DiscussMormonism.com

karl61 wrote:They should sue for false imprisonment. Security Guards should have eyes, a voice and a cell phone. Let the police physically stop the people.

Yeah, we should sue, sue, might even sue you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu-6IppcvRo

TAK wrote:Oh yea.. Mormon leaders have a great track record of being factual and honest..

Than belligerent drunks dealing with cops? Yes. It's not even a contest. Do you mean to assert otherwise?

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:There was no statement made by the security guard reference a "passionate spectacle".

Which means they've either entirely fabricated the story, or the security personnel was going easy on them explaining what happened to the cops. One is more logical, but the other is more satisfying for someone who just wants the church to be wrong all the time.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:It appears the young couple was not aware of the private property issues surrounding Main street and took offense to a private security guard telling them to leave. Whether you want to believe the couple or want to believe the Mormon church, I suppose that is up to you.

Or it means the couple wanted to refuse to respect that the property was private. This fits quite parsimoniously if they really were there just to cause a scene.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I am not so sure many young couples would engage in a "passionate spectacle" on the Main street plaza.

Some drunk couples certainly may, and if they're trying to cause a scene there's no reason decorum need apply.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Sitting down, putting an arm around the other, and sharing a peck on the cheek seems more reasonable in this instance, especially since the plaza is a "little bit of Paris" in Salt Lake.

That's a much more reasonable activity, but I don't think it's necessarily a much more reasonable interpretation of the facts. Being drunk to the point of slurred speech is not generally accompanied with respectable pecks on the cheek.

Some Schmo wrote:Are you saying Mormons don't hate gay people?

I don't speak monolithically about "Mormons," but those that do are poor examples of Mormonism and humanity in general. Disagreeing with someone does not = hating them. I hope you don't mean to insist it does.

Some Schmo wrote:Is it more a case of not liking their behavior? That would be interesting given the prevalent Mormon attitude communicated that critics hate Mormons rather than Mormonism.

I think you're generalizing a bit. There are clearly cynics that do hate Mormons, but most of them do not. That, of course, in no way supports the accusation that Mormons (in general) hate gays, especially given the hypocrisy of you asserting Mormon hatred while belittling the assertion from Mormons of hatred.

Some Schmo wrote:They are "just as antagonistic toward the church?" You mean, just as antagonistic toward the church as the church is against gay people? (Well, that's revealing.)

How is the church antagonistic toward gays? We don't go to gay communities and force them to play Skip-Bo. When Soulforce came to BYU I invited them to my single's ward FHE and we had a wonderful evening with about 20 of our ward members and 12 of their equality riders discussing our thoughts on the whole situation. We learned a lot and they learned a lot. They told us their favorite stop so far had been BYU because of how respectful everyone had been. Few Mormons are aggressive about their disapproval of homosexuality, and those that are are in clear defiance of church standards and teachings. Most are very respectful and very kind, irrespective of whatever impression you have or are trying to cultivate.

Some Schmo wrote:And you know this... how exactly?

Because of the situation and how they responded to it. They clearly intended to cause a scene. Their later explanation of the events was clearly crafted to appeal to a sense of indignation and persecution at the hands of a gay-hating Church. I find it hard to believe anyone honestly thinks they did not intend to be antagonistic.

Some Schmo wrote:For someone who likes to call others out on making baseless assertions, this is quite a whopper.

I think the fact quite clearly support my conclusion.

Some Schmo wrote:You know, you strike me as a moderately intelligent guy. It's too bad you're also pretty whiney.

Zing!

Some Schmo wrote:Well, given you don't know anything about them (except what you've accepted from the church's statement

And their account of the event and the police report. You seem to be the one basing your conclusions off of insufficient data.

Some Schmo wrote:- which means you don't know anything), why not completely reserve judgment? Is it because there's an opportunity to denigrate critics, and so objectivity gets thrown out the window?

Not at all. When this topic first came up on another board I explained that I had a hard time believing security personnel would give anyone trouble for a peck on the cheek, but that I'd like to see the police report. I ended it there. I only commented again when the church's statement came out and I had access to the police report. I suspended judgment, which is far more than the cynics have done. Don't accuse me of being on their level.

Doctor Steuss wrote:Affirmation.org reported that Aune stated he was one of the individuals who protested the transfer of the property to the Church in 2003.

Another piece of evidence that supports the overwhelming probability that these guys fully intended to antagonize.

Doctor Steuss wrote:

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:[...]
It appears the young couple was not aware of the private property issues surrounding Main street and took offense to a private security guard telling them to leave.
[...]

Affirmation.org reported that Aune stated he was one of the individuals who protested the transfer of the property to the Church in 2003.

I imagine that (unless he wasn't truthful in regards to protesting the land transfer) that he was quite familiar with the issues surrounding the Church Plaza.

It is interesting how the apologists for the two accused individuals are mimicking perfectly the behaviour, denials, and cog-dis they spend hours critisizing the LDS apologists of maintaining.

Keep turning the blind eye to this point! Wouldn't want to ruin your fun and save you hours of pointless posts.

maklelan wrote:

Doctor Steuss wrote:Affirmation.org reported that Aune stated he was one of the individuals who protested the transfer of the property to the Church in 2003.

Another piece of evidence that supports the overwhelming probability that these guys fully intended to antagonize.

I don't know the lay-out of the Plaza, but I have had several friends jumped in just the last year for merely looking gay here in Vegas (one of them was jumped in the bathroom of a bar, the other while walking to his car in the art district). I don't know if the people in SLC are more tolerant, or if the Church security presence at the Plaza makes for a feeling of safety, but I doubt any of my gay friends would chance being openly affectionate in outdoor public at night.

That being said, I’m not sure I would place antagonistic motives to their affectionate act(s); however gutsy/out of place they may seem to me. In my (admittedly under-informed, and pliable) opinion , antagonistic motives definitely apply to the events that transpired after being approached by security, but having known the looseness caused by imbibing, I imagine the initial smooches were merely the result of an opportune moment, and liquid libido enhancement.

Doctor Steuss wrote:I don't know the lay-out of the Plaza, but I have had several friends jumped in just the last year for merely looking gay here in Vegas (one of them was jumped in the bathroom of a bar, the other while walking to his car in the art district). I don't know if the people in SLC are more tolerant, or if the Church security presence at the Plaza makes for a feeling of safety, but I doubt any of my gay friends would chance being openly affectionate in outdoor public at night.

Such was definitely not the case with my friends in Dallas.

Doctor Steuss wrote:That being said, I’m not sure I would place antagonistic motives to their affectionate act(s); however gutsy/out of place they may seem to me. In my (admittedly under-informed, and pliable) opinion , antagonistic motives definitely apply to the events that transpired after being approached by security, but having known the looseness caused by imbibing, I imagine the initial smooches were merely the result of an opportune moment, and liquid libido enhancement.

That's certainly a logical conclusion, but I also think they knew exactly where they were. I doubt this was a normal walk home, and it wouldn't have been lost on one of the protesters to the new proprietorship how funny or ironic it would be for them to suddenly start making out right there. It may have been more of a "let's see what happens" motivation, but I have a difficult time concluding the implication of where they were went entirely unnoticed.

The two suspects may very well have coordinated this event to provoke a response from the church and create embarassing media attention for the church. If that was their plan, they succeeded.

what has happened to the church's PR savvy mainstreaming strategy? Is it just my imagination or has the church lost it's PR touch since Hinckley died? Why did they allow a couple gay guys to create a media event over a minor trespassing ticket?

why not just call the police and have the police escort them off the property.