[dictionary Nazi] That is not irony. [/dictionary Nazi]
-
There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.
interactive map of all prop 8 donators
- Thread starter zombi
- Start date
[dictionary Nazi] That is not irony. [/dictionary Nazi]
n10sive
Well-known member
Case closed and QFP. The purpose of the map IS for reprisal, not just for publishing public information. 99% of the people listed don't even have a business so your 'story' is complete and utter
.You want retribution. It's pretty clear.
http://www.kcra.com/news/17964159/detail.html
Artistic Director Resigns Amid Prop. 8 Boycott
Gay, Lesbian Artists Sought Boycott Against Venue
POSTED: 8:56 am PST November 12, 2008
UPDATED: 3:21 pm PST November 12, 2008
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned Wednesday, after gay and lesbian artists threatened a boycott for his support of a ban on same-sex marriage.
Survey: Should He Have Resigned?
"I am leaving California Musical Theatre after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community," Scott Eckern said in a statement.
Campaign records show Eckern contributed $1,000 to a campaign supporting Proposition 8, which wrote a ban on same-sex marriages into the California state Constitution.
A group of about 40 people gathered at the at the Wells Fargo Pavilion in Sacramento and held signs supporting Eckern on Wednesday.
California Musical Theatre is the state's largest nonprofit musical theater company and Sacramento's oldest performing arts company.
In a statement, Eckern said one of his family members is in a same-sex relationship and that he is sad that his personal beliefs were taken with offense:
"I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal. It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction. I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved. I support each individual to have rights and access and I understood that in California domestic partnerships come with the same rights that come with marriage. My sister is a lesbian and in a committed domestic partnership relationship. I am loving and supportive of her and her family, and she is loving and supportive of me and my family. I definitely do not support any message or treatment of others that is hateful or instills fear. This is a highly emotional issue and the accusations that have been made against me are simply not true. I have now had many conversations with friends and colleagues, and I am deeply saddened that my personal beliefs and convictions have offended others. My choice to support the Proposition was personal, and does not represent the views and opinions of California Musical Theatre or the many people associated with the organization. I was required by law to identify my employer and occupation at the time of my donation."
The organization has produced Sacramento's annual Music Circus and plays at Broadway Sacramento and the newly opened Cosmopolitan Cabaret.
Eckern, who spent 25 years with the company, has served as its chief operating officer and was its artistic director since 2002.
Lisa West, regional spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said Eckern is a member "in very good standing" and the Mormon church supports his decision to resign.
"I have not imposed my beliefs onto any of the works, but have sought to explore the truths found in the storytelling to speak for themselves if they are told well," Eckern said in a statement.
Eckern said he will be making a $1,000 comparable donation to the Human Rights Campaign.
Several high-profile artists, including "Hairspray" composer Marc Shaiman, were among those leading the boycott effort.
Local playwright Gregg Coffin told KCRA 3 that he does not support the boycott. Coffin, however, did say that Eckern owes the people he works with an explanation.
"He works in an environment that is so inclusive and diverse," Coffin said. "He works with gay actors, singers, dancers and choreographers."
In his statement, Eckern expressed his gratitude for his time with the company.
"I am leaving California Musical Theatre after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community. California Musical Theatre will continue to welcome with open arms all staff, artists and audiences who collaborate in the experience that live theatre does best -- to lift the human spirit. I will continue to be in the audience to cheer on all the good work. It has been an honor to serve alongside those I love and respect in this noble profession. I am disappointed that my personal convictions have cost me the opportunity to do what I love the most which is to continue enriching the Sacramento arts and theatre community."
The company's executive producer, Richard Lewis, said Tuesday that the company doesn't share Eckern's views.
However, Lewis said Wednesday that in no way was he forced to resign.
Other managers will take over the artistic director duties, Lewis said, but they're not sure if they will replace that position.
Supporters of Eckern said they will gather at the venue at 12:15 p.m. and protest what they think is a forced resignation.
California Musical Theatre released this statement Tuesday:
"Any political action or opinion of Scott Eckern does not represent the views or opinions of California Musical Theatre. We have a long history of appreciation for the LGBT community and are truly grateful for their long-standing support. We acknowledge the dedication, patronage and hard work of the many members of the LGBT community who have played a crucial role in our success. Our only mission is to present quality theatrical productions to enrich the cultural life of the community."
Artistic Director Resigns Amid Prop. 8 Boycott
Gay, Lesbian Artists Sought Boycott Against Venue
POSTED: 8:56 am PST November 12, 2008
UPDATED: 3:21 pm PST November 12, 2008
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned Wednesday, after gay and lesbian artists threatened a boycott for his support of a ban on same-sex marriage.
Survey: Should He Have Resigned?
"I am leaving California Musical Theatre after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community," Scott Eckern said in a statement.
Campaign records show Eckern contributed $1,000 to a campaign supporting Proposition 8, which wrote a ban on same-sex marriages into the California state Constitution.
A group of about 40 people gathered at the at the Wells Fargo Pavilion in Sacramento and held signs supporting Eckern on Wednesday.
California Musical Theatre is the state's largest nonprofit musical theater company and Sacramento's oldest performing arts company.
In a statement, Eckern said one of his family members is in a same-sex relationship and that he is sad that his personal beliefs were taken with offense:
"I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal. It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction. I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved. I support each individual to have rights and access and I understood that in California domestic partnerships come with the same rights that come with marriage. My sister is a lesbian and in a committed domestic partnership relationship. I am loving and supportive of her and her family, and she is loving and supportive of me and my family. I definitely do not support any message or treatment of others that is hateful or instills fear. This is a highly emotional issue and the accusations that have been made against me are simply not true. I have now had many conversations with friends and colleagues, and I am deeply saddened that my personal beliefs and convictions have offended others. My choice to support the Proposition was personal, and does not represent the views and opinions of California Musical Theatre or the many people associated with the organization. I was required by law to identify my employer and occupation at the time of my donation."
The organization has produced Sacramento's annual Music Circus and plays at Broadway Sacramento and the newly opened Cosmopolitan Cabaret.
Eckern, who spent 25 years with the company, has served as its chief operating officer and was its artistic director since 2002.
Lisa West, regional spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said Eckern is a member "in very good standing" and the Mormon church supports his decision to resign.
"I have not imposed my beliefs onto any of the works, but have sought to explore the truths found in the storytelling to speak for themselves if they are told well," Eckern said in a statement.
Eckern said he will be making a $1,000 comparable donation to the Human Rights Campaign.
Several high-profile artists, including "Hairspray" composer Marc Shaiman, were among those leading the boycott effort.
Local playwright Gregg Coffin told KCRA 3 that he does not support the boycott. Coffin, however, did say that Eckern owes the people he works with an explanation.
"He works in an environment that is so inclusive and diverse," Coffin said. "He works with gay actors, singers, dancers and choreographers."
In his statement, Eckern expressed his gratitude for his time with the company.
"I am leaving California Musical Theatre after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community. California Musical Theatre will continue to welcome with open arms all staff, artists and audiences who collaborate in the experience that live theatre does best -- to lift the human spirit. I will continue to be in the audience to cheer on all the good work. It has been an honor to serve alongside those I love and respect in this noble profession. I am disappointed that my personal convictions have cost me the opportunity to do what I love the most which is to continue enriching the Sacramento arts and theatre community."
The company's executive producer, Richard Lewis, said Tuesday that the company doesn't share Eckern's views.
However, Lewis said Wednesday that in no way was he forced to resign.
Other managers will take over the artistic director duties, Lewis said, but they're not sure if they will replace that position.
Supporters of Eckern said they will gather at the venue at 12:15 p.m. and protest what they think is a forced resignation.
California Musical Theatre released this statement Tuesday:
"Any political action or opinion of Scott Eckern does not represent the views or opinions of California Musical Theatre. We have a long history of appreciation for the LGBT community and are truly grateful for their long-standing support. We acknowledge the dedication, patronage and hard work of the many members of the LGBT community who have played a crucial role in our success. Our only mission is to present quality theatrical productions to enrich the cultural life of the community."
And you hate gays. It's pretty clear.
See what I did there? :|
PS. A boycott != terrorism.
n10sive
Well-known member
no...I don't see what you did there. I said it before and I'll say it again. I find the list reprehensible so stop trying to twist what I am saying. It isn't helping your cause.
edit:
Last edited:
I love gays! They improve my odds by eliminating potential competition. I do, however, hate lesbians for the reverse reason.
Arminius
Well-known member
The law is outdated. Distribution of donor information and ease of access to that information in 1974 was nothing like it is today. The law was intended for transparency, but it has morphed, thanks to the internet, into a tool for intimidation.
You say report to the police ASAP, but how does that help you when you wake up and see that all 4 tires on your car have been slashed. They will never catch the person(s) responsible for that and you know that.
Imagine if your name was on that list vaara. Wouldn't you be worried that someone was going to do something to you or your property, especially if you lived in the Castro and happened to donate money to the Yes on 8 campaigne? If you say no then I will have a very hard time believing you. Now lets say your name is on that list and your boss is gay and notices that you donated money to a cause he is strongly against? Don't you think you would now worry about the security of your job? Again if you say no I would not believe you. You may come back with a reply like "well then I would sue my boss if he did that." If your boss is smart and patient, he would know how to get rid of you without worrying about being sued.
cardinal03
New member
To answer the previous question directed at me.
By "ilk", I mean people the resort to intimidating/threatening/forcing their viewpoints on others. It repulses me.
When the G/L marriage supporters throw a blanket damnation of anyone who votes against them, it pisses me off. Those people aren't all bible thumping, anti-homo, queer hating rednecks. Which was proven in this election as CA is NOT considered any of those things on a national scale. Believe, me, if I hadn't have had great friends (that I met through BARF) that I have grown to know and love, that showed me a lot of what this is all about, I probably would have voted for Prop 8. Simply based on a non-churched, but uneducated about homosexuality, mindset. When they take people like I used to be, and attempt to out them, cause them financial harm, cause them to lose their jobs (forcing the leader of the Sac Symphony to resign??...it may have been sac theatre company btw) simply for having a political opinion? THAT pisses me off. AND, that behavior and mentality will only cause them to further lose support for their cause.
Thank you, have a nice day.
(edit, and if you think that gathering all the public information and packaging it in a nice and easy to access website has any purpose other than what I said above, you're just plain silly)
Did you read the article that was posted by tzrider? It elucidates just who voted in favor of Prop 8 and why.
You can say it's silly to not agree with your opinion, but I bet you would actually agree that it's pretty silly to form an opinion or make an assumption without any corroborating evidence whatsoever.
By the way, the Chronicle database includes those that opposed Prop 8. All the information for CA is here: http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?appSession=77959570620417
How come no one is up in arms about that? That's very confusing.
The database is here: http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/
I'm sorry that you're pissed off about this issue. A lot of people who believe in human/civil rights are pissed off about it too.
Are you as pissed off about Scott Eckern losing his job as you are about this guy: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28581470/
Do you think organizations like the California Musical Theater have it in their best interest to think about their patrons when making hiring and firing decisions? I think they do. I'm sure you don't think business have the unfettered right to discriminate.
I'll say it again; I've got no problem with people not buying iPods because Apple donated significant funds to the No on 8 campaign. It's their right as consumers. The law protects from the government infringing speech but it doesn't protect from you facing the economic consequences of your political speech.
When did the avoidance of consequences become a legitimate right in America?
And I find it reprehensible that anyone would justify a dishonest, faith-based campaign to eliminate my basic civil rights. See, you're not the only one who can use your feeeeeelings about an issue to leap to conclusions based on information that just isn't there.
Would you go so far as to advocate making all political donation data secret? Because that's the only way to guarantee 100% privacy for political donors. And that would mean reversing the will of the California electorate, which -- according to the Yes on 8 people and those who defend them -- is sacrosanct.
cardinal03
New member
Case closed and QFP. The purpose of the map IS for reprisal, not just for publishing public information. 99% of the people listed don't even have a business so your 'story' is complete and utter
You want retribution. It's pretty clear.
Honest question: would it be wrong in any way for supporters of Prop 8 to increase their business at the stores/organizations that are listed as having donated to the Yes on 8 campaign?
I believe this can be answered with a yes or no, and I would say no.
Would it be wrong to stop buying Coca Cola products because they overcompensated their CEO? I would say no.
Would it be wrong to stop buying Kathy Lee Gifford clothing because her company uses child labor, even though child labor is perfectly legal in the country in which she manufactures her products? I would say no.
Would it be wrong to not buy Chevron gasoline, because I don't like their political involvement in Africa? I would say no.
Would it be wrong to not buy Chinese manufactured products because of their human rights record? I would say no.
Now would it be wrong to firebomb Chinatown, vandalize a Chevron station, knock over Coca Cola vending machines or send Kathy Lee Gifford death threats? Unequivocally yes. But what I do with my dollars as a consumer is entirely up to me.
Nice! That's pretty noble of the assistant general manager to leap on a grenade like that since he will undoubtedly be fired for making those comments publicly and won't have a leg to stand on to fight the dismissal.
Yes, I would. But I would hope that I would have the courage of my convictions and not try to play Calvinball by changing the rules of the game after the fact.
Now, let's turn this around and suppose that one of your employees had made a political donation to a controversial political cause that you disagreed with and that put your business at financial risk. Would you go ahead and absorb the losses, would you give your employee a stern reprimand, or would you let him go?
And who would be most at fault in that scenario: the potential boycotters, the website that made the information known, or the ex-employee who endangered your business?
n10sive
Well-known member
No..it is not improper. But the list does not include people that can be boycotted. It includes civilians.
Now honest question to you as a lawyer: Do you think the the people who created the list get to define what constitutes fear to those who are included on the list? i.e. Do THEY get to say "the intent was not to produce fear" even if the people on the list now feel threatened? I think the law is clear here that the perpetrators don't get to make the definitions for their [potential] victims.
Arminius
Well-known member
It would be illegal for me to let him go because of that, but I would be able to find ways around the laws to get rid of the employee without linking the reasons to his political affiliations. My argument is that I and the public should not have access to that information in the first place to create such a situation.
You and I are arguing two different issues. You say your civil rights are being revoked. I am saying donor information should not be public record because it can be used for intimidation. You are saying that those who posted that information are within their legal right to do so, and nobody here disagrees with that. What we disagree with is that it is legal in the first place. The 1974 law is outdated and should, at the very least, be revised or removed IMO.
cardinal03
New member
No, you're absolutely right, the creator of the list (which, incidentally, is the Secretary of State of California) does not get to define what constitutes fear to those who are included on the list.
The people who created the map DO get to say "the intent was not to produce fear." But then a jury (if it goes to court) gets to decide whether they believe them or not. That being said, if there is no evidence to support a finding that they did intend to produce fear, then a judge would vacate any judgment that says otherwise.
But here's the really interesting part:the people who are included on the list do not get to define what constitutes fear either. What constitutes fear is judged by an objective standard of reasonableness.
I can tell you with 100% certainty that without evidence no court of law will find being fearful of this map reasonable. And in that circumstance, whether the people on that list are afraid or not is legally irrelevant.
We've got enough tech-savvy people on BARF that we should be able to find out who created the list and ask them why they did so. Like I said before, if there is anything out there in the form of objective evidence that supports the inference that this was created to terrorize people or encourage/incite any sort of violence then I would condemn the map absolutely.
I'm just not going to make a decision about that without any sort of evidence. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing.
zefflyn
Registered. User.
The right to control and continue ownership of my own property is indeed accurate in the legal sense of the word. The fourth amendment even describes it: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. Social security and welfare infringe on that right.
It is a separate argument, though, whether whether or not current abuse of the ICC is legitimate regulation, and another separate argument whether there is compelling federal (if that's what you meant by state) interest to regulate.
cardinal03
New member
This could easily be rewritten like this:
The similarity is that both this information and guns can be used to do bad things.
The difference is there is very little to support that this information is being used to do bad things, while there is a TON of evidence that shows guns are being used to do bad things.
I think that does, in fact, fall under the definition of something that is ironic.
cardinal03
New member
I honestly have no idea have you've come to this conclusion. I've never heard the argument that social security is a violation of the 4th Amend.
macadamizer
not even wrong
Another way to look at this -- maybe less infalmmatory
-- is just to simply balance the harms of having this information public against the harms of having this information private.With the info public, it's possible that some individuals might be targeted for a boycott, or some other sort of retribution.
With the info private, those individuals may be safe from any sorts of reprisals -- but then we have a situation where we don't know who is making what contribution. We would have no way of knowing if an individual, company or organization were making illegal contributions.
It seems that protecting the integrity of the system, by making it much more difficult for an individual or organization to try an manipulate an election through financial means, is more important overall than the potential threat of any one individual being targeted for retribution.
I don't know if that argument is any more persuasive than any of the others, but it is something to consider.
cardinal03
New member
Another way to look at this -- maybe less infalmmatory
With the info public, it's possible that some individuals might be targeted for a boycott, or some other sort of retribution.
With the info private, those individuals may be safe from any sorts of reprisals -- but then we have a situation where we don't know who is making what contribution. We would have no way of knowing if an individual, company or organization were making illegal contributions.
It seems that protecting the integrity of the system, by making it much more difficult for an individual or organization to try an manipulate an election through financial means, is more important overall than the potential threat of any one individual being targeted for retribution.
I don't know if that argument is any more persuasive than any of the others, but it is something to consider.
Good point, and significantly less inflammatory as well
At the same time, people don't seem to care about anything unless it's happening to them, so I can't say I regret the comparison
