Good old Utah

[W_L]

Just be glad that this is not the same LDS of the 1870's.

 

When writing "Home is in the heart", I did some serious research on LDS history and one thing that struck me was their overwhelming power over the local authorities in Utah. It was so bad at one point that they killed non-LDS settlers within Utah territory, prompting the US federal government to send in troops to quell them.

 

These events are now half forgotten by most people for political and regional integrity, but the LDS church has had a history of violence

[JamesSavik]

Mormons are psycho anti-gay. They go well out of their way to give gay people a hard time.

 

They are one of the strongest blocks of money, votes and influence that come out to oppose any gay rights issue anywhere.

[Former Member]

There was a "Kiss-In" demonstration yesterday by both straight and gay couples. The police were called again, but no one was cited. The police said they were there to "keep the peace." It seemed they really didn't want to get involved. Video here: http://www.fox13now.com/news/kstu-demonstrators-kiss-to-support-gay-couple,0,7821199.story.

 

The issue has caught the eye of a few of the mainstream newspapers in Salt Lake, though both articles are pretty short.

 

The Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_12821710

The Deseret News: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705316423/Couples-pucker-up-for-positive-point.html

 

The LDS Church released a statement "that public displays of affection are not allowed on church property." But, the question still stands. How many heterosexual couples have been ask to leave for public displays of affection? I'm sure none. Everyday I walk by and there are young Mormon couples taking engagement or wedding photos. It's a sad fact, and one that isn't soon to change.

[Benji]

There was a "Kiss-In" demonstration yesterday by both straight and gay couples. The police were called again, but no one was cited. The police said they were there to "keep the peace." It seemed they really didn't want to get involved. Video here: http://www.fox13now....0,7821199.story.

 

The issue has caught the eye of a few of the mainstream newspapers in Salt Lake, though both articles are pretty short.

 

The Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_12821710

The Deseret News: http://www.deseretne...tive-point.html

 

The LDS Church released a statement "that public displays of affection are not allowed on church property." But, the question still stands. How many heterosexual couples have been ask to leave for public displays of affection? I'm sure none. Everyday I walk by and there are young Mormon couples taking engagement or wedding photos. It's a sad fact, and one that isn't soon to change.

 

..........Do they perform marriage ceremonies on this site?? If so, how will this work, no PDA!

[TalonRider]

..........Do they perform marriage ceremonies on this site?? If so, how will this work, no PDA!

I was wondering the some thing when I read that. I'm thinking that they may consider a wedding a private event being held since they are usually by invitation.

[Former Member]

..........Do they perform marriage ceremonies on this site?? If so, how will this work, no PDA!

I was wondering the some thing when I read that. I'm thinking that they may consider a wedding a private event being held since they are usually by invitation.

They don't actually perform marriage ceremonies on Main Street Plaza. All LDS wedding ceremonies take place in the Temple.

 

Here is a satellite photo:

 

Main Street Plaza (blue) basically is in between the walled in Temple grounds (yellow) and the Church headquarters block(red).

 

Main Street, before the deal, ran between the two blocks. When the government land swapped with the Church, the Church shut down the road and made it into a landscaped walkway. It basically cut Main Street in two. You can see on the map that Main Street continues north and south of the split. In that deal, the Church agreed to the city's demand for public access to the block, but demanded in turn that the Church be allowed to restrict smoking, sunbathing, bicycling, "obscene" or "vulgar" speech, dress or conduct on the plaza. Basically it is a space open to the public, but under the control of the Church.

[Benji]

They don't actually perform marriage ceremonies on Main Street Plaza. All LDS wedding ceremonies take place in the Temple.

 

 

Main Street, before the deal, ran between the two blocks. When the government land swapped with the Church, the Church shut down the road and made it into a landscaped walkway. It basically cut Main Street in two. You can see on the map that Main Street continues north and south of the split. In that deal, the Church agreed to the city's demand for public access to the block, but demanded in turn that the Church be allowed to restrict smoking, sunbathing, bicycling, "obscene" or "vulgar" speech, dress or conduct on the plaza. Basically it is a space open to the public, but under the control of the Church.

 

.....Ok, we have the city demanding right of ingress/egress of said once public right of way, but in doing so has relinquished the rights freedom of speech of the citizens to travel through it? Which is puzzling? If the land swap had been done properly, the land would have been owned, free and cleared without the city's objections with it's deed restrictions. By doing so, the city maintained a right of public right of way, yet it is allowing freedom of speech to be dictated by the Church within said public right of way? This is ludicrous, it is either private property or it is not. If the city maintains a right of way for ingress/egress for it's citizens in a deed, then the rights of its citizens cannot be relinquished by the a church on said right of way.

 

In a nutshell the city has made a land trade with the church inclusive to allowing the public the right-of-way, but with with restrictions on their rights as citizens to traverse the once public domain.

 

Sounds communistic to me!

Edited July 14, 2009 by Benji

[KJames]

.....Ok, we have the city demanding right of ingress/egress of said once public right of way, but in doing so has relinquished the rights freedom of speech of the citizens to travel through it? Which is puzzling? If the land swap had been done properly, the land would have been owned, free and cleared without the city's objections with it's deed restrictions. By doing so, the city maintained a right of public right of way, yet it is allowing freedom of speech to be dictated by the Church within said public right of way? This is ludicrous, it is either private property or it is not. If the city maintains a right of way for ingress/egress for it's citizens in a deed, then the rights of its citizens cannot be relinquished by the a church on said right of way.

 

In a nutshell the city has made a land trade with the church inclusive to allowing the public the right-of-way, but with with restrictions on their rights as citizens to traverse the once public domain.

 

Sounds communistic to me!

 

As I recall, when this first hit the fan back then and was in all the papers, the people of Utah were actually against it for just this reason--the theocracy is rearing its ugly head and dictating to the public at large how their behavior must follow the doctrine dictated by the church. But we all know that the public officials caved in under threat of either excommunication or the threat of being voted out of office by dictates of the church elders to their voting members (and we know how that works now, don't we?) and relinquished rights of the people to be free of religious persecution in order to keep their own well-paying jobs.

[Niwa Fox Rose]

There seems to be a lot of what if and biased reporting here, so I can't make a good statement on this. I've seen reports on this, but all from gay sources (I don't remember seeing anything picked up by the mainstream media yet) which is going to be slanted/biased because that's what happens.

 

If they were detained and told to leave for kissing while on church property, then it's within the power of the LDS to say leave and bring up the whole trespassing point. HOWEVER if they were on a sidewalk (which if I remember right is public property, not private) then the LDS church is wrong.

 

Now, I'm gonna go and try to find some more articles on this and give my real opinion on the matter, not just a broad observation.

 

Eric

 

Actually I posted an article from KSL. Which is a main stream new media...Well at least in Utah. ;D

[Former Member]

Actually I posted an article from KSL. Which is a main stream new media...Well at least in Utah. ;D

Haha, yeah. Funny that.

 

KSL-TV is owned by Bonneville International Corporation, which is in turn owned by LDS Church. The Church also owns the only news radio station through Bonneville.

 

The second largest newspaper in Utah is the Deseret News. It is owned by Deseret News Publishing Company, a subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is a for-profit business holdings company owned by LDS Church.

 

The largest newspaper in Utah (and the one I subscride to) is the Salt Lake Tribune. The anti-Mormon history of the Trib is actually quite funny! You can read a bit about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salt_Lake_Tribune. The history has an excerpt from the article about LDS President and prophet Brigham Young after his death in 1877. I can only imagine the reaction the general public had to that!!

[Niwa Fox Rose]

Haha, yeah. Funny that.

 

KSL-TV is owned by Bonneville International Corporation, which is in turn owned by LDS Church. The Church also owns the only news radio station through Bonneville.

 

The second largest newspaper in Utah is the Deseret News. It is owned by Deseret News Publishing Company, a subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is a for-profit business holdings company owned by LDS Church.

 

The largest newspaper in Utah (and the one I subscride to) is the Salt Lake Tribune. The anti-Mormon history of the Trib is actually quite funny! You can read a bit about it here: http://en.wikipedia....lt_Lake_Tribune. The history has an excerpt from the article about LDS President and prophet Brigham Young after his death in 1877. I can only imagine the reaction the general public had to that!!

 

I never knew that about KSL. I knew it was biased, but not owned by the LDS church. God! Is nothing owned by the LDS church. D:

[David McLeod]

Coca Cola has links to LDS?

 

No wonder I drink Pepsi.

 

The story, which I've not researched, goes that coke refused to buy Utah sugar because the LDS wouldn't drink coke. At that point, again according to the story, the LDS prophet had a revelation that "coke was okay," and Mormons could drink it, at which point Coke started buying sugar from Utah, again. I cannot verify, and apparently many LDS still consider anything containing caffeine to be "strong drink," and there fore taboo.

 

IMHO, coke is much better than pepsi.

[Niwa Fox Rose]

The story, which I've not researched, goes that coke refused to buy Utah sugar because the LDS wouldn't drink coke. At that point, again according to the story, the LDS prophet had a revelation that "coke was okay," and Mormons could drink it, at which point Coke started buying sugar from Utah, again. I cannot verify, and apparently many LDS still consider anything containing caffeine to be "strong drink," and there fore taboo.

 

IMHO, coke is much better than pepsi.

 

I'd beg to differ, Pepsi is where it's at. ;D

[Mark Arbour]

I'd beg to differ, Pepsi is where it's at. ;D

 

Maybe it's just that younger people like Pepsi while old farts like Coke (winks at David).

[Niwa Fox Rose]

Maybe it's just that younger people like Pepsi while old farts like Coke (winks at David).

 

Sounds reasonable.

[Lugh]

You know, states like Utah need a "Gay Moving Day" where everyone gay friendly just move to California or something. That will teach them mormons.

[Mark Arbour]

You know, states like Utah need a "Gay Moving Day" where everyone gay friendly just move to California or something. That will teach them mormons.

 

I've got a better idea. Why don't we organize a massive move of gay friendly people INTO Utah and really shake things up. It's really a pretty state. It's just (some of) the people that suck. Or don't.

[Niwa Fox Rose]

I've got a better idea. Why don't we organize a massive move of gay friendly people INTO Utah and really shake things up. It's really a pretty state. It's just (some of) the people that suck. Or don't.

 

I'd support that. We need more diversity in here! x3