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

[Daniel2]

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 3:00 AM, kiwi57 said:

I deeply regret that you appear to be asserting something you have no good-faith basis to believe.

I remind you, yet again, that not one of those children ever was, or ever will be, born to a same sex couple.

Not one child ever will be born to a same-sex couple.... until children start being born to same-sex couples...

As the saying goes, 'never say never.'

Get Ready for Embryos From Two Men or Two Women 

http://time.com/3748019/same-sex-couples-biological-children/

By Dr. Guy Ringler

March 18, 2015

 

Dr. Guy Ringler is a board certified physician in both Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. He is a partner with California Fertility Partners.

 

I’ve helped many same-sex couples over the years have children of their own through assisted reproductive procedures. Egg donation and surrogacy allow two gay men to have children genetically related to one partner and the egg donor, but not to both. It’s the same dynamic for lesbians and sperm donors. I’ve been asked many times by countless same-sex couples over the years: “can we make a baby that’s a combination of both of us?”

 

It’s a question that I’ve considered from a scientific and medical perspective for a long time. Advances in genetic research keep getting us closer to the day when the answer to that question is “yes.”

 

Throughout history, a child has come from a man and a woman. It’s been one of the tenets of anti-gay activists for decades: “Two men can’t have a biological child, and two women can’t have one either.”

 

For some anti-gay people, that seems to make these relationships somehow wrong, as though any relationship that can’t result in a child should somehow be forbidden. They deem it unnatural in the eyes of God.

 

However, science is advancing and may ultimately change all of that.

 

Stem cell research has demonstrated that human skin cells and fibroblasts (a different kind of adult cell) can be turned into embryonic stem cells. Now, researchers at Cambridge University and the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel have shown that embryonic stem cells can be programmed to form primordial germ cells. These are the stem cells that can go on to form either eggs or sperm. If scientists can figure out how to turn a primordial germ cell that originated from the skin of a man into an egg, could it be fertilized with his partner’s sperm?

 

Research using primordial germ cells in mice has shown that these cells can be turned into eggs and sperm capable of forming pups (baby mice). Many experiments were required, but tremendous knowledge was gained.

 

The upshot: There likely will be a time when reproductive science could create an embryo from the cells of two men or two women.

 

Anti-gay forces will not want to hear this news, but science will continue to explore it in an attempt to explain biology. This is the role of science in our society: to improve the quality of life of all of us and to advance human equality. Scientific breakthroughs that can help two people who are committed to having children together—regardless of their sex—are inspiring developments.

 

Just like straight couples, many gay men and lesbians are eager to have a genetic relationship with their children. At times, I’ve taken sperm from one gay man and matched it with the eggs of his partner’s sister to create a stronger genetic bond between the couple and their child. But these new scientific developments could bring that process full-circle.

 

There are various scientific obstacles to reaching the point where the cells of two men or two women could make a baby. There will also be ethical debates. Religious and conservative leaders around the world still vehemently oppose same sex marriage and homosexual acts, let alone a gay couple having a child of their own.

 

But no one’s identity—be it race, gender, or sexual orientation—should ever play into the advancement of medicine. What’s important here is that we bring children into this world from a desire to love and provide a happy and healthy environment for their growth. These ingredients can be as powerfully provided by a same-sex couple as they can by heterosexuals. Studies have shown this, and I have seen it first hand in the hundreds of gay families from around the world who I’ve helped to conceive.

 

Medical science has transformed our society for the better in so many ways. It has helped the deaf to hear. It has cured many diseases and is pioneering the genetic targeting of agents to cure cancer. It has lengthened our lives and made them more fulfilling. And it has helped people—gay and straight, black and white, Christian, Jews, and Buddhists—to become parents.

 

When the time comes for two men or two women to have a biological child together, we should embrace it as another positive advancement to a happier world of fulfilled lives.

 

 

Medical Science has already allowed same-sex parents to biologically reproduce in mice.  While there will clearly be ongoing debates about the morality of using stem cells from humans to reproduce for those that are otherwise unable to have children (those who were born unable to have children, developed infertility due to disease or damage, or for same-sex couples), it appears the scientific medicine is close to making that a reality.  From a UK news source last month:

 

Same-sex couples could soon be biological parents after a huge scientific breakthrough

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/01/02/same-sex-couples-could-soon-be-biological-parents-after-a-huge-scientific-breakthrough/

2 January, 2018

by Finn Oldfield

UK Pink News

 

A groundbreaking scientific development means same-sex couples may soon be able to be biological parents.  Last month, scientists in Britain announced a major breakthrough that means it may one day be possible to artificially produce sperm and eggs from human cells.  A milestone has been passed on the way to producing sperm in a laboratory, according to University of Cambridge’s developmental biologist Azim Surani, who was speaking at the Progress Educational Trust annual conference in December.

 

If further steps are made so same-sex couples can use their DNA to produce the sperm or egg, it could make the law less discriminatory.  For example, a Mississippi judge ruled last month that a same-sex divorcee did not have legal rights to the child she helped to raise because she wasn’t the biological mother.  This could all change with improved technology.

 

Recent tests with stem cells have produced working mice sperm.  Other scientists have injected human cells into the testicles of mice that produced cells that looked like sperm, but could not fertilise eggs.  The natural process of creating sperm and eggs is known as meoisis.  This process only takes 13 days with mice, but can take up to eight weeks with humans.

 

Surani said the cells he and his colleagues have tested have undergone parts of this process, The Guardian has reported.  While Surani has not set a date for when artificial sperm and eggs will be available for human use, he has said it is important to get each step right.  “If this was ever going to be used in a clinical setting we have to be sure that it has gone through all the right stages – all of these steps are incredibly important,” said Surani.  “You can make an egg that looks like an egg, but it might not be the right cell in molecular detail. You could get a lot of problems with that.  “You don’t want something that’s going to grow into some kind of abnormal structure,” he added.

 

Helen O’Neill, who directs the reproductive science and women’s health programme at University College London, said human trials were not on the current agenda.  “Much of the ambition to recreate reproductive processes in the lab is to further our understanding of these processes,” she said.  “It is surprising how little we understand about the fundamental dynamics of the beginnings of life.”

 

While the science isn’t finalised yet, this latest breakthrough represents a major step towards equality in sexual reproduction.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by Daniel2

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

You've said that I "don't understand the law," but didn't explain how you believe I do, other than saying that Masterpiece represents two competing First Amendment rights vs. a discrimination law.  With respect, Masterpiece isn't being argued as a matter of freedom of religion.  If it were, it's unlikely it would be at SCOTUS.  Rather, Masterpiece is arguing it's case not on the basis of protecting Mr. Phillips' religious freedom, but as a function of protecting Mr. Phillips' freedom of speech.  Masterpiece made their case that, from their view, the law should rule that the act of commercially creating a custom wedding cake should be considered as a First Amendment-protected freedom of speech.  While religion informs Mr. Phillips beliefs about why he wishes to decline, First Amendment freedoms of religion aren't being employed by his lawyers as the basis upon which they are seeking SCOTUS to rule in their favor.  So, really, this case isn't about religious freedom at all, but about how far the freedom of speech extends and how public accommodation laws should be applied to certain acts of behavior (in this case, creating a custom wedding cake).  I am fairly confident I "understand the law" and this case fairly well, given the amount of attention I've devoted to it.

The suit has been through various stages (State now federal) as it makes it way through these stages different legal tactics have been and are used. Both First Amendment (FA) rights concerning religion and freedom of speech have been used. Now at the Supreme Court it is still justiciable to use both, none, or some of the religion rights as well as the freedom of speech rights provided in the FA.

I will make a prediction here (we will see if I am right or wrong). I believe it will be a 5 to 4 decision with Masterpiece winning because of the main issue of compelled speech. I believe Hurley v.Irish American Gay, Lesbien, and Bisexeual Group of Boston will be the controlling case.

Here are the quick details of Hurley if you want to avoid a lot of legal reading: 

 In 1993, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council was authorized by the city of Boston to organize the St. Patrick's Day Parade. The Council refused a place in the event for the Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (GLIB). The group attempted to join to express its members' pride in their Irish heritage as openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. The Massachusetts State Court ordered the Veterans' Council to include GLIB under a state law prohibiting discrimination on account of sexual orientation in public accommodations. The Veterans' Council claimed that forced inclusion of GLIB members in their privately-organized parade violated their free speech.

The Court opinion was:

A unanimous court held that the State Court's ruling to require private citizens who organize a parade to include a group expressing a message that the organizers do not wish to convey violates the First Amendment by making private speech subordinate to the public accommodation requirement. Such an action "violate the fundamental First Amendment rule that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message and conversely, to decide what not to say."

Edited February 19, 2018 by Anijen

[kiwi57]

50 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Not one child ever will be born to a same-sex couple.... until children start being born to same-sex couples...

As the saying goes, 'never say never.'

I always admire the faith some people have in future scientific advances.

But this:

50 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

 

While the science isn’t finalised yet, this latest breakthrough represents a major step towards equality in sexual reproduction.

 

 

Demonstrates, yet again, that "equality" as used by the LGBT-whatever movement, is just a slogan.

How cruel of nature, to "discriminate" against people who don't have the right chromosomes!

[Daniel2]

58 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I always admire the faith some people have in future scientific advances.

But this:

Demonstrates, yet again, that "equality" as used by the LGBT-whatever movement, is just a slogan.

How cruel of nature, to "discriminate" against people who don't have the right chromosomes!

Time will tell whether that faith bears fruit or not.

I actually agree about the absurdity of and did roll my eyes at the term "equality in sexual reproduction."  Nature doesn't "discriminate"--it selects biological processes it's capable of enabling, even when they're limited by the bounds of nature itself and not by the medical advances explored and discovered through science.  To suggest otherwise would be a bit much, even for me. ha!

I don't think the evolutionary adaptations resulting in procreative processes can credibly be labeled "unequal," since I think, in these types of discussions, our Constitution uses the term "equal" and "equality" from a philosophical/social/political standpoint, even when it clearly doesn't apply to biological characteristics or processes.

When the Constitution says "all men are created equal," it isn't contemplating that physical differences and levels of abilities between individuals, genders, races, etc. aren't all "the same."  It means that the law will regard them with the same regard, even in the face of such differences.

That being said, I can surmise that perhaps the author's invocation of "equality" was still meant in the social/political realm as a pre-emptive strike against those who would deny same-sex couples the same rights that barren opposite-sex couples may be granted, if this technology will ultimately actually become a common practice.

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

The suit has been through various stages (State now federal) as it makes it way through these stages different legal tactics have been and are used. Both First Amendment (FA) rights concerning religion and freedom of speech have been used. Now at the Supreme Court it is still justiciable to use both, none, or some of the religion rights as well as the freedom of speech rights provided in the FA.

I will make a prediction here (we will see if I am right or wrong). I believe it will be a 5 to 4 decision with Masterpiece winning because of the main issue of compelled speech. I believe Hurley v.Irish American Gay, Lesbien, and Bisexeual Group of Boston will be the controlling case.

Here are the quick details of Hurley if you want to avoid a lot of legal reading: 

 In 1993, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council was authorized by the city of Boston to organize the St. Patrick's Day Parade. The Council refused a place in the event for the Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (GLIB). The group attempted to join to express its members' pride in their Irish heritage as openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. The Massachusetts State Court ordered the Veterans' Council to include GLIB under a state law prohibiting discrimination on account of sexual orientation in public accommodations. The Veterans' Council claimed that forced inclusion of GLIB members in their privately-organized parade violated their free speech.

The Court opinion was:

A unanimous court held that the State Court's ruling to require private citizens who organize a parade to include a group expressing a message that the organizers do not wish to convey violates the First Amendment by making private speech subordinate to the public accommodation requirement. Such an action "violate the fundamental First Amendment rule that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message and conversely, to decide what not to say."

Yes, I'm familiar with Hurley, but thank you for posting it again here, as I think it's always helpful to remind others that may not be as familiar with previous court precedent.

As I've said before, it's very possible the court will rule in favor of the bakery on the grounds of freedom of speech (and, as you note, freedom from unjust compelled speech), if it finds that the creation of custom wedding cakes is a First-Amendment-protected expression of such.  Through their questioning in Oral Arguments, it seems likely the judges were really grappling with trying to find where the line should be drawn and hoping to tailor any ruling they make as narrowly as possible.

And as I've said before, should the court so-rule, I will respect the decision, so long as the same logic is employed as all other protected classes.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Daniel2

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Yes, I'm familiar with Hurley, but thank you for posting it again here, as I think it's always helpful to remind others that may not be as familiar with previous court precedent.

As I've said before, it's very possible the court will rule in favor of the bakery on the grounds of freedom of speech (and, as you note, freedom from unjust compelled speech), if it finds that the creation of custom wedding cakes is a First-Amendment-protected expression of such.  Through their questioning in Oral Arguments, it seems likely the judges were really grappling with trying to find where the line should be drawn and hoping to tailor any ruling they make as narrowly as possible.

And as I've said before, should the court so-rule, I will respect the decision, so long as the same logic is employed as all other protected classes.

Here, I am in complete agreement with you.

 

Quote

Through their questioning in Oral Arguments, it seems likely the judges were really grappling with trying to find where the line should be drawn and hoping to tailor any ruling they make as narrowly as possible.

Just an FYI, if precedent or history of SCOTUS decisions in the past is an indicator then the oral arguments mean very little. Most decisions have been made prior to the oral argument phase. There have been some cases (very few) when SCOTUS has made their minds up by the oral argument phase. Most cases are decided before the oral arguments. They are generally decided when the briefs are submitted and studied and researched (case law etc.). In fact many of the questions we hear in the oral argument segment is made from reading and studying the law from the briefs each side has submitted.

 

Quote

freedom from unjust compelled speech

As I said before I agree with your entire post.

Re: compelled speech here, a parade done in the public organized by a private group was allowed to NOT allow the LGB in the parade despite public accommodation law. Because to do so would essentially allow group B to control the content of the message group A wanted to (or not wanted to) convey. I feel this will be a controlling case because the decision is the same in Masterpiece where Party B would end up compelling speech in which Party A does not want to convey (for whatever reason, religion, etc.). It forces someone to comply to the ideology (way of thinking) of one party over the other party (regardless if one parties way of thinking is just and good). We in this country do not force (compel) thinking.

[Daniel2]

A case before the British Supreme Court is set to examine a different type of bakery-based conflict between religious liberty and sexual orientation. 

The difference as I see it is that this case is a clear example of freedom of speech.  I believe Northern Ireland's Equalities Commission erred in their ruling.  Were it before an American-based court, I believe would be decided in favor of the bakery. 

Moreover, I'm glad to see that the prominent British gay-rights advocate, Peter Tactchell, is quoted as likewise defending the bakers' freedom of speech.

I also hope the bakers also prevail in this British case:

Quote

Europe:

Bakery appeals to UK Supreme Court in gay-rights cake case

By Associated Press May 1 at 11:51 AM

LONDON — A bakery owned by a Christian family asked Britain’s Supreme Court on Tuesday to overturn a ruling that it discriminated against a gay customer for refusing to make a cake supporting same-sex marriage.

Ashers Baking Co. in Northern Ireland refused in 2014 to make a cake iced with the “Sesame Street” characters Bert and Ernie and the slogan “Support Gay Marriage.”

The owners argued they were happy to bake goods for anyone, but could not put messages on their products at odds with their Christian beliefs.

After the customer filed a lawsuit that received backing from Northern Ireland’s Equalities Commission, lower courts ruled that the bakery’s refusal was discriminatory.

Judges from the London-based Supreme Court heard the bakery’s appeal at a special sitting in Belfast that is due to continue Wednesday.

David Scoffield, lawyer for the bakery’s owners, argued Tuesday that the family should not be compelled to create a product “to which they have a genuine objection in conscience.”

“The notion that Christians may exercise their faith on Sundays but forget about it when they step into work on Monday is not real freedom of religion and is not freedom of conscience,” Scoffield told the court.

In a statement, British gay-rights activist Peter Tatchell agreed the cake dispute was not a simple case of discrimination. The ruling against the bakery implied that “gay bakers could be forced by law to decorate cakes with homophobic slogans,” he said.

“Although I strongly disagree with Ashers stance against gay marriage, that is their right in a free and democratic society,” Tatchell said.

Similar cases involving bakeries have come up in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in December on an appeal from a Colorado baker who also cited religious beliefs for refusing to make a wedding case for a same-sex couple. The court’s opinion is pending.

Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Daniel2

[california boy]

In a related update, a The Public Religion Research Organization  was released today that shows the vast majority of Americans do not support religious based reasons for denying services to gays.  From the survey:

 

Quote

 

Religiously Based Service Refusals Remain Unpopular

Religiously based refusals of service to gay and lesbian people are relatively unpopular among the American public. Six in ten (60%) Americans oppose allowing a small business owner in their state to refuse products or services to gay or lesbian people if providing them would violate their religious beliefs. One in three (33%) Americans support such a policy. Eight percent offer no opinion. Attitudes have remained stable since 2015, when 59% of Americans opposed allowing business owners to refuse products or services to gay and lesbian people for religious reasons.¹⁰

 

 

Sadly there were two groups who the majority of members felt that it was ok to discriminate against gays for services.

 

Quote

 

Only Mormons and White Evangelicals Support Religiously Based Service Refusals

Most religious groups do not believe small business owners should be allowed to refuse service to gay and lesbian people for religious reasons. Nearly nine in ten (86%) Unitarians and at least seven in ten Buddhists (73%), unaffiliated Americans (72%), and Jewish Americans (70%) oppose such a policy. And roughly two-thirds (65%) of black Protestants and about six in ten white mainline Protestants (60%), Hispanic Catholics (60%), white Catholics (59%), and Muslims (59%) also reject a policy allowing religiously based refusals to serve gay and lesbian people. Majorities of Orthodox Christians (57%), Hindus (56%), and Hispanic Protestants (55%) are also opposed to the policy.

Only two major religious groups believe small business owners in their state should be allowed to refuse service to gay or lesbian people on religious grounds—white evangelical Protestants and Mormons. Notably, they support this position at the same rate—53%.

 

 

[kllindley]

So I'm curious. Can an escort legally choose to refuse services to a customer based on their gender? More to the point, does anyone who opposes "discrimination" against participating in same sex-marriages, believe that they should be able to refuse such services?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

So I'm curious. Can an escort legally choose to refuse services to a customer based on their gender? More to the point, does anyone who opposes "discrimination" against participating in same sex-marriages, believe that they should be able to refuse such services?

Escorts generally are not legal to begin with.

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Escorts generally are not legal to begin with.

Actually the are as long as the best sexual activity is not part of the transaction. But a number of jurisdictions they are completely legal, and there is a big movement to further  legalize sex work, which I support. 

The question still stands, though you are under no obligation to answer. 

[california boy]

9 hours ago, kllindley said:

So I'm curious. Can an escort legally choose to refuse services to a customer based on their gender? More to the point, does anyone who opposes "discrimination" against participating in same sex-marriages, believe that they should be able to refuse such services?

Well I am not a lawyer, but I would say yes, they can legally choose to refuse service based on gender. It is perfectly legal to have all boys clubs, or all girl clubs.  Think of the BSA who has been all boys for decades. While they recently changed their policy, they were not compelled to do so under the law.  

I honestly don't understand the question to the second part of your post.  No one is forced by law to enter into a same sex marriage if that is what you are asking.

 

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

A case before the British Supreme Court is set to examine a different type of bakery-based conflict between religious liberty and sexual orientation. 

The difference as I see it is that this case is a clear example of freedom of speech.  I believe Northern Ireland's Equalities Commission erred in their ruling.  Were it before an American-based court, I believe would be decided in favor of the bakery. 

Moreover, I'm glad to see that the prominent British gay-rights advocate, Peter Tactchell, is quoted as likewise defending the bakers' freedom of speech.

I also hope the bakers also prevail in this British case:

I hope the bakers in this case prevail as well, but since the case is in Europe it is by no means a slam dunk like it would be here in the states. 

In fact, I believe that if you change the message a bit, it might not even be a slam dunk here either - depending on the jurisdiction. For instance, if instead of asking a baker to write "Support Gay Marriage" (a political statement), the baker was asked to simply write "Congratulations Jessica & Stephanie On Your Wedding Day!" Refusal to write such a message might cause an issue here as well. If a baker in Colorado would be willing to write "Congratulations Jessica & Stephen..." but not "Jessica & Stephanie" that would still be a violation of the state's anti-discrimination laws. At least, I seem to remember that being discussed as a hypothetical during the SCOTUS' oral arguments.  

 

[Daniel2]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

I hope the bakers in this case prevail as well, but since the case is in Europe it is by no means a slam dunk like it would be here in the states. 

In fact, I believe that if you change the message a bit, it might not even be a slam dunk here either - depending on the jurisdiction. For instance, if instead of asking a baker to write "Support Gay Marriage" (a political statement), the baker was asked to simply write "Congratulations Jessica & Stephanie On Your Wedding Day!" Refusal to write such a message might cause an issue here as well. If a baker in Colorado would be willing to write "Congratulations Jessica & Stephen..." but not "Jessica & Stephanie" that would still be a violation of the state's anti-discrimination laws. At least, I seem to remember that being discussed as a hypothetical during the SCOTUS' oral arguments.  

 

I'm unfamiliar with how GB's laws differ from or are similar to the USA's laws are regarding non-discrimination, free speech, and religious liberty.  Given my lack of experience with GB law, I can see that it may or may not be a "slam dunk" as it might be here in the states.

Here in the states, as I understand it the issue is consistency.  If a baker offers name-personalized cakes on which he/she writes "Congratulations, ___________ and ___________!" on cakes and fills in the customers' names, he/she cannot pick and choose which person(s) to refuse service to if the reason for the denial is based on the customer's status as a member of any of the enumerated protected classes (as opposed to words or names that may be offensive/obscene, for example).  If they don't personalize the names on cakes for anyone, then there's no foul, regardless of protected classifications.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Daniel2

[kllindley]

Another important aspect of the Emerging Skirmishes around religious rights is the Current California Bill AB2943.

I have not had much success searching older posts, but I distinctly remember that a number of people here defended previous bans on "Sexual Orientation Change Efforts" with minors. The statement was made that these laws were important to protect minors, but adults were still free to seek the types of assistance they desired.  

Now, a new expansion of that effort has already passed the California Assembly and is before the Senate Committee.  This new and improved version extends the ban to adults as well as any promotion of SOCE.  Some opponents are claiming this will include the Bible, if applied broadly and liberally.  Most advocates deny this, but do admit that it will likely apply to books like "Voices of Hope" published by Deseret Book.  

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/snopes-sneaky-liar-californias-bill-ban-christian-lgbt-talk/

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/california-bill-threatens-christian-books-and-booksellers/

 

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Another important aspect of the Emerging Skirmishes around religious rights is the Current California Bill AB2943.

I have not had much success searching older posts, but I distinctly remember that a number of people here defended previous bans on "Sexual Orientation Change Efforts" with minors. The statement was made that these laws were important to protect minors, but adults were still free to seek the types of assistance they desired.  

Now, a new expansion of that effort has already passed the California Assembly and is before the Senate Committee.  This new and improved version extends the ban to adults as well as any promotion of SOCE.  Some opponents are claiming this will include the Bible, if applied broadly and liberally.  Most advocates deny this, but do admit that it will likely apply to books like "Voices of Hope" published by Deseret Book.  

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/snopes-sneaky-liar-californias-bill-ban-christian-lgbt-talk/

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/california-bill-threatens-christian-books-and-booksellers/

 

Thanks for posting this, Kllindley. 

I've only read the first provided link, which I'm skeptical of, given it's sources and the author's credentials (or lack thereof), however, it's worth considering all the sources to make an informed decision.

I am one who, in the past, has shared my support of banning conversion therapy for minors, and am one who noted my support of previous bills because minors (who cannot legally defend themselves) shouldn't be coerced into therapies found to not only to be grossly ineffective, but to lead to even greater psychological effects.  When referring to teenagers, such bans seem like a no-brainer to me. 

While leaving open the possibility of my support for prohibitions on professionally-licensed therapists from offering SOCE therapies adult clients, I have expressed in the past that I'm not sure I am comfortable extending such prohibitions to religious clergy members/leaders.  It appears this bill may have the effect of limiting religious clergy from promoting SOCE.

Candidly, in the past, I have felt uncomfortable with banning clergy from encouraging their religious followers toward any given sexual morality code.  The thought of government suggesting what religious leaders can and cannot say is abhorrent on many levels.

That said... it's clear to me that I need to further educate myself on all sides of this issue.  Can religious leaders use religion as justification to advocate in support of psychological therapies that are otherwise outlawed (with the full support of all professional medical and therapeutic organizations) due to demonstrably deleterious effects?  Should freedom of speech and religion allow such advocacy, even as secular organizations and professionals are prohibited from doing so? 

The answers may well be yes... I'm not sure I'm there.  It's clear I need to study the issue out more.

Thanks for the opportunity to do so, Kllindley.

As a start, I've followed the links from our source to this, which I've just started digesting:  http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2943

More to come.

Best,

D

 

[kllindley]

43 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Thanks for posting this, Kllindley. I've only read the first provided link, which I'm skeptical of, given it's sources and the author's credentials (or lack thereof), however, it's worth considering all the sources to make an informed decision.

 

I agree about the quality of the source. What surprised me was the fact that this was the "best" I could get even acknowledging the potential concern. The Snopes and Politifact articles were very dismissive. It seems like something that should be discussed more. 

46 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I am one who, in the past, has shared my support of banning conversion therapy for minors, and am one who noted my support of previous bills because minors (who cannot legally defend themselves) shouldn't be coerced into therapies found to not only to be grossly ineffective, but to lead to even greater psychological effects.  When referring to teenagers, such bans seem like a no-brainer to me. 

While leaving open the possibility of my support for prohibitions on professionally-licensed therapists from offering SOCE therapies adult clients, I have expressed in the past that I'm not sure I am comfortable extending such prohibitions to religious clergy members/leaders.  It appears this bill may have the effect of limiting religious clergy from promoting SOCE.

Candidly, in the past, I have felt uncomfortable with banning clergy from encouraging their religious followers toward any given sexual morality code.  The thought of government suggesting what religious leaders can and cannot say is abhorrent on many levels.

That said... it's clear to me that I need to further educate myself on all sides of this issue.  Can religious leaders use religion as justification to advocate in support of psychological therapies that are otherwise outlawed (with the full support of all professional medical and therapeutic organizations) due to demonstrably deleterious effects?  Should freedom of speech and religion allow such advocacy, even as secular organizations and professionals are prohibited from doing so? 

The answers may well be yes... I'm not sure I'm there.  It's clear I need to study the issue out more.

Thanks for the opportunity to do so, Kllindley.

As a start, I've followed the links from our source to this, which I've just started digesting:  http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2943

More to come.

Best,

D

 

My biggest problem here comes from the extremely broad definition of "conversion therapy."  I'm not a huge fan of the idea of claiming to or even trying to change people's orientation. But helping them align their behaviors with their own values? Why is that even controversial? 

[MormonMason]

On 12/12/2016 at 4:24 PM, Daniel2 said:

As I mentioned previously, conservatives aren't the only ones taking action.

Fred Karger has long been a vocal critic of the LDS church's involvement in anti-same-sex marriage initiatives and anti-LGBT legislation.  And unfortunately (thought perhaps, not surprisingly) he's renewing his efforts again... 

I'm uncertain if the timing of the two incidents is related, but I'm frankly tired of both approaches!

I've tried posting the text of the SL Tribune's article on the matter, but for some reason, the site isn't letting me post it (I've written 5 posts attempting to copy the text here, but after hitting "Submit," nothing appears), so here's the link.

EDITED: Here's the text of the article...

Yep.  Just what they before promised they never would do.  Now they are doing just that.  I've heard rumors that Bible publishers will be targeted again, too.

[Daniel2]

18 hours ago, MormonMason said:

Yep.  Just what they before promised they never would do.  Now they are doing just that.  I've heard rumors that Bible publishers will be targeted again, too.

This is in response to a post from Dec. 2016---two and a half years ago. 

Additionally, there isn't any "they" here--I'm not sure who you're speaking of... Just because one gay man made some threats or accusations doesn't mean he represents any type of collective LGBT "they" who are doing something "they" promised "they" would never do. 

Fred Karger has always come off as somewhat of a shock-jock/lose cannon/shoot from the hip/media-attention-seeker-for-exposure (he likes to brag that he was the first openly gay presidential candidate—a claim as dubious as it is self-serving) and isn't affiliated with any mainstream LGBT advocacy group that I'm aware of. 

Thankfully, his single-handed efforts weren't successful, which was also entirely predictable.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Daniel2