Dixon later narrows it down, asking if "politically active" places should be polling places, but we know his fears - he states in the article that polling places should be "free of possible intimidation and manipulation," and we know that the right-wing has been painting unions to be a big group of thugs.
I had one question for the people of Big Government: "Should churches be polling places?"
I got a lot of feedback! The author, Ryan P. Dixon, even responded:
That comment while short is filled with ignorance and hypocrisy. I would like to inform Dixon of the passage of Califonia's Proposition 8 back in 2008, that was heavily backed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Proposition 8 stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," overturning a California supreme court ruling that invalidated a previous ban on same-sex marriages.
It’s no revelation how much the Mormon Church had to do with passage of Proposition 8. The sad thing about “8’’ is that its unrelenting partisanship can obscure just how shocking some of the details of the church’s involvement are. Two percent of Californians are Mormon, yet 71 percent of the funds backing passage of the proposition came from Mormon sources. In the last week of the campaign, $3 million in contributions came from Utah. That phrase much beloved of conservatives in the ’60s, outside agitators, takes on a whole new meaning.I guess facts like that don't really help make Dixon's case, but his supporters don't need facts. A vast majority of the comments focused on the thuggery of the SEIU, pointing out that churches don't intimidate voters or press their beliefs on those who go to cast their ballots. There were also comments pointing out that schools should be banned from being used as polling places because they are inherently biased - I find that argument strange because the commenters are willing to give biased churches a pass but not public schooling, and forget about mosques - the unwashed masses at Big Government believe Islam is a religion of violence, so undoubtedly, a mosque would be out of the question.
One thread had gone on to attempt to differentiate between churches and union halls by claiming churches were forced to get involved on Proposition 8 because it was a moral issue that entered the churches "realm." Here is the entire thread (pay particular notice to the end):
While debating the issue, Big Government decided to step in and moderate my comments despite showing no history of flaming (unlike the numerous comments documented by this website). Why would site administrators feel the need to censor my comments unless they did not like the fact that my thread threatened their entire argument against union halls.
The comment that is not displayed basically pointed out some other misconceptions Roger had regarding churches and unions - one being that unions are not mandatory, and the second point being that churches will probably not be forced to hire homosexuals simply because they can get married (I'm sure the church would be allowed to continue the tradition of "Don't Ask Don't Tell"). My comment pointed to the Supreme Court decision ten years ago that permitted the Boy Scouts of America to bar gays from leadership positions.
The justices by a 5-4 vote overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that the dismissal of a gay Scout leader had been illegal under the state's anti-discrimination law.I will keep readers updated as to whether or not my comments pass the censors at Big Government.
The Boy Scouts, which also exclude atheists and agnostics as leaders, said it has the right to decide who can join its ranks.
Forcing it to accept gays would violate its constitutional right of freedom of association and free speech under the First Amendment, it said.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed. He said for the court majority that applying a state public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit a gay troop leader violates the group's constitutional right of expressive association.
He added, however, "We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts' teaching with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong."
I just wanted to point out one other Ryan P. Dixon hypocrisy. On April 28th, Dixon wrote an article attacking union protesters of The Padre Hotel for not using unionized labor for a project.
These people that stand outside of businesses claim they are volunteers but are actually paid somewhere close to minimum wage, have little to no knowledge about the dispute, and have never actually worked for the business they are picketing.Now check out what Dixon wrote on January 19th regarding his involvement in the Massachussetts special election:
In part one I got them to admit they get paid to stand with the sign and not answer questions. When asked who they had voted for in the 2008 election they were proud to say that they voted for Barack Obama. Towards the end of the video I was getting taught how unions work, more to come.
Yesterday, I introduced myself and told my story about a half-dozen Californians who decided, at the last minute, to travel to Massachusetts to campaign for Scott Brown.Notice something? In the first article, Dixon accuses people not associated with the dispute involving themselves in the dispute. In the second article, Dixon states that he involved himself in a Massachusetts election despite being a resident of California. I'm sure those in support of Dixon will point out that the union protesters were not volunteers but paid protesters, but considering Dixon's little video diary appeared on Big Government, it would seem that Dixon is supported by outside interests as well.
Update - Three hours later, Big Government finally published my moderated comment...