Jump to content

Daniel2

Contributor
  • Content count

    2,860
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,650 Excellent

About Daniel2

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Utah

Recent Profile Visitors

2,683 profile views
  1. I know it's entirely beside the main point of this thread, but I just wanted to say that I disagree that Brokeback Mountain "justifies or rationalizes" adultery. As someone who lived through similar circumstances, it was gut-wrenching to watch in it's honest and realistic portrayal of the tragic ramifications for ALL concerned (including the husbands, the wives, and any children involved) that come from making such profound mistakes, and served as a powerful testament to the tragedy that results from all of those associated behaviors. I know many other individuals like myself, and all feel similar in that regard. It was both painful and therapeutic to watch as we all saw the effects of the pain and suffering we caused ourselves and others portrayed so keenly on screen. I still respect that it's a personal choice to watch any given film, but I wanted to at least correct any misperception (at least in my mind) that Brokeback Mountain glorified, rationalized, or excused anything along the lines of adultery.
  2. Circumcision

    Wow. Learn something new every day! I had no idea the skin was fused to the glans until puberty--and that's even though we decided not to circumcise my own son (I never looked THAT close at him), even if he ended up not looking like me. Decided it was time to be the transitional character to break the cultural cycle.
  3. Circumcision

    Same.
  4. Circumcision

    Great post, Scott!!! I wanted to take advantage of an opportunity to acknowledge we completely agree on something.
  5. Sorry, I don’t follow... that anyone would believe what....?
  6. I completely understand and respect that this musical is NOT going to appeal to devout members of the LDS Faith. I would never, ever recommend devout, Orthodox members of said church go see it--it deals with issues that most would find so objectionable they'd walk out of it within the first 15 min or so. However, in answer to your question above, Smac: Yes. Many of those of us who were laughing throughout The Book of Mormon musical spent 24 months as volunteers overseas... and many of us have spent huge amounts of time learning first-hand about other languages, customs, cultures, etc. Because The Book of Mormon: The Musical is actually the story of FORMER members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, many of us who served missions ourselves, and can both identify and find humor in aspects of our own spiritual journey that parallel the events on stage. Mormons themselves acknowledge that missionaries are the "small and simple" things that bring to pass that which is a "marvelous work and a wonder." What you decry as a false conceit, many of us remember with a wistful fondness--not as the "buffoons" you lament, but in marveling at the naivety we feel we once possessed in believing we knew better than most. Having seen it three times, it's clear to me that it's creators did enough research into LDS culture that they knew that from incorporating the level of profanity alone would be enough evidence to demonstrate the play was never intended to be geared toward devout Mormons from the get go. I understand that virtually everything I wrote in the proceeding paragraph won't resonate or appeal to devout Latter-day Saints; it entirely contradicts your worldview and the mantel that adherents believe falls upon the shoulders of young men going forth to serve. But don't kid yourself that those of us who laugh and find joy and hope in the story of "The Book of Mormon" inherently hate Mormons or Mormonism. I still stop and offer them a ride anywhere I see them on the street, or buy their groceries when I see them at Smith's. I still chuckle as they stand on my doorway testifying that I surely must know the decisions I've made in my life are of the devil. That's the kind of naïve assurance that Elder Price embodies. And there's nothing wrong with having it, nor is there anything wrong with looking back on it and finding the humor in it.
  7. It's been a slow few weeks with regards to the Masterpiece Cake Shop, largely because the deadline for amici briefs in support of the Petitioner, Masterpiece Cakes, had passed (which was early in September) and the bevy of briefs in the bakers' support had ended. Previous comments on the site have focused on the briefs in support of the Petitioners and how compelling and convincing they were. At the time, only one side---that in support of the Petitioner--had been filed. For those interested in reading them, here they are: Aug 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, et al. filed. Aug 31 2017 Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed) Aug 31 2017 Brief of petitioners Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al. filed. Aug 31 2017 Brief amici curiae of Indiana Family Institute, Inc., et al. filed. Sep 01 2017 Brief amici curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation, et al. filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amici curiae of Rev. Patrick Mahoney, et al. filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Thomas More Society filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amici curiae of Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., et al. filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Independence Law Center filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amici curiae of North Carolina Values Coalition and the Family Research Council filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amici curiae of Law and Economics Scholars filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Liberty Counsel filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of National Black Religious Broadcasters, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of William Jack and The National Center for Law and Policy filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Mark Regnerus, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Cake Artists in support of neither party filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Agudath Israel of America filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of 33 Family Policy Organizations filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of International Christian Photographers and Center for Arizona Policy filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and National Organization for Marriage filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of 34 Legal Scholars filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Sherif Girgis filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Public Advocate of the United States, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Christian Business Owners Supporting Religious Freedom filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Richard Lawrence filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of United States Senators and Representatives filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of American College of Pediatricians, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of C 12 Group, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice in support of neither party filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Aaron and Melissa Klein filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs ("COLPA") filed on behalf of Orthodox Jewish Organizations filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Legal Scholar Adam J. MacLeod filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Professors Christopher R. Green and David R. Upham filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Freedom X and Rabbi Dovid Bressman filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of 479 Creative Professionals filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Restoring Religious Freedom Project filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of First Amendment Lawyers Association filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of States of Texas, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of CatholicVote.org filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Concerned Women for America filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of National Legal Foundation, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of David Boyle in support of neither party filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Christian Law Association filed. Sep 08 2017 Brief amici curiae of Utah Republican State Senators filed. The amici briefs in support of the Respondents (The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Charlie Craig, and David Mullins) were due by the end of October. The defense of Public Accommodations laws prohibiting discriminatory actions like Masterpiece Cakes is seeking by the Colorado's Civil Rights Commission in its brief is phenomenal as it is extensively documented. I'm still getting through it, but it's well worth a read and can be found by clicking on the following link: BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT: COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION Again, for those interested, here now are the briefs in support of the Respondents. In case any of the links aren't working or don't transfer, here's the link to them all on the SCOTUS blog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/ Oct 23 2017 Brief of respondent Colorado Civil Rights Commission filed. (Distributed) Oct 23 2017 Brief of respondents Charlie Craig and David Mullins filed. (Distributed) Oct 25 2017 Brief amici curiae of Legal Scholars in Support of Equality filed. (Distributed) Oct 25 2017 Brief amici curiae of Freedom of Speech Scholars filed. (Distributed) Oct 26 2017 Brief amici curiae of Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders and American Society on Aging filed. (Distributed) Oct 26 2017 Brief amici curiae of American Unity Fund, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 26 2017 Brief amici curiae of Scholars of the Constitutional Rights and Interests of Children filed. (Distributed) Oct 27 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Freedom From Religion Foundation filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Motion of Chris Sevier, et al. for leave to intervene DENIED. Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of 15 Faith and Civil Rights Organizations filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Motion of John Gunter, Jr., et al. for leave to intervene DENIED. Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of First Amendment Scholars filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Center for Inquiry, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of National Women's Law Center and Other Groups filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Chefs, Bakers, and Restaurateurs filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Church-State Scholars filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Transgender Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Colorado Organizations and Individuals filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of OutServe-SLDN, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of American Psychological Association, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Floyd Abrams, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Main Street Alliance, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Thirty-Seven Businesses and Organizations filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Ilan H. Meyer, PhD, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Central Conference of American Rabbis, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Corporate Law Professors filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Civil Rights Forum filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Professor Tobias B. Wolff filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of 211 Members of Congress filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Former Representative Tony Coelho, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of National LGBTQ Task Force, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Canadian Civil Liberties Association, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Public Accommodation Law Scholars filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Service Employees International Union filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Scholars of Behavioral Science and Economics filed. (Reprinted Copy Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Massachusetts, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of County of Santa Clara, Cities of New York and Los Angeles, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of National League of Cities, et al. filed. (Distributed)
  8. You must have a different definition of “slanderous” than the dictionary and I do: slan·der·ous ˈslandərəs/ adjective adjective: slanderous (of a spoken statement) false and malicious. "slanderous allegations" synonyms: defamatory, denigratory, disparaging, libelous, pejorative, false, misrepresentative, scurrilous, scandalous, malicious, abusive, insulting; informalmudslinging "slanderous accusations" All of which seem to me to be perfectly applicable to your accusations and tone. No, Calm’s post didn’t provide evidence of what you implied and I asked for evidence of... It didn’t indicate (at least, from what we’ve read yet) that the couple had targeted the owner only to sue instead of threatening to sue if they were denied services, and it’s unclear if it was done “on accident” or as a means to encourage the photographer to comply. His/her post was a lot of second-hand hearsay about something he didn’t read firsthand, and hasn’t yet posted the context or actual text of (though I hope that’s forthcoming, as per my last post). Interesting that you find the “example” in Cal’s post to be “sufficient.” I’d wager if I sincerely tried to support any of my points with a story I’d heard from a friend about an email they received but which I’d never read myself and the result of which (a.k.a. money-seeking litigation) I have no evidence of actually happening, I’d be laughed out of the thread, just as anyone would who’d try to use such “evidence” as support for anything substantive. Best to you, and have an enjoyable day. D
  9. Interesting. I don’t doubt people threaten to sue businesses on a regular basis for a variety of reasons. I can understand them threatening to sue in the hope of encouraging her to change her mind. That doesn’t mean their request wasn’t benign to begin with, though. Is there any evidence their initial request was a concerted, conscious effort to preemptively identify Christian businesses with the sole intent to litigiously profit from them financially, instead of stemming from an ernest attempt to find a wedding photographer? Additionally, how does your friend know it was truly sent ‘on accident’...? It seems possible the couple feigned ‘accidentally’ ccing her in the hope that she’d change her mind and decide to serve them... Did they follow through on that perceived threat—Is your friend facing a lawsuit? Or did she photograph the wedding? Any chance you can get a copy of the email and share it?
  10. Strange that out of one side of your mouth, you decry alleged money-hungry, litigation-prone gays and lesbians, while taunting me to sue you out of the other. No... Even though you're comfortable implying slanderous motives to people like me without having any specific examples, I won't be suing you. As I've already said, litigation isn't something I'd want to waste my time and energy on. It requires too much effort (not to mention the financial cost) to carry around that much negative emotion and energy, and the toll on my own emotional core to drum up that much resentment towards someone isn't worth it.
  11. Hey, Jeanne, Not sure if you saw it, but I wrote a public message on your feed in your profile since I can't seem to send you a PM... http://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/16980-jeanne/ (and scroll down a few posts to see mine). Thanks! Daniel
  12. AAAAAaaaaarggghhhhhh,.... The failure of the "quote" feature is going to be the death of me... ha! In response to your last comment saying, "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." I think the difference here is we're talking two different cases with two different requirements; one is operating under the laws saying you can't deny goods and services based on a protected class, but the other is saying you can't discriminate in employment considerations based on a protected class. While they deal with similar issues of discrimination, what the law requires in each case is not the same. A business cannot discriminate in considering applications for employment against what an individual believes. A business owner cannot discriminate in deciding which member of the general of the public he will sell his products to. Even allowing for the similarities, though, the sentence you choose to paraphrase isn't a statement of actual law. While we may understand that the University "may be wary" of Ms. Lenoir's beliefs, they still can't discriminate on the basis of those beliefs---presumably, they'd have to have other circumstances by which to rescind the verbal offer. And I agree--a 6-year-old interview isn't necessarily "extremely vocal."
  13. I'm glad to see you are also likewise consistent in how you apply the law. From what I understand, yes, the "Hands On Originals" case would have to be appealed to the Kentucky State Court before it could possibly reach SCOTUS. Based on the information I can find, Bedlam Coffee will be receiving the same warning letter that other businesses received, such as Arlene's Flowers. However, I'm not sure that there's yet been an inconsistent application of the standard as you suggest, because the other businesses chose to either ignore and continued to defy (which, again, I can understood were viewed to be acts of civil disobedience) the ordinances, or suspended services while pursuing the promotion of their views (as Masterpiece Cakes did) and hoping to prevail in court (here's the citation of the article I quote in support of this, below). However, the owner of Bedlam Coffee has suggested he doesn't deny services to Christians; he claims it was the offensive nature of the proselyting behaviors and speech of this particular group. I haven't heard of any additional complaints yet, or a desire on his part to continue to deny services to Christians in general.
  14. Hey, Jeanne,

    I just wanted to send a personal thank you for your thoughtful kindness on the board today. I tried to send you a message, but it said I'm unable to do so... is your message box deactivated?

    I appreciate the sensitivity, compassion, and grace you bring to many discussions here on the site. 

    I'm aware of just some of your circumstances and struggles; bless you for finding a way to grow through them, instead of allowing them to prune back the beauty you offer to the world!

    Best regards,

    Daniel

    1. Jeanne

      Jeanne

      Thank you so much for taking the time to respond.  I so admire you and wish many good things.  I envy your relationship as I am a lonely one.

      Enjoy this companionship...and know that God is with you.

       

  15. I don't know... As someone who looks back with deep regret over the wasted years of time, energy, and money I spent in some legal actions around my divorce and custody matters (despite the legal gains I made), I personally try to avoid court like the plague. Do you have any actual evidence besides what seems like hoodwinking innuendo that "a militant gay or lesbian (or two) would actually seek out a religiously devout service provider actually hoping that the provider, on religious grounds, would refuse"? Any specific case, admission, or any relevant evidence at all that that has actually happened.............??? D
×