The Church's Tax Exempt Status

[_rcrocket]

Not too happy about having the deceptive tactics of the LDS Church exposed? Tough. Since the identifications were not done under any color of authority there is nothing illegal about them. Isn't that what Mormons like to stress?, "what we've done is completely legal".

Wow -- "deceptive?" The Church's position and the First Presidency's letter was posted from the start on its website and released publicly through media channels. How deceptive can it be when it acted completely on the open?

If the Church is going to behave like a Political Action Committee, they're going to be treated like one. All individual members who want to do the Church leadership's bidding need to understand that. You know what they say, If you can't stand the heat...

So, "being treated like one" means that I am on a national black list, and my religion (strictly a private affair) is outed for all to see, and my firm receives hate mail demanding my ouster? I'd say that is a pretty evil and malicious response.

That's being a bit over-dramatic, don't ya think? You're a senior partner at a major law firm (with plenty of LDS lawyers). They can't purge the firm for donating to "Yes on 8."

No I am not.

But, he claims it is "legal" and thus it is right. It was also legal to blacklist motion picture industry workers who were suspected of being Communists. Here, by outing a piece of my personal life (somebody who knows me outed me by responding to a request for such information) I now have to fend off hate mail from people who want me ousted.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

That's being a bit over-dramatic, don't ya think? You're a senior partner at a major law firm (with plenty of LDS lawyers). They can't purge the firm for donating to "Yes on 8."

No I am not.

These kind of tactics are wrong and I condemn them. And I hope the managers at your firm see them for what they are.

But, he claims it is "legal" and thus it is right.

These kind of tactics may be "legal," but they certainly aren't right.

Here, by outing a piece of my personal life (somebody who knows me outed me by responding to a request for such information) I now have to fend off hate mail from people who want me ousted.

This is wrong. I back you 100% on this. I confess that in a post I once mentioned the fact you had donated big bucks to the "Yes on 8" campaign (I think you had already admitted you had donated in a prior thread), so I didn't think it was a big deal. But if it caused you any grief, I apologize. It was not my intent.

[_harmony]

But if it caused you any grief, I apologize. It was not my intent.

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

Perhaps we should be more careful in dealing with others' personal lives.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

But if it caused you any grief, I apologize. It was not my intent.

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

Perhaps we should be more careful in dealing with others' personal lives.

Agreed. I only raised it because he mentioned it first.

[_harmony]

I only raised it because he mentioned it first.

Just because someone lays an egg (by writing something better left unwritten) doesn't mean we have to keep picking it up and throwing it at him whenever it suits our agenda.

Sometimes scoring points isn't worth what it costs our personal integrity.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I only raised it because he mentioned it first.

Just because someone lays an egg (by writing something better left unwritten) doesn't mean we have to keep picking it up and throwing it at him whenever it suits our agenda.

Sometimes scoring points isn't worth what it costs our personal integrity.

Harmony, don't take out your anger out on me. I know you're pissed off right now at some posters on this bb, but don't let that anger make this bigger than it is.

[_rcrocket]

I didn't mean to imply that Rollo contacted the manager of the list which maintains the national black list. When I was complaining about being "outed" I wasn't pointing to Rollo, because contributions are public knowledge.

What is not public knowledge is my religious affiliation. When one makes a political contribution one is required to disclose one's employer (to possibly later verify that campaign laws aren't being violated with an employer aggregating contributions), but not one's religio.

The managers of mormons4marriage.com put out a request for people to help identify donors who are Mormons. I got tagged by somebody who knows me.

That list then serves as the basis for the national black list. That black list then has led to hate mail, email and threats to employers. In some cases it has led to petty acts of violence and vandalism. I was denouncing the whole "outing" by mormons4marriage, not Rollo's observation weeks ago.

With that black list, people who may know the employers of black listed persons are contacting the employers. I am dealing with that.

[_Danna]

Forgive my slow brain, but are you saying that there is a list published that identifies donors by surname and employer, and religion?

Legal or not, that is just wrong.

I was aware of a list of names of donors at mormonsfor8.com, but employer details are not on it, and donors identified as Mormon have their surnames removed.

[_rcrocket]

The deletion of LDS last names on mormonsfor8 is a new innovation. I complained bitterly to one of the list hosts about my last name and religion being outed when I started to receive threats and they told me to pound sand. But, today, the last names are missing from LDS donors on that particular list.

Note that this list was created to urge people to out donors who were known to be Mormons. So, it would have made no sense to just have first names.

The fruits of this work, with last names, are maintained elsewhere.

http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/09 ... -8-donors/

http://www.hekebolos.com/prop8mormons.htm

Hope you feel good about it.

[_harmony]

The deletion of LDS last names on mormonsfor8 is a new innovation. I complained bitterly to one of the list hosts about my last name and religion being outed when I started to receive threats and they told me to pound sand. But, today, the last names are missing from LDS donors on that particular list.

Note that this list was created to urge people to out donors who were known to be Mormons. So, it would have made no sense to just have first names.

The fruits of this work, with last names, are maintained elsewhere.

http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/09 ... -8-donors/

http://www.hekebolos.com/prop8mormons.htm

Hope you feel good about it.

I'm confused.

Is there a list somewhere that documents how LDS people contributed... either for or against? And someone is using that list against you in some way?

I'm guess I'm just not seeing how such a list could exist (did they have access to every stake directory in CA?) and how it would be useful against you personally.