Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Emerging Skirmishes along the "Religious Freedom" vs "LGBT Civil Rights" as related to Mormonism


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I'm still looking for that gay wedding cake.

Try rainbow cake..:wub:  Though oddly the rainbow once was a Protestant sign, Remember "gay" was once what Fred and Barney were having and no one associated it with homosexuality. Am I seeing a trend here? Marriage was once only between a man and a woman ----- hands down (only yesterday)

Edited by LittleNipper
Link to comment
9 hours ago, california boy said:

I would like to know how many others on this board support bringing back segregation like little upper here.  Scott?  SMAC?  Glenn?  All you others that are ok with bringing back segregation?   

 

Or or are willing to condemn such attitudes

What do you mean by segregation? Would you be for for opening Public school with Bible reading and singing America the Beautiful or God Bless America? There are no easy answers here. Sometimes someone will be offended no matter what ---- but what is the ultimate cost to society if we continue to head in the direction we are presently headed?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Gray said:

Nazis aren't a protected class. You can't discriminate based on race, gender, religion, age, veteran status, and in some states sexual orientation. 

There are Neo Nazis throughout the United States. I don't agree with their rhetoric; however, they have freedom of thought and speech like everyone else. And if Nazis are not protected who is doing the selecting? We as citizens are not setting up the lists ----- perhaps only the government is making the choices? Does that mean that protected classes can change on a whim or as fashion dictates?

Link to comment
On 12/13/2016 at 9:46 AM, bluebell said:

Bakeries tell gay couples that they will bake them a wedding cake and treat them with the utmost respect and curtesy but that every dime of profit they make from their wedding will immediately go towards anti-SSM fundraising.

Chances of any gay couple wanting such a bakery to bake them a cake are practically zero.

Or just cook for them overcooked or undercooked cakes.  If was a baker and I was forced to bake something that I did not want to back, you better believe I would get my revenge one way or another.

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Or just cook for them overcooked or undercooked cakes.  If was a baker and I was forced to bake something that I did not want to back, you better believe I would get my revenge one way or another.

And end up ruining your reputation for quality and end up going out of business.

I wonder if there was some way to make it acceptable by giving a significant discount if the baker chooses not to deliver whatever the event is.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Or just cook for them overcooked or undercooked cakes.  If was a baker and I was forced to bake something that I did not want to back, you better believe I would get my revenge one way or another.

What about the poor pizza shop that has to cook and deliver pizza's to an LDS Young Men's activity even though they don't believe in Mormonism?   I sure hope they are getting their revenge as well!

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Or just cook for them overcooked or undercooked cakes.  If was a baker and I was forced to bake something that I did not want to back, you better believe I would get my revenge one way or another.

I don't know that being that passive/aggressive would be a good idea. 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

What about the poor pizza shop that has to cook and deliver pizza's to an LDS Young Men's activity even though they don't believe in Mormonism?   I sure hope they are getting their revenge as well!

I am sure almost all pizza shops don't know what the occasion is they cook the pizza for.  People just call and order a bunch of pizzas. Nothing is told to them beyond it.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Calm said:

And end up ruining your reputation for quality and end up going out of business.

I wonder if there was some way to make it acceptable by giving a significant discount if the baker chooses not to deliver whatever the event is.

Not necessarily.  If I make 100 cakes and of them I did a bad job on one of them, the 99 good cakes will be enough to keep the reputation good.   It even gets more dicey if one was a photographer.  One does not have to do much to make poor pictures.  They don't have to be horrible just not great ones.  Its a basic thing I go with.  One might be able to force me to do something against my will BUT my efforts will only meet the minimum and not 1% beyond that. 

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to comment
1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Not necessarily.  If I make 100 cakes and of them I did a bad job on one of them, the 99 good cakes will be enough to keep the reputation good.   It even gets more dicey if one was a photographer.  One does not have to do much to make poor pictures.  They don't have to be horrible just not great ones.  Its a basic thing I go with.  One might be able to force me to do something against my will BUT my efforts will only meet the minimum and not 1% beyond that. 

Not if the one bad cake people are the ones to put up a review online, tell all their friends who then tell their friends, etc while the 99 don't make a noise (generally speaking the unhappy customers are more likely to say something)

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

What do you mean by segregation? Would you be for for opening Public school with Bible reading and singing America the Beautiful or God Bless America? There are no easy answers here. Sometimes someone will be offended no matter what ---- but what is the ultimate cost to society if we continue to head in the direction we are presently headed?

When you advocate that a business can pick and choose who it will serve and who it will refuse to serve then you are advocating a return to segregation where businesses refused to serve blacks because they are black. Or refuse to serve Jews because they are Jews.  You are doing away with the civil rights laws that have been in place for 50 years and which IMO have served this country well

Of course there are easy answers. Anyone can read a scripture or say a prayer individually if they want at the beginning of their school day. They just can't read it for the class.  And if they want to sing any song they wish they may do so before school begins. No law prevents them from doing so. 

The ultimate cost to society is living in a country without discrimination  The ultimate cot to society is living in a country whose citizens may worship who, how and what they may according to their own conscience. Thankfully we have a constitution that upholds EVERYONE'S rights including the minorities. 

Do you really want to return to segregation?  Do you really want to trample on others rights to worship according to their own dictates of their own conscience?  Because that is what you are advocating. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Or just cook for them overcooked or undercooked cakes.  If was a baker and I was forced to bake something that I did not want to back, you better believe I would get my revenge one way or another.

Tell me how you square your attitude with the example Christ showed when he had dealings with sinners?  Did Christ not treat them with love and respect?

Who do you think the sinner would be if someone compels you to bake a cake.  Because I think Christ taught that we should bake them two. Or was Christ only talking about Roman law so you are off the hook.  

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Because it sounds like you are in favor of returning to an America that existed before the 1964 a civil rights act. And I know you couldn't mean that.  

Everything that America was in the 1940's and 50's was not broke. It is very interesting to know that the Billy Graham Crusades were not segregated. Blacks and Whites were seated randomly. The unrest of the 1960's is generally attributed to the assignation of JFK. There was a general feeling among Blacks that the changes that had been happening were going to stop or slow down. I would have to say that in the 50's and early 60's Blacks were pulling themselves up . After 1965, Blacks were being taken care of and manipulated. 

The Fact about the Bus picket, is that Blacks picketed the Bus Company by not riding Public Service. The Blacks played an important part in ridership. The bus Company relented because of loss revenues. In my own area schools were already desegregated by 1949 ----- though there were not many black families living in my area at that time. But things were moving forward with a growth of Black pride. The fist waving of the 60's only made the general public afraid of riots and destruction of their neighborhoods if blacks moved in. 

Gay pride movement has NOTHING to do with racism. It has been shown that drunks may have an inborn propensity to drink too much and get drunk. However, I do not see society embracing drunkenness. It is still viewed as a disease at best.  Sexuality is about behavior and choices. No one has to drink alcohol and no one has to engage in sex. My color is something I have no control over. It is what it is. Behavior is what I decide to do with my life. And not all behavior patterns are equal or worthy of encouraging. And not all behavior patterns are morally ethical.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, cdowis said:

What if the customer is Afro American, or gay?  The message is not a protected class, only the customer.

 

I'm not sure about the issue of messaging. A baker who sells cakes can't refuse business based on identity (protected classes). A baker could refuse to sell a cake to a black person who happened to be a Nazi, based on the latter and not the former. Can a baker refuse to make a cake that says certain things? Not sure about that. Maybe? Probably?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Everything that America was in the 1940's and 50's was not broke. It is very interesting to know that the Billy Graham Crusades were not segregated. Blacks and Whites were seated randomly. The unrest of the 1960's is generally attributed to the assignation of JFK. There was a general feeling among Blacks that the changes that had been happening were going to stop or slow down. I would have to say that in the 50's and early 60's Blacks were pulling themselves up . After 1965, Blacks were being taken care of and manipulated. 

The Fact about the Bus picket, is that Blacks picketed the Bus Company by not riding Public Service. The Blacks played an important part in ridership. The bus Company relented because of loss revenues. In my own area schools were already desegregated by 1949 ----- though there were not many black families living in my area at that time. But things were moving forward with a growth of Black pride. The fist waving of the 60's only made the general public afraid of riots and destruction of their neighborhoods if blacks moved in. 

Gay pride movement has NOTHING to do with racism. It has been shown that drunks may have an inborn propensity to drink too much and get drunk. However, I do not see society embracing drunkenness. It is still viewed as a disease at best.  Sexuality is about behavior and choices. No one has to drink alcohol and no one has to engage in sex. My color is something I have no control over. It is what it is. Behavior is what I decide to do with my life. And not all behavior patterns are equal or worthy of encouraging. And not all behavior patterns are morally ethical.

There's a lot of words above, much of which seems to be unrelated to the points being made.  You've made a lot of noise, but I don't think you answered the questions that were posed to you...

 In the interests of cutting through the filler and to try to confirm our understand what you're saying, it sounds as if you feel that "Because not every business or county has historically been racist, and because some areas were already de-segregating of their own accord, then..."....... what, exactly? 

Are you saying that legislative actions within the Civil Rights movement were unnecessary, because racism would have eventually died out on it's own...?

Are you saying that you believe it would be acceptable to get rid of current public accommodations laws that are still valid?

And while I certainly agree with you that there will always be ongoing debate about which behaviors and behavioral patterns ARE morally ethical and which are not, many key individuals within the Civil Rights movement don't share your opinion that "Gay pride movement has NOTHING to do with racism." 

Namely, it's well documented that Coretta Scott King, the wife of the renowned Civil Rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke numerous times before her passing emphasizing the similarities between racist and homophobic attitudes and the racial and LGBT civil rights movements:

Quote

A Collection of Coretta Scott King Quotes regarding GLBT Rights


Source: Reuters, March 31, 1998.
Coretta Scott King, speaking four days before the 30th anniversary of her husband's assassination, said Tuesday the civil rights leader's memory demanded a strong stand for gay and lesbian rights.

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said.


Source: Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998, front page.
Speaking before nearly 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel,
Coretta Scott King, the wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Tuesday called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias. "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."


Source: Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998, p.18.
"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy," King told 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton, days before the 30th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination on April 4, 1968. She said the civil rights movement "thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion." Her husband's struggle parallels that of the gay rights movement, she said.


Source: Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998, sec.2, p.4.
"For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people," King said at the 25th Anniversary Luncheon for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.... "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement," she said. "Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." - Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998, sec.2, p.4.


Source: Coretta Scott King, remarks, Opening Plenary Session, 13th annual Creating Change conference of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Atlanta, Georgia, November 9, 2000.
"We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."


Source: Reuters, June 8, 2001.
"We have to launch a national campaign against homophobia in the black community," said Coretta Scott King, widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the slain civil rights leader.

 

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am sure almost all pizza shops don't know what the occasion is they cook the pizza for.  People just call and order a bunch of pizzas. Nothing is told to them beyond it.

If they are delivering to a mormon church or cultural hall...they kind of know.  Same difference.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, california boy said:

Tell me how you square your attitude with the example Christ showed when he had dealings with sinners?  Did Christ not treat them with love and respect?

Who do you think the sinner would be if someone compels you to bake a cake.  Because I think Christ taught that we should bake them two. Or was Christ only talking about Roman law so you are off the hook.  

Funny, California Boy.... I had the EXACT same scripture play through my head when I read Carbon Dioxide's post--that about turning the other cheek, carrying the extra mile, etc.

It brought to mind the following beautiful post I came across a few years ago by a Christian blogger named Jessica, which I would say is the closest thing to a "Mic Drop"--BY a Christian, TO her fellow Christians--that I've seen on this issue:

Quote

Bake for them two

Apr 1 by tenthousandplaces

In Jesus’ time, the nation of Israel was under Roman rule. The Israelites were allowed to live there and practice their faith for the most part, but they had to pay taxes to Caesar and obey the Roman laws.

To the Israelites, the Romans were evil and ungodly. They had no place ruling over God’s chosen people in God’s chosen nation. That land had been promised to Moses and his descendants when God brought them out of Egypt. Their very presence in the land was blasphemous.

One of the Roman laws stated that any man could be required to drop what he was doing and carry a Roman soldier’s equipment for him for up to a mile. In the Sermon on the Mount, with his followers gathered around him, Jesus referenced that law and told his followers what they should do in that case:

“If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.” ~Matthew 5:41

Go with them two miles.

That was not the advice that most of the people in the crowd that day had been hoping for. That was not the conclusion that they would have come to on their own, following this man that they hoped would lead them to victory over the Romans.

That was certainly not respecting their religious beliefs — go with them two! What if their neighbors saw! What if seeing them carrying the Roman’s equipment caused other Jews to think the Roman oppression was okay? What if there was other work that needed to be done — good work, charity work even, but they spent all that time carrying equipment for the evil oppressor? But Jesus is not worried about any of that:

“If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also,” he said. “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Christians, our Jesus said, “Go with them two.”

If you believe gay marriage is immoral (I don’t, myself) and a gay couple comes into your shop and asks you to bake a cake for their wedding, what should you do?

If God causes the sun to rise and the rain to fall on the wedding days of straight and gay couples, then what is our responsibility?

If it is against the law to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation, but you believe strongly that their lifestyle is immoral, what should you do?

Christians, our Jesus said, “Go with them two.”

If you are wondering if it is worth being sued and losing your business to stand up for what you believe is right, if you miss the look of hurt in the couple’s eyes when you refuse them and only see an angry, media-driven, ACLU-led mob attacking the small business owner who is only standing up for what you believe in, what should you do?

Christians, our Jesus said, “Go with them two.”

Jesus said, not only should you follow the law of the land — the law which in America for the most part prohibits discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation — not only should you do the minimum you have to do, you should go the extra mile. (Yes, that’s where that expression comes from!) Do *twice* what the law requires.

If someone forces you to bake a cake for a gay wedding, bake for them two.

Christians, our Jesus said to not only follow the law, but to rise to a higher standard of love. Christians should be the FIRST people baking cakes — for everyone who asks us. We should be known for our cake baking. People should be saying, “There go those crazy Christians again, baking cakes for everyone. They just won’t quit!” Then, when we share the reason for our wild, all-inclusive love, people will want to hear it. “Let your light shine before others,” said Jesus, “that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."

Christians, when we dig our heels in and insist on our right to discriminate, we are hurting people — we are hurting so many people, so deeply. Behind the ACLU and the liberal media are real people, who have been hurt again and again in the name of Christ. Christians, you and I have hurt them. I know most of us have really good intentions, but we are making Jesus the last thing they want to hear about.

If we “snatch one person from the fire” by refusing to condone behavior we believe is immoral, but send hundreds and thousands of others fleeing churches and Christianity entirely, what have we really accomplished? Someone else will make that cake and fewer and fewer people will look to Christianity for love and hope. We will have won a battle that we were never called to fight in the first place, but lost the war.

*****

Friends, after receiving more than 1500 comments this past week, I’m closing the comments section on this post. I want you to know that I value all of you who took the time to leave a comment, even those who disagreed with me, and especially those on all sides of the issue who vulnerably shared their stories of hurt and healing.

If you would like to read other Christians’ perspective on this issue, or find places for further discussion, I have shared some resources that have been helpful to me here: BFTT follow up and resources.

If you are curious how I came to support gay marriage and full inclusion of LGBT Christians in the body of Christ, you can read about that here.

If you have felt rejected or unloved by Christians or the church because of your sexuality or gender identity, please read my post We choose you.

And please check out Faithfully LGBT and their wonderful photo series of LGBT people of faith.

Love,
Jessica

(Bold added by me).

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
15 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Try rainbow cake..:wub:  Though oddly the rainbow once was a Protestant sign, Remember "gay" was once what Fred and Barney were having and no one associated it with homosexuality. Am I seeing a trend here? Marriage was once only between a man and a woman ----- hands down (only yesterday)

Marriage was also once between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman.

 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Try rainbow cake..:wub:  Though oddly the rainbow once was a Protestant sign, Remember "gay" was once what Fred and Barney were having and no one associated it with homosexuality. Am I seeing a trend here? Marriage was once only between a man and a woman ----- hands down (only yesterday)

Some Protestants like some Mormons are gay(As in homosexual) Gay has been associated with homosexuality since at least the late 19th Century. It was only yesterday a man could marry his sister.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Some Protestants like some Mormons are gay(As in homosexual) Gay has been associated with homosexuality since at least the late 19th Century. It was only yesterday a man could marry his sister.

My grandfather wasn't allowed to marry his second cousin in 1920. Associated maybe but most definitely not necessarily... Some Protestants like some Mormons are drunks ---- and that makes it okay or something to beseech God about.

Link to comment
On 12/14/2016 at 10:30 AM, california boy said:

I would like to know how many others on this board support bringing back segregation like little upper here.  Scott?  SMAC?  Glenn?  All you others that are ok with bringing back segregation?   

 

Or or are willing to condemn such attitudes

I condemn such attitudes.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...