Prop 8 support cost him his job
 

I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

Some people exercised their right to complain about him.

Haven't some people decided, for example, that they won't support any movies by Mel Gibson? Or Roman Polanski?

Now the fellow makes an equivalent donation to the Human Rights Campaign, I guess, symbolically "undoing" his prior donation to Prop 8. That's fine too.

Who knows, this may be the proudest moment for this guy, in his life.

There's nothing wrong going on here. People with money and works of dramatic art who support gay rights or are gay are perfectly entitled to withdraw support on this basis, just as Eckem was free to donate $1,000.

These are private indiviuals interacting with one another in the marketplace. This is how America works, God bless it. You can't separate freedom from accountability. Mormonism is paying a steep price for Propositon 8. I predict passage of the measure will have been a curse, in the end. I said there would be hell to pay with the intelligentsia.

A few years ago my law school dean got into a spat with the university presdient, and ultimately fired her. Influencial law shool alumni were livid and cancelled donations. The president ate a lot of crow, and withdrew the termination and reinstated the dean.

On a side note, what was this Eckem thinking? He had to know he was hurting many colleagues and business associates, even people who had made him successful. I wonder how many Prop. 8 supporters knew, as they made their donations, or voted, they were hurting work colleagues, neighbors, the families of their children's playmates?

I have no pity for Eckem. Karma. He'll probably have to go back to Utah and get a job at a Mormon theatre and learn to live on a big pay cut.

if people want to boycott Elton John for his recent statements, that is fine too.

Or boycott the Bastian fellow in Utah, in whatever enterprise he runs. That is fine.

Sure, individuals and institutions have a right to take their business elsewhere if they disagree with the political views of another person or institution.

I don't think it's an admirable thing to do, however. And the more you let these non-business considerations enter your decision-making the worse it is for your business.

then businesses that punish pro-8 businesses will be punished themselves, whereas businesses that don't use that to make decisions will be rewarded.

It will all work itself out.

Sadly, people already started doing that about 16 years ago.

You don't think the theater made a financial decision? I think in art goodwill is a big part of what you're selling.

The theater says they didn't ask him to leave. And if they did ask him to leave, it appears they would have only been responding to the threat of a boycott from the artistic community like the Hairspray guy. So yes, it would have been a financial decision by the theater.

Anyway, the main message in this story for me is:

Think for yourself. The Church gave "general advice" to it's members to support Prop 8. But they don't know you individually or what line of work you are in (Who knew there were straight, LDS theater artistic directors out there?) or what the potential ramifications may be for your family and career. You have a responsibility to think things through for yourself instead of blindly following.

I'm pretty sure if you asked one of the GAs, "Do I still have to donate money to Prop 8 if it will likely mean the loss of my livelihood and inability to support my family?" he would answer, "No way. Nevermind -- it doesn't apply to you. You have to do what is best for you and your family."

What planet are you from? This is most emphatically not the LDS Church's message. It does not want you thinking for yourself. What they want you to do is blindly follow, and they're explicit about that. Good grief.

This is my message, actually.

They didn't ask him to leave like the U of U didn't ask Ray Giacoletti to leave.

I didn't say it's necessarily the LDS Church's message. It's my personal learning point from reading about this guy's terrible experience.

Has anyone read Marriott's press release re: Prop 8. Not exactly a hearty endorsement there.

I guess for the Marriott's, who also sell porn and alcohol, it really IS all about the benjamins.

Yes. Never blindly follow. Always think for yourself. Good point.

1. I assume that it was before this story that you considered the idea that it is ok to think for yourself.
2. The church asks that we consecrate all we have to them.
3. It follows that giving up one's job for what is moral and right is an acceptable cost for the work of the Lord.
4. I don't assume a GA would say "no." I would assume he would say "I can't make that decision for you. Pray about it and act as you are inspired to do."

This is so inspiring. Guy donates. Claims he had no idea people would be offended. Willing participant in big media frenzy. Portrayed as a victim in a lot of media (I've already been emailed the pro-LDS spin). Donates money to gay cause. BYU Dean of Arts comments.

Yeah, I am completely inspired. These days if someone were to go and rescue the 1856 Handcart company, they would blog, tweeter, and flickr the entire way, google adsense as sponsor.

Please define "curse." If it means the "intelligentsia," along with, say, "anti-Mormon Ute lawyers who hover somewhere between way below the intelligentsia and way below most other life forms," continue to marginalize our church by their ever-so-high standards of secularism, I would say most of us would use a different term for that: "blessing."

If, however, it means less people join the church and members leave the church in droves, then feel free to start throwing around the word "curse." But if my sources are accurate, every time the LDS church involves itself in this kind of brouhaha, convert baptisms spike. In case you didn't notice, most LDS converts aren't exactly the type who are out there leading the "No on 8" rallies.

Tex ... Indy ... can I get an AMEN??!!

Cardiac, don't listen to him. Your new personal inspiration is a good one, I think. You should start thinking for yourelf.

I don't remember who said it offhand, but there was a general conference talk a few years back when one of the apostles said something like, (OK, I know it's an obvious point for enlightened ones like SU):

We frequently receive letters asking, "What about this advice you gave in conference pertaining to __________? I don't think it applies to me for the following reasons....."

The speaker went on to state the obvious: That general advice from the Church to its membership can't possibly apply to every member in every situation. A lot of Church members seem to forget that fairly obvious point.

If somebody figures out what talk I'm referring to from my very vague description (may have been Oaks?), that would be cool.

signed,
Satan

Cite? Link? What are you talking about baptisms spike anytime something like this happens? Did baptisms spike when the LDS Church tried to stick to its guns and deny priesthood to blacks on a creationism rationale? Is that what you're saying? Do peope respect LDS for that?

I think Mormonism's/BYU's reputation has fallen to an all-time low since 1978 in the past couple of weeks among the arts and academic and credentialed communities. You probably think it's harder for those people to get into your CK than a camel through the eye of a needle.

1. Yeah, it's just a good reminder of this obvious principle for the next time I'm feeling particularly mullah-y, self-righteous, or obedient.
2, 3. "All we have" is a figurative term. Nobody gives all their income away to the Church (as fast offering, etc.) even though you could interpret the covenant that way.
4. Fine. The GA would still tell you to think and pray about it for yourself. Thinking and praying about things yourself is good advice, particularly when the Church is wrong.

I think you are citing an aberrant talk, or your paraphrase is innacurate. They want you to blindly follow. They are explicit about that (except for this one aberrant talk you seem to recall if in fact you recall it correctly).

you don't think a GA has ever counseled someone to give up their job in order to do something for the church. Like give up their job so they can attend church, as an example?

I think we have a new qualifier for Darwin award. The only straight, LDS theater artistic director in Los Angeles who gave $1,000 to Proposition 8.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure a few of the apostles and many mission presidents have given up pretty prestigious jobs to serve in the Church when they were asked individually to do this.

But I'm talking about general advice to the Church as a whole, not specific callings. This general advice (to support Prop 8, for example) obviously can't possibly apply to every individual member.

How predictable
 

Seattle and Mike are in this issue.

If the two of you peered a little more closely at this you might detect a disturbing tactic at work: Silencing critics by intimidation. Think Kristallnacht. Think Maoism. It's a very popular tactic on the American Left. Kind of like showing up at a press conference and shouting down your opponents so they can't get their message out. Or shouting down an unpopular speaker at a univesity.

But you approve of what happened here, and so you see no problem.

I'm a critic. I'm not silenced.

You're a critic. You're not silenced.

Mr. Theater guy is a critic. His quotes are all over the media and blogosphere.

But yes, there are sheep here, that are afraid to say anything.

by common consent. if consent is never sought, then it can never be obtained.

I have never interpreted sustaining as meaning "always doing what someone says."

I agree. Everyone on all sides are exercising their rights. It's a beautiful mess. No one is silenced.

Still, LA, I'm uncomfortable with you lumping me and Waters together.

And believe me, we're all very concerned. I was hopeful the academic community would move forward with that important Book of Mormon research and now ... well, it's all for naught.

What a shame.

SU is an idiot. Don't lump me in with him.

We are opposites, as black to white, oil to water, light to darkness, good to evil, matter to anti-matter, God to Satan.

LOL. You forgot that he also has a gay sister in a "committed domestic partnership."

I remember that talk well. Unfortunately, I don't remember the speaker, but it seems like it was in April conference. I'm going to try and find it.

it's very unpopular for Mormons with gay relatives, from what I can tell, to oppose Prop 8.

SocalCoug, The Tick, my dad.

It's always "I support Prop 8 AND I have a gay relative."

Ok. I have a gay relative and I don't support it. Wrap your mind around that.

Blood is thicker than the waters of baptism.

The two wisest people on this board have serious problems with Prop 8.

One of them is PAC.

I will let you guess who the other person is.

It's me.

You are pretty wise for an anti-mormon.

Well, I seemed to detect more than a hint of schadenfreude (sp?) in your and Seattle's analyses of the unfortunate Sacramento guy who was chased from his job. Was I wrong?

And Seattle, I invite you to think about what I said. Seriously. Intimidation is wrong, and I know you well enough to know you think so too. The Sacramento guy was arguably not silenced, but the purpose of such purges is to intimidate others into silence. Anyone who has been close to the Prop 8 debate in California knows about this first-hand. Take it from me, my Ute brother, you know I don't make stuff like this up.

I think intimidation is wrong as a general proposition; certainly that's true for any kind of physical intimidation. I also think that this issue is REALLY serious to both sides; the stakes are as high as they get outside of war. I don't live in California, but it sounds like it was trench warfare, a literal Verdun in those last days. Our political/legal system can be pretty reptilian sometimes, but it works. The bishop in the area where I used to live in Seattle is a very tough, successful litigator; he does IP work and sometimes those are fights over the life of a company. He's notoriously tough. I know lawyers I respect a lot who think he's despicable, a terrible person. The bishop even said to me once that he sometimes doesn't like himself very much in the thick of battle in his work; I think he was wondering at some things my colleagues may have said to me about him. But I've never judged him because he treated me well when I knew him, and he has a remarkable record of success in the courtroom. I have a kind of important respect for someone who knows how to do what it takes to win an important legal battle that means everything to his client even if it means pushing propriety right to the line.

I guess what I'm saying is that economic intimidation is definitely in a gray area but you guys aren't playing tiddly winks down there. You're playing for keeps and I'm not sure anything within the law is offlimits. I'm often amazed at the irony of there being so much decency in America, but our economic, legal and political systems being so hard and pitiless. I think that irony is a key to our success and prosperity. By the way, I'm not a liberal.

Is this the real purpose? Or just a vigorous reaction to reversal / denial of civil rights? One thing is clear - this issue is not a straight up dispute, both sides see the premises, motivations, intents and results dramatically differently than the other. Not at a diametric opposition, such as an environmental issue.

The notion that marriage is a civil right is misplaced.