Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,940 Excellent

About Daniel2

  • Rank
    Culturally-Mormon Gay Dad
  • Birthday 01/01/1973

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3,640 profile views
  1. My posting here has dwindled of late as many of the topics I’m most interested and involved in have declined (which I imagine may likely be viewed as a relief to some/many 😉 ), and as other gospel-centered topics have filled the front page, I debated whether or not to even share this post. After reflection, I felt that this article would (hopefully) be met with at least some positive reactions by active members of the board, in that I think it’s topic seeks to bring balance to the divisive debate over speech vs. equal protections. From what I read of the court’s ruling and as reported below, I agree with them entirely. On the other hand, I personally find the quotations of the gay activist to be entirely disingenuous and distasteful, let alone severely misguided and outright wrong in his approach. (The second link at the bottom by the BBC has photos of the Bert and Ernie “Support Gay Marriage” cake). I share this with the hope of bringing balance and a peaceful truce we can all live with in the future here in the states.
  2. Daniel2

    Here We Go Again

    When when your only argument left is.... “Yeah, but religion is in the constitution!,” but is bereft of any other substance, I already know that my rationale and reason will ultimately triumph. Thanks for proving my point.
  3. Daniel2

    Here We Go Again

    Religious affiliation—> nonhereditary based on environment and/or choice.
  4. Daniel2

    Here We Go Again

    By your own logic then, in the case of abortion, it’s her body/baby, her choice, then, right?
  5. Daniel2

    Here We Go Again

    Hm. Based on the title, I clicked on this thread excited to revel in and share my love for the new sequel: “Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again”! Bummer.
  6. This bill has been discussed on the board before, and I'm happy to report that the lawmaker willingly withdrew the bill of his own accord, despite it being on the verge of passing, to re-work the bill after meeting with religious leaders to address at least some of their concerns. While I don't imagine that either side may be fully 100% happy with any future re-worked version, I give him kudos for his sincere efforts to work towards a more mutual decision. Assemblyman Low has earned my respect. The Los Angeles Times reports: Low acknowledged his decision was unconventional, when he almost certainly had the votes to win final approval. “Some would say this is crazy,” he said. “Why would you pause when you don’t need to, when you’re in the driver’s seat?” Low said he had no signs of opposition from Gov. Jerry Brown. Neither did Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California, the LGBTQ advocacy group that co-sponsored the bill, who expressed confidence that Brown — whom he called “the most pro-LGBTQ governor in the state’s history” — would sign it. Zbur said he believed the bill clearly would not ban the Bible or otherwise impede religious practice, as opponents had feared. Still, he said additional time would let them “tinker with the bill to make very clear that these false assertions the other side is making are not accurate.” Assemblyman Low has earned my respect. D
  7. A thousand times this. Thank you, Analytics. Smac likes to play this seemingly as a skirmish of semantics which he twists to try to make a compelling point, but refuses to acknowledge or accept the basic findings of the case. Thank you for taking the time to point out the actual law, especially given that not all of us have the time to do so.
  8. Daniel2

    An Apology to Gay Latter-day Saints

    Yes, I and many of my friends and acquaintances use LGBT+, as well. The + acknowledges others in the tapestry without needing to name them all, as does the term “sexual minorities.”
  9. Daniel2

    An Apology to Gay Latter-day Saints

    From my perspective, this really doesn’t seem that hard. When addressing those who’s views or self-identifying labels don’t match our own: If someone refers to themselves as Mormon/LDS, it’s respectful to use those terms in reference to said individual(s). If someone refers to themselves as members of the Church of Jesus Christ (or uses the full name of the church), it’s respectful to use that term in reference to said individual(s). If someone refers to themselves as having SSA/same-sex attraction and/or as being same-sex-attracted, it’s respectful to use that term in reference to said individual(s). If someone refers to themselves as gay or lesbian, it’s respectful to use that term in reference to said individual(s). if someone drescribes themselves as a man, woman, transman, transwoman, transgender, or whatever pronoun they use, it’s respectful to use that term in reference to said individuals. I think it’s respectful to refer to someone’s significant other however they themselves refer to their significant other (boyfriend/girlfriend/partner/spouse/husband/wife/fiancé, fiancée, etc.) When speaking generally about communities where multiple nouns are or may be used, I think it’s ok to acknowledge more than one label (such as “...LDS members who are LGBT/experience SSA”...) I know many people on religious boards like this like to make a big deal about the growing number of letters in the often-named “LGBTQ+ alphabet soup.” While I know and understand there are vocal members of the LGBT community who are fiercely vehement about naming a letter for every sexual minority, virtually no one I know expects or demands that entire list of letters be used in casual conversations. “LGBTQ+” and “all sexual minorities” are the two that I most often employ in casual conversations, and I’ve never been called out on using those two shorthand designations because they’re still inclusive.
  10. I don’t believe your analysis is quite how the law will view the answer to those same questions and will find that a pink cake with blue frosting isn’t inherently expressive under the actual legally-interpretations of the qualifications and definitions you listed.
  11. Oh, c’mon, Smac. I have not “insisted you explain Liberty Counsel’s position.” I asked you why you thought they didn’t include your rationale in their case. You said you didn’t know and haven’t talked to them. I responded by saying that since the Liberty Counsel’s well-funded and highly organized and experienced legal team (who has spent years combing through legal precedent to try to apply to their case to help their client win) didn’t use any of the precedent you’re bringing up in defense of their their case, then I don’t feel a need to, either. Fuether, given that every other federal, appellate, and Supreme Court Justice didn’t bring songs up as comparable to cakes in any ruling I’m aware of, then I don’t feel the need to, either. You’ve created a strawman arguement about songs and ownership thereof to being tantamount or at least analogous to baking a pink cake with blue frosting. The two issues are entirely different. Jack Phillips is on record saying he’s MORE than willing to bake cakes for anyone regardless of their identity. Customers in his shop can choose the color of their cake and frosting. A customer asked for a pink and blue cake. No expressive or offensive symbols, no song lyrics, not a shred of anything even closely resembling “inherently expressive speech.” A flippen’, fetchin’ pink cake with blue frosting. Until, of course, the client mentioned what the cake symbolically means to her, and Jack Phillips/his staff disagrees with her interpretation. Then they wouldn’t. The nature or expressiveness of the pink cake with blue frosting didn’t change—it’s the SAME dang cake he’d happily bake for anyone else—but Jack Phillips refuses because of what that cake means to someone else. I believe that’s clearly discrimination, and predict the courts will, too.
  12. If a pink cake with blue frosting were presented to a group of people, what’s the message it’s conveying? How is that cake a form of speech in any rational sense?
  13. Yeah. I agree that’s probably what they would likely say. I’m not the ACLU, and I disagree with their attempts to appeal that ruling. We’ll see how successful they are. In that case, it sounds like you and I would be in agreement.
  14. If the high profile, highly paid, strongly motivated, exceptionally thorough Liberty Counsel lawyers arguing the case on behalf of the plaintiffs didn’t find the points you made compelling enough to make them at any point in their proceedings, and no judges at any appellate or Supreme Court level referenced them as legally compelling or salient to the proceedings over years of litigation, I don’t feel the need to address them, either. Perhaps you can call Liberty Counsel and share your assertions and suggest they employ them in their defense of Masterpience’s current lawsuit and we’ll all see how well they fare in court...?