🙂 You seem to say something then back away, but thanks for sharing, I guess!
galefan2004
@Jaroslaw: My mind is made up. These guys were completely in the right to be doing what they were doing in public. I actually got to see it a little clearer on 365 Gay News. They weren’t doing anything over the top. If I want to hold my boyfriend’s hand in public then I’m going to do it. It wasn’t done to be provocative it was done because they were in a moment of closeness. For me to judge that in the first place was completely unacceptable.
Jaroslaw
#31 Ok, good. Thanks Galefan.
Chris
These guys were absolutely not in the right to be doing what they were doing in public.
The LDS church released the following statement:
“As we said earlier on this matter, these men were asked to stop engaging in behavior deemed inappropriate for any couple on the Plaza. There was much more involved than a simple kiss on the cheek. They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language, and had obviously been using alcohol. They were politely told that the Plaza was not the place for such behavior and asked to stop. When they became belligerent, the two individuals were asked to leave Church property. Church security detained them and Salt Lake City police were called.”
The LDS Church would also have asked a straight couple engaged in the same behavior to leave.
TANK
These guys were absolutely not in the right to be doing what they were doing in public.
This is where I stopped reading. There’s no reasoning here. There’s no good point being made. And no, the LDS church doesn’t harass the countless straight couples who make out there to leave, and call the police handcuffing them… Fuck it, I was swearing off the word for a while, but I can’t….DOUCHENOZZLE!
Phoenix (Rainbow Warrior, Armed And Fabulous)
@ Chris,
That’s not true. That Plaza is used by Mor(m)on couples for PDAs and snogging. The security guard (and cops) previously admitted that the gay couple was not doing anything more than the straight couples, but were singling the gay couple out because they were gay and they disapproved of their ‘lifestyle’. Which is what provoked the kiss-in.
Chris
Trust me, public groping would get anybody kicked out of there.
TANK
@Chris:
Fuckin’ bullshit. You see that happen all of the time. You’re a mormon, so the church can do no wrong. You don’t understand right from wrong; just whatever pasta tells you (or the INSANE mormon church–or some church…I’m guessin’ you’re a moron, though). It was a kiss…not groping; a kiss.
TANK
Admittedly, they remind me of the gay couple on sarah silverman, but it was just a kiss. And the the mormon security was acting on their toxic homophobic values in persecuting them.
Chris
All I’m saying is that anybody groping on the LDS Church’s property would be asked to leave. Doesn’t matter who they are. That’s the point. Yeah, “You see that happen all of the time.” But if it’s on private property – the LDS church’s property – you can be asked to leave. You do not see groping happening all of the time on that plaza.
TANK
@Chris:
No, that’s not the point that it’s their property and they have every right to ask whomever to leave. THat couldn’t be further from the point. First off, I think that’s wrong that it’s their private property. It’s a main plaza, and given the amount of people who cross it for convenience sake, it’s a public accomodation. I hope it’s reversed, but it’s wrong that it’s their property.
Second, this is bigotry. That’s morally wrong, stupid.
Third, they weren’t groping, but kissing. And I’m sure you do see groping and kissing (as many people will attest) in that public space who happen to be heterosexual, and aren’t harassed by the bigoted mormon security.
Chris
I promise you – anybody caught groping on the plaza would be kicked out. Straight or gay. That’s the point. If you don’t believe that, you’ve got a lot to learn about the church and its culture. That kind of behavior would never be permitted.
And whether it’s wrong or not that the plaza is their private property – it still is their private property.
You keep insisting they weren’t groping. How do you know? It’s the word of the two guys versus the church. Maybe we can’t say for sure – but I’m disinclined to trust the ones who were drunk.
Jaroslaw
I second what Tank said in #40 And again, Chris #41 – handcuffed by private security? Absolutely not permissible in my book.