Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

318 Excellent

About kllindley

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

459 profile views
  1. I can see the ways that the cases are not exactly the same as employment and public accommodations entail different elements. I'm not trying to be needlessly argumentative. I hope along with you and others that, overall, the courts continue to be consistent in their application of the law. Maybe the few problems I'm seeing are unfortunate exceptions that will become increasingly rare and equally condemned. I recognize and own my tendency to be pessimistic in issues like this. At least then when things go well, I'm pleasantly surprised rather than devastated when the world fails to meet my ideals.
  2. Ok. I do believe the government had the ability to tell the owner of Piggie Park that he couldn't deny selling goods and services to black people. I also believe that they have the ability to tell the Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner that he can't deny service to a same-sex couple. I just don't think that it is a good idea, politically or morally. I don't believe that the Hands-On-Originals case is over, as the Kentucky Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal from the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission. Nothing has happened to Ben Borgman, owner of Bedlam Coffee, though he may get a letter telling him that the law doesn't allow him to do what he did. I see inconsistent application or the standard. Thank you for providing the context from ThinkProgress. I can see many religious/social conservatives agreeing with "It would be wrong for [any couple] to [be denied service] merely because of [their homosexual] orientation - but it's also understandable why a [business with openly religious employees that is trying to cultivate a faithful environment would be wary of participating in a ceremony that is directly contrary to his beliefs.] By the way, I think it is interesting that one interview, given in 2011, is enough to classify as an "extremely vocal position."
  3. I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here at all. How is this case connected to my skepticism that the courts will likewise protect Ms. LeNoir?
  4. I appreciate your logical consistency. I admit that I am pessimistic that other LGBT voices or the Court will follow your lead. I haven't read any other LGBT voices that condemned Bedlam Coffee either. While numerous individuals and prominent outlets praised the owner for his moral courage. However, I do acknowledge that there are likely others who feel and think similarly to you. Sadly, that message is not especially prominent.
  5. So, Daniel, help me understand "the attitudes or behaviors of any of [your] LGBT friends, coworkers, and acquaintances," and "[your] own beliefs and approach to the subject." Is this the sort of thing that we should just get used to or simply another "unfortunate incident?" This former professional women's basketball player was denied employment because of her sexual orientation and religious beliefs. If understandable and appropriate, please explain please explain how this is not an example of discrimination based on sexual orientation. If an unfortunate incident, it will be reasonable to expect many LGBT voices speaking up against this injustice. I guess we'll see if that actually happens.
  6. Scrutinizing general conference

    I feel like our other conversation was cut short. I will register my opinion that the teachings from the documents you have posted are consistent with present teachings. I accept that such a conclusion requires some assumptions about the true intent and meaning behind those writings that not everyone is comfortable accepting.
  7. Scrutinizing general conference

    Rock, I acknowledge that you are not alone in your interpretation of the past writings. Please do not make the mistake of claiming that your perspective is the only correct one. I'm not dismissing your personal study and prayer. But please don't dismiss mine, either. With all due respect, I think I have you beat in terms of both personal involvement and sheer time. Not that my conclusions are more correct. But I am certainly not disregarding or blithely re-interpreting. I have taken each other quotes and documents that you cite and shown how they really aren't that far removed from current teachings. The wording of the past would be woefully inadequate today. So, yes, thankfully the wording has changed to better fit popular understanding.
  8. I do feel a need to apologize for my tone earlier. I understand that there are differing interpretations of past comments and different ways to view situations. The purpose of my comments and counter-arguments is not so much to prove that you are wrong and that I am right, or to convince you to change your mind. Rather I admit that I feel a need to also present a differing perspective of active LGBT members who are at peace with the Church and its history. This is particularly because I do see the common language around LGBT issues as marginalizing and invalidating this experience. (Though I will also admit that the language from "orthodox" members and social conservatives is often equally minimizing and invalidating.) Thank you for your understanding as well.
  9. It does speak of helping individuals with "homosexual tendencies or activities." And then clearly addresses helping people overcome "the practice." Again, I'm also glad that the language is better. It is described as a "dread practice" and a "despicable practice" (although it is not clear if the latter is just referring to sodomy) Though I also notice that they state that: "They must not be unduly embarrassed. Their repentance and reformation cannot be forced-it can only come by kind persuasion." and "There are many approaches-they must all be kindly and understanding."
  10. I agree that the tone is more compatible with current ways of discussing the issue.
  11. To suggest that the document you cite does not suggest individual and unique suggestions is ridiculous! To quote page 2: Again if you look at the original document, (page one) it specifically identifies homosexuality as a "practice." Multiple times!
  12. This is from the current Pamphlet regarding Same-Gender Attraction According to Elder Holland Elder Oaks:
  13. Scott, you're breaking the rule of never mentioning any distinction of sexual or romantic attraction, behavior, orientation, and identity! We must always interpret all things related to sexual orientation as being about the person's entire identity as a human. That's how some people understand it now, so that must be how it is and how it's always been, regardless of the alleged science and history.
  14. Yes. Thank you for catching it. A minority of individuals who identified as "gay" later revealed an exclusively homosexual orientation.