Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is NOT about abortion. Pretend they are against alcohol and you work at a restaurant that serves it. Or even just eat there occasionally. What do you think of the METHODS?
Probably would be pretty effective. No one is going to dine at a restaurant that is being protested. But that isn't what is being protested. You put up an entire article about operation rescue and their methods, then you say it isn't about abortion. Don't be ridiculous. Of course it's about abortion.
But let me play Devil's advocate. Let's say the restaurant serves beef and the protesters are PETA members. If I were a waiter at Joe Blow's Steakhouse and you mail post cards to all my neighbors with pictures from a slaughter house and tell them that I support this sort of treatment of cows by working at a steakhouse, I might get a nasty comment or two from like minded neighbors. Maybe the guy who fixes my car doesn't want my business all of a sudden, or my barber tells me to go elsewhere. In the end, I'm going to get tired of living that way. Perhaps not right away, but at some point I'll decide it just isn't worth it. That's what protesting is designed to do. It causes people to engage in a conflict in which no physical blows are delivered but the effect is the same. Eventually someone tires of the fight.
Of course their is nothing preventing a counter protest. I just recently received an E-mail inviting me to participate in a counter protest. If the people associated with the clinic are tired of being the targets of protests, they have every right to turn the tables if they're able to garner enough support. The problem they have in Kansas is that the local population doesn't want abortion forced on them, so they support Operation Rescue.
You tried, Ceece, not much else you can do. The anti-abortion crowd has their spiel so well memorized that nearly any thread topic can be linked back
to abortion...in their minds. As for the article, I find it bizarre that anyone
would be subject to threats, stalking, dumpster-diving of their garbage, making public another person's address and phone number and harassing people with whom they have even the most tenuous connection far beyond
the pale. If fundamentalist Christians were suffering the same treatment due
to their actions...say, a pharmacist who refused to dispense the morning-after pill, they would be raising all kinds of commotion, you can bet on it.
Other than that, the crime of being deeply involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit torture against the law and against treaties. It's not necessary to have him charged - we all know what they did. The charges may never be made, but he's guilty nonetheless.
Unlike your baseless statement about Tiller. His actions are demonstrably legal - we have laws that say he can do exactly what he did.
So typical. No charges, no trial - they're just guilty cause you say so.
You would think if it were true the democratic congress would have done something - after all, they've been in charge since 2006 and with their lunatic fringe frothing about war crimes, they could have at least come up with something, don't you think?
It seems the good doctor have been a target of abortion protesters for a very good reason - he has killed about 60,000 babies and he's apparently not too picky when it comes to aborting kids.
Supposing they came to your neighborhood because you were gay and they wanted everyone to know, and said you were going to hell, and had big signs which showed you burning, and told everyone who had anything to do with you that thay would go to hell too because they weren't shunning you.
Now that you bring it up, the radical gay activists tactics after prop 8 passed must leave a sour taste in your mouth, right?
Outing people who supported the amendment, threatening their businesses, their jobs, intimidating and threatening people to recant.
Now that you bring it up, the radical gay activists tactics after prop 8 passed must leave a sour taste in your mouth, right?
Outing people who supported the amendment, threatening their businesses, their jobs, intimidating and threatening people to recant.
That must have really got you riled up....right?
Well, in my little opinion, I had every right to stop using businesses services that openly supported prop 8. I spend my money there, they use my money to donate to a cause I don't agree with. Simple. Considering my career is in purchasing and procurement, I can make a sizeable dent in companies I don't want to support. I never went to anyones business and told them to think it over or anything of the sort, I simply stopped all business with them.
I never participated in any harassment and neither did the 'no on 8' groups I was involved with. The groups I was involved with openly stated that we did not approve of those organizations which used harassment tactics to get their point across.
Until Dr. Tiller was killed, I didn't read any pro-life organizations that were against the methods that they used.
You tried, Ceece, not much else you can do. The anti-abortion crowd has their spiel so well memorized that nearly any thread topic can be linked back
to abortion...in their minds. As for the article, I find it bizarre that anyone
would be subject to threats, stalking, dumpster-diving of their garbage, making public another person's address and phone number and harassing people with whom they have even the most tenuous connection far beyond
the pale. If fundamentalist Christians were suffering the same treatment due
to their actions...say, a pharmacist who refused to dispense the morning-after pill, they would be raising all kinds of commotion, you can bet on it.
Thanks. Certain posters don't want to talk about anything, they just what to vomit all over the keyboard. I'm used to it since I've been active on forums for years.
Probably would be pretty effective. No one is going to dine at a restaurant that is being protested. But that isn't what is being protested. You put up an entire article about operation rescue and their methods, then you say it isn't about abortion. Don't be ridiculous. Of course it's about abortion.
But let me play Devil's advocate. Let's say the restaurant serves beef and the protesters are PETA members. If I were a waiter at Joe Blow's Steakhouse and you mail post cards to all my neighbors with pictures from a slaughter house and tell them that I support this sort of treatment of cows by working at a steakhouse, I might get a nasty comment or two from like minded neighbors. Maybe the guy who fixes my car doesn't want my business all of a sudden, or my barber tells me to go elsewhere. In the end, I'm going to get tired of living that way. Perhaps not right away, but at some point I'll decide it just isn't worth it. That's what protesting is designed to do. It causes people to engage in a conflict in which no physical blows are delivered but the effect is the same. Eventually someone tires of the fight.
Of course their is nothing preventing a counter protest. .
Now, is this the direction we want to go? Do we want everything, every issue, to be protest/counter protest/intimidation/harassment? What limits should be expect in order for everyone to live their lives quietly and hassle free? Since we will never all be on the same page about anything and when one issue is resolved (or no longer an issue) another will take it's place. I don't think anyone wants to see this happening over all differences of opinions no matter how strongly we feel about them.
Where I live they passed a law that prohibits protesting an residential areas. That is, nobody can protest outside someones home or in their neighborhood. If a business is doing something you don't like then that is where you take your protest. I belive protests need to focus on the issue, not the person. The tactics highlighted in the article were not peaceful protest, they were harassment plain and simple and should not be tolorated. I would also extend anti stalking laws to anyone who confronted someone about another persons actions (the taxi driver, the dry cleaner, the receptionist) or followed people around. And talking to kids, well, there is just no excuse for that. Kids should not be used for these purposes. I'm actually surprised the "parents rights" folks didn't jump on that but then I don't think many people actually read the article.The most important thing to me is to protect the right of law abiding citizens from overzealous protesters, no matter what the issue.
That is MY opinion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
