Seems to me if you can't produce reasonable evidence that something exists then it's evidently reasonable to make fun of people believing in those things. That's why Parker and Stone have been so successful. Religion is based on absurdity and is used to make people do absurd things. If LDS members have been upset that they aren't getting the respect they “deserve” then they need to up their segregation game. You're not a big player in the religion market until you openly participate in separating huge amounts of people to the point that they hate each other over essentially unimportant issues. Could proposition 8 be their attempt at making it to the big time? Looks like.

The difference is that the individual Jews and Muslims (and others) who are overtly intolerant are part of a minority fringe. With the Church of Latter Day Saints, it seems to be coming from the broader organization itself. ANYONE who actively seeks to deprive others' human rights is rightly decried, and in this instance, that includes the organization as a whole. If there are individual Mormons who disagree with the organization, they should speak up and/or leave; otherwise people who choose to protest gays' disenfranchisement have every right to target such individuals with lawful acts of protest.

I find it very interesting that a South Park episode showing a brief image of Mohamed was deemed insensitive and hateful — and thus censored by Comedy Central — and yet South Park can make entire episodes — and apparently musicals — parodying/ridiculing other belief systems without so much as a slight shaking of the finger from the general public. Being LDS is rather difficult. The Jews can cry “anti-semitic” when they've been offended and Muslims can talk about imperialistic cultural insensitivities. What can we cry? Nothing. Because we've never been killed in large groups, because we don't have a violent orthodox wing ready to murder in the name of God, and because we don't have any famous members to go cry on Oprah we're free game. South Park's social commentary is always walking the fine line between humorous parody and vulgar harassment. In this case I think they've crossed the line.