Craig says,

“Whether he ‘means’ to be racist or not with these comments, the fact is that they are racist, and his using them simply shows that his racism is so ingrained that he doesn’t even realise when he’s being racist, bigoted and ignorant. And that is perhaps even scarier.”

To which Leta says, right on!

In regard to the glorious First Amendment: I love the First Amendment. I don’t generally believe in censorship, I believe the best defense to bad ideas are better ideas. And I think that’s what’s happening here. People are recognizing that someone who is supposed to represent their interests is, in fact, merely a fountain of bad ideas and stupid thoughts, being as how bigotry is both bad and stupid.

The First Amendment defense is the one people use when they have no other way to excuse their statements. Sadly, in this way the First Amendment has become the last refuge of child pornographers and racists alike. A good, logical statement doesn’t need to be defended with, “This is free country! I can say what I want!”

And, “lynch mob”? COME ON. Merely further proof that Buttars is CLUELESS about using racially charged language. No one is suggesting Buttars be hanged or mutilated or burned alive- which is what a lynch mob does. Literally, not rhetorically. We are merely suggesting he lose his job, which is entirely constitutional and correct, as ALL public servants lose employment upon whim of the public.

As for someone like Don Imus, he too is employed only at the behest of the audience, i.e., that same public. The government and the entertainers generally need to give the people what they want, or they don’t last too long.

It seems ridiculous to assert that Buttars (or Imus, FTM) said something nasty, and should be ignored, but those who speak out against his nastiness should be silent, or else we’re slandered, too, as murderous gang of thugs.

As a final note, the First Amendment isn’t absolute, and invoking it’s authority will not save your job should you say stuff that your employer (or constituancy) doesn’t like. See, um, Jon’s wife, for example.

If Buttars admits it’s a bad statement, he’s pretty clear on why it’s bad. He’s just too much of a cheesehead to stop defending it. He’s spewing the same bullshit as “truth speaker” - equating an appalling choice of words with something innocuous like “black mark”.

If you’re capable of putting the words ugly and black baby together in any context, particularly in a country with a relatively fresh history of slavery and apartheid, that makes you more than an asshole. It makes you a clueless idiot.

To equate what Buttars said with a phrase as innocuous as “black mark” or words like “blackboard” or blackmail” doesn’t fly. But this is the tack the white supremacists, assorted racists, and rednecks (like Buttars) take to defend their right to say any damn thing they please. Buttars is an old fart and for a lot of years he’s said a lot of things and gotten away with it. He’s experiencing a rude awakening.

As far as this free speech bullshit is concerned, Buttars obviously was free to say it because he said it. Now that the shit’s hitting the fan because most people find such a statement hateful and bigoted, the whiners are coming out of the woodwork shrieking that their free speech rights have been violated. No….what’s happening is people are reacting and that that’s their right. If you’re going to say hateful things about a race of people, shit will hit the fan. Expect it and have the guts to face it.

(Interestingly it’s usually these same rednecks who have freaked every time someone has criticized Bush for his war policies. They love free speech all right…as long as it’s their speech that’s protected.)

The bill in question came to be known on the Senate floor as the “bad baby bill” because of one Senator’s comparison of the bill (a measure to spread education construction costs across the entire state regardless of local tax base or educational spending) to the baby brought to King Solomon in the famous Old Testament parable. The one Solomon sarcastically suggested should be cut in half as a solution to the problem.

Then Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, followed up, dubbing it “the ugly baby bill”. Buttars, to clarify Stephenson’s description said…

“Senator Stephens [sic], this baby is black, it is a dark, ugly thing.” (http://kvnuforthepeople.com/?p=1477)

Buttars’ words were very much in the context of an actual human baby.

This is not the same as saying someone has a black heart or in saying that someone has a black mark on their record.

you are a hypocrite liar who publicly preaches free speech (except when it is something with which you disagree)but who really hates open discourse.

let’s see how stupid you people really are: (rules of the truly stupid souless morons):

1. anyone who might say, “hey, you have a black mark on your {record}{shirt} {soul}” is a racist devil to be destroyed.
If i say “that black mark on your record is one ugly baby” I should have my gonads removed by a team of man hating lesbian trasgendered half elf midgets with a speech impediment.

Pay attention to which media outlets are pumping up this story. These are the enemies of free speech.

2. Only black people can use the word “lynched”, even if they live in Lynchberg, Tenn. or Lynchberg, Va. And they should be fired if they aren’t black. All whites who are named Lynch must be sent to a concentration camp run by …. you get the idea.

3. If i say “white lie” I am a racist who must be destroyed, unless I am a homo, woman, oriental, indio, or….anything besides a white male.

This reminds me of the lynching of Don Imus. And that was concocted to discipline the talk show host roster to not speak ill of Hillary.

Seems this current operation is designed to derail buttars efforts (may god bless him) to stop the deviant marriage registry in slc.

I understand your unease and criticism about how the church has handled race issues in the past. In fact, I would go so far as to say is the #1 problem contributing to my husband’s activity (and he’s white, by the way). It’s a difficult, sensitive subject that was and has been handled poorly. But these are just human beings running the church (and chuch members especially need to remember this!).

P.S. If you’re talking about the federal appeals court to which the state of Utah belongs, they are circuits (not districts). There is a federal district court for northern Utah, and after that there is the appeals level for which there are circuits. If you weren’t talking about the 10th circuit court, then sorry for this belabored explanation.

No problem. Its a somewhat new usage (i.e. likely coined in the past 5-8 years or so). It wasn’t offensive, just odd to see it used like that. I’ve lived in Utah for years and have been mormon all my life, and have never heard “Mo” being used in place of “Mormon”.

I don’t know that this incident had directly anything to do with the LdS church, but the Mormon culture, especially that in Utah is far too permissive with such things (racism, homophobia, bigotry).