-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/marriott-or-sarah-palin-you-decide.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
What I'm saying here is . . . that publicity letter response looks like it's been signed by a . . . what's that word ? . . . bogus? signature.
I'd join the boycott, but I'm addicted to Mormon cuisine.
And blubber.
Same diff.
.
I will.
Heard that the Great Aryan Hope cleverly dodged only 3 questions from reporters are Rethug Guv's conference, too. And what's with her using "again" so much when she hasn't even mentioned it previously?
Before Americablog brought it to my attention that Marriot had these Mormon connections I had no idea. Many other folks probably didn't either. That simple piece of information is very empowering. These jerks want everybody's cash but they don't want anybodies scrutiny.
The "root source of where the disagreement lies" is where this big corporation benefits from the patronage of people it wants to sell to and then passes on proceeds from that patronage to create negative energy in their customer's lives.
It's been less than two weeks and Ricky's fine whine is a nice indication of how quickly a focused campaign like this can work.
What is more important to these jerks, the Angel Moroni or Mamon? Make them make that decision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JymweiJIgKU
Hit the streets Saturday. Jointheimpact.com will give your city's plans.
Screw Mary-rot and the national disgrace known as the Mormon Church...
May I suggest that attention directed at the Kroger Grocery chain (contributors to the prop 8 effort) might bear quicker fruit by caving to our concerns faster???
----
Okay... question... has anyone posting today ever tried to read a book while on acid?
ya know.... I read that letter and thought I was having a flashback. I had to read it again, and again, and again... I still can't make out what the point of it is.
.
I keep trying to reread it trying to make sense of it. Have to somehow stop that as it is scrambling my marbles. <g>
Jesushchristonabicycle, I'm going to blow my brains out.
"Trig in the White House." HELP!!!!!!
http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?appSession=3...
I believe they are both Mormons who contributed extensively to Mitt Romney.
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4428
We at the Marriott will still continue to take gay business, even though our owners backed a vote that took away your existing rights.
So let bygones be bygones...all friends again?
yoouse very truly
Sarah Palin
One thing that intriqued me was the phrase "root source". I would love to hear what he thinks is the "root source".
It's Sarah "Prayer Chain" Palin. Gawd help us, since 45% of Americans want to see her as president, according to the latest poll. And believe me, she's a working girl who knows her customers.
says me,
Sarah Palin
Marriott didn't do anything to encourage individuals to defend the rights of Californians, so let's get off the schtick of "individuals" with whom we have "disagreement".
Its a pretty intricate ceremony that involves lots of caffeine, alcohol, nicotine and those other things you can't have as a mormon. Oh. And swearing. Lots and lots of swearing.
I see no reason why Mormons would have any problem with changing the religion and views of their dead since they do it too.
Can I send traditional white wedding dildos to their living relatives???
While we can appreciate your passion towards such a controversial topic, ...
Go straight to hell, Ricky.
While your assessment rightly identifies the voters as the persons responsible for the last link in the kill chain on Prop 8, there were many upstream participants who try - using some arguments similar to yours - to absolve themselves of responsibility for passing Prop 8. I think Reagan used the term "plausible deniablility". In this case, there are two main components in the kill chain: the message and the money. The votes were almost tertiary once the message and the money were properly focused. The message was consistent, misleading/dishonest, and patently anti-constitutional. The message is also traceable to highly influential institutions that aren't even resident in CA. Your reference to Mitt and votes is simply nonsense, as the visceral emotions being played on with Prop 8 were drastically different from those used in the presidential contest.
Not surprisingly, the money follows the same path as the message. The logic in this line of thinking is absolutely consistent. Prop 8 wasn't a bond referendum; it was about removing rights of Californians that had been legally accorded them. It was the fear-mongering - supported by institutions and individuals who should be held to account - that led to the votes.
A lot can be accomplished by television campaigning especially when that campaigning was deceptive to the voter. (i.e. the lie that the LDS church would be forced to marry gays). In fact, that's the same thing that the Nazi's did with the German people. Google Hitler propaganda campaign. So your assertion that people can't be swayed by deceptive propaganda is false. It's happened historically in the past. In fact, church's aren't supposed to stand for being political organizations or run like businesses or they face being taxed. The US government is the alpha dog here, not the religions and there's a good reason for that!
As far as boycotting the Marriott hotel, people have a right to not give their money to causes that ultimately remove their civil rights. If you found out that 10% of proceeds of a business were going to remove some of your civil rights would you still patronize the business? Would you really care whether it was only 1/2 of the money going towards that cause? The answer is no, and if your answer isn't no - I don't believe you.
support and dollars to whatever organization they
choose. However, 501(c)'s and other non-profits are
allowed to support or stand against specific issues
that fall within their charter. They just can't
support or stand against individual candidates without
loosing their tax-exept status Hence, in most states,
PTA, a 501 (c) is a strong lobbying force for issues
that affect children, ie: funding advertisment against
vouchers, or promoting safety laws, like seatbelt and
car seat legislation. However, the PTA can't send a
letter to all their members telling them to vote for
Barac Obama without loosing their status. Churches
fall under the same tax-exemption laws.
As for 10% of Marriott's proceeds going to the Mormon
church, don't they wish!!!! Because it's a pubicly
held company, profits go to shareholders, of which the
Marriott family is just a minority holder. Do what you
wish, but don't make boycotting Marriott's your great
"STAND" against the oppressors. It's kind of a
ridiculous guesture.
--- Disqus <>
10% of Bill Marriott's income goes toward the church if he pays his tithes (or according to his beliefs - goes to a lesser kingdom of heaven) and even if they are a minority holder maybe the UNBIGOTED holders of the company will pressure him to not tithe to the LDS church which anything short of that, these people aren't going to patronize the Marriott.
And, neither am I.
So under "your" logic mholt36 ......George Bush does not own the Gov't...he just manages it...so he's not responsible?
Are you a shill mholt36? I'm sure there are plenty of Marriott employees posting on this site.
Marriott like 5 times in my life. However, I can't
stand to see illogical arguments. Frankly, illogical
thinking just weakens your own message.
--- Disqus <>
she really digs the limelight...and will say anything to keep it shining on her.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/13/palin-bless...
PLEASE BOYCOTT UTAH, those of us that live here would love to have the ski resorts less crowded and we don't really care about your "art" at Sundance. Do you realize this is 62% Mormon state and most of the ski resorts are owned by non-Mormons? Is Robert Redford a Mormon? Boycott his festival classic. Boycott Marriott because, why? Did you know the CFO of Citibank is a Mormon...I'd boycott it too. Harry Reid (D) Nevada is Mormon, boycott Nevada and the Senate. Classic!
What would happen if straight Christians boycotted anything that had a homosexual involved? Would it be hate or equality or do you think on both sides of the equation.
Good luck hating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The members make no apologies for defending our view of marriage. We don't hate homosexuals. We love you as our brothers and sisters and believe that all of God's children should be treated decently with compassion. That doesn't mean that we support alternative marriages, including polygamy. Thanks for showing your hatred and bigotry. I'm not apologiziing.
Your holy undies are covered in cooties! Aieeeeeeee!!!
I just spit up my morning coffee,
but it was from laughing out loud.
thanks for the morning smile. ;-)
my so-called friend. (notapollyjerk)
everybody else: follow the money,
don't pay attention to trolls.
keep up the pressure on ALL these
fucking bastards until they break.
( We can tell you are worried about the uproar we are causing )
( Your post is SO obvious that this is getting into your craw )
Looks like anything that disrupts the Mormon money machine causes them concern.
GET USE TO IT!
For the US government or a State to offer CIVIL marriage, for one person to another, using only one group's or group of group's of religions definition if marriage and not others', such as that of the church of THOMAS JEFFERSON which has been marrying couples of the same sex for decades, is DISCRIMINATORY.
Do what you want in your own Temples, who cares?
We, however, can choose to shun institutions who take rights away from us as individuals. The same as you (or Mormons individually if you in fact are not a Mormon) are ordered by said institution to shun individuals. Payback's a Bitch.
We, or I at least do not shun undividuals at the behest of anybody, and would gladly talk with a Mormon or anybody about the impact of their religion on society as a whole, and sincerely sympathise with their spiritual dilemma.
That said, I didn't eat at Wendy's or Cracker Barrel for years and still don't drink Coor's, It's not about hate. When it involves dollars I call it capitalism.
"What would happen if straight Christians boycotted anything that had a homosexual involved?" - You'd never get a decent haircut. Go ahead.
We now turn to the question of context: what is the nature of the right that is being denied? Marriage means many things to many people. It can be a sacred obligation, an indicator of social status, a temporary arrangement of convenience, or some combination of these and other purposes. Yet our concern is what marriage means in the legal context. From an historical standpoint, this is not an easy question. “[T]he law of marriage[] …[] has been in flux: the same quarter century, like the millennia that preceded it, saw wide swings of the pendulum on many fundamental questions concerning the formation, dissolution and incidents of marriage.” Mary Anne Case and Paul Mahoney, A Brief History of Marriage in Anglo-American Law With Special Reference to Those Points of Commonality with the Law of Corporations 1 from The Role of the State in Marriage and the Corporation (unpublished draft) (“Brief History of Marriage”).
In Blackstone’s time, marriage meant the complete legal integration of two individuals into one person in law. See Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Husband and Wife. This meant that neither could testify against the other, as it would contradict the maxim “nemo tenetur feipfum accufare.” But as is inevitable, our understanding of marriage has changed considerably since then. In 1879, the prevailing legal view was that “[m]arriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract.” Reynolds v United States 98 U.S. 145 (1879). Yet, “the involvement of the state in the formation of marriage is no more natural and inevitable than its involvement in the formation of corporations.” Brief History of Marriage at 2. In the modern context, marriage consists of a bundle of rights that stem from an exclusive relationship between two people. These include, but are not limited to, retirement and health insurance benefits, state and federal tax advantages, inheritance rights, spousal support, hospital visitation, divorce, confidential privilege in legal proceedings, wrongful death actions, decisionmaking power with respect to the disposition of the body. Id at 3. Since the state has taken on the role of allocating these benefits through the administration of marriage, we can see that denying two competent adults of the right to voluntarily enter into this arrangement is the denial of state conferred benefits and privileges. The Constitution does not permit such a denial without sufficient justification.
In contrast, the State’s argument for limiting legal marriage to two individuals rests on more solid ground. As noted above, the purpose of the state’s involvement in marriage is to efficiently apportion a large bundle of rights that stem from the exclusive involvement of two people. When one spouse is incapacitated and unable to make an important decision, the default position is that the decision is to be made by the remaining spouse. Although the default can certainly be contracted around by the creation of a power of attorney, the process by which every right bestowed by marriage could be independently created by contract would be expensive and unwieldy. The legal institution of marriage streamlines the process and eases the administrative difficulties that would otherwise result.
Unlike monogamous marriage, polygamous marriage would do little to help with administrative difficulties. Should the surviving two spouses disagree about a particular decision, the state would be required to intervene as each spouse would presumably have an equitable claim. This could be prevented, of course, by the careful designation of each individual responsibility to one or the other spouse at the outset of the marriage, but such a process would negate the purpose of legal marriage altogether. This option of careful contracting is already available to the polyamorous; there is no need to codify it through legislation.
Here’s a tip newbies: stay away from making arguments for Prop 8 that require the rule of law or legal theory to resolve (the legal consequences of marriage, what marriage is under the law, the role of voting in a representative republic, the definition of equal protection) and stick to your run of the mill “God wants marriage to only between a man and a woman” argument (even though the true prophet and founder of your religion disagreed with this position). This approach will only make you look like bigots rather than uneducated bigots.
we've struck some nerves!!!
clear now?
( Seems John A. has got the "them" are kerfuffled )
Notice how money/greed/$ gets them are kerfuffled?
LOL
http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/?t=anon
note to John: PLEASE drop this meme. you can't "convert" the dead. it doesn't matter how many buckets of water they "symbolically" pour over "stand ins" for dead people. conversions take place in a living human being's heart.
by continuing to flog this silly action by the LDS, you are (in my opinion) trivializing the bigger goal.
Face the facts, guys, the campaign against Prop 8 failed. You guys who are blaming the Mormons are just a bunch of haters.
What human right are you talking about? Last time I checked, the California Family Code (section 297.5) already guarantees registered domestic partners as having "the same rights,
protections, and benefits [...] as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."
The only right being lost here is the right to use the word "marriage."
One more question: What makes you think the Mormon Church is denying having funded the effort behind Prop 8?
You're not holding anyone accountable--you're hating.
I'm not hating or flaming here, although it seems that anyone who presents a dissenting opinion gets accused of it.
I'm just stating that the Mormons aren't responsible for passing Prop 8--they're a scapegoat for a failed campaign against it. It's not their fault.
Why don't we see any republicans protesting outside Barack Obama's place?
by the way, we haven't lost anything yet. The Supreme Court will now decide if your little vote was constitutional on the rights of this minority group!
Dear R. Watson,
Thank you for contacting us because it gives us a chance to state the facts regarding this issue. First and foremost, neither Marriott International nor its Chairman and CEO J.W. Marriott, Jr. in any way contributed toward California?s Proposition 8.
Marriott is a publicly traded company headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. It is not owned by any one individual or family nor is it controlled by any particular church or faith.
Marriott was built on the basic principles of respect and inclusion. The company welcomes and embraces all people as our customers, associates, owners and franchisees regardless of race, sex, gender identity or sexual orientation.
Twenty years ago, Marriott setup a formal diversity program and we are very proud of its accomplishments. We were among the first in our industry to offer domestic partner benefits, and we?ve earned a perfect 100% score on the Human Rights Campaign?s Corporate Equality Index for two years in a row. Many of our hotels have hosted LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender) community functions and events for years.
Marriott strongly supports and believes wholeheartedly in diversity as a guiding principle in the way the company does business everyday worldwide.
Again, we appreciate hearing from you and for giving us the chance to state the facts.
Regards,
Ricky Shae
Marriott Internet Customer Care
If Marriott would have their "Customer Care" department send out such false statements they are obviously scared.
What a bunch of sleaze bags.
______________________________________________________
Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT...
While Marriott DOES have a good HRC rating that does not insure that the upper level high paying jobs do not endure rampant discrimination. Most non-discrimination policies cover line employees however abuses at the management level are harder to track. Due to the nature of this particular business they are rarely prosecuted when they do occur for fear that the person bringing the suit will be permanently black-listed in the industry and therefore not be able to find another job.
My husband is a travel professional and he has stopped booking any Marriott brand properties even when customers request them. He also gets a nice discount at Marriott properties when we travel but we will pay full price elsewhere rather than have even a tiny fraction of the money we spend end up in the hands of the LDS.
Call it hate if you want but I'm not spending my money anywhere that I know it will end up in the hands of people working to take away my rights. I don't call that hate - I call that common sense.