Jump to content
Daniel2

Married gay couple challenges UT's surrogacy law/Colorado Baker Heads to SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just tried again and failed.

Something there is that doesn't want me to post that response. I promise it doesn't contain anything vulgar or offensive.

 

 

Brand names can cause blocking as well, especially if drugs.  I think to avoid spam posts.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Brand names can cause blocking as well, especially if drugs.  I think to avoid spam posts.

Good thought, but nope, no brand names in the message I tried to post.

Share this post


Link to post

Well what do you know! I deleted a portion of my post, and it got through this time. I still don't know what was blocking it, although I now have a fairly strong suspicion. See below, where ellipses indicate where the part was that was left out.

 

I disagree that I am the best, or even a good, person to respond to this. It's not the sort of thing that is ordinarily on my radar, and I would have to research it.

That said, I can easily conceive of obvious situations in which religious freedom would come to bear in business. ...

Or suppose a printing and publishing business was owned by Jewish people and someone wanted to hire it to print and distribute anti-Semitic pamphlets and flyers.

Or, for a less-extreme example, until recently Catholic adoption agencies have been free to be guided by their own values in selecting couples for the adoption of children. It now appears the freedom to do this is under threat.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/12/2017 at 7:59 PM, Daniel2 said:

I just saw a comment on FB that the LDS church collaborated with the Sutherland Institute and just filed a joint amicus brief in support of the bakery, too. Can anyone confirm?

Edit to add: https://www.google.com/amp/fox13now.com/2017/09/12/utah-gop-senators-lds-church-support-cake-shop-refusing-service-over-same-sex-marriage/amp/

Don't know if this particular link was made since I last posted here but, like Dan Peterson, I am very glad to see this support for the bakers. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/09/lds-church-22-utah-senators-back-colorado-baker-supreme-court-case.html#gAVvtiQchlbqSpuC.01

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, bluebell said:

I responded with that one line because I thought your question was based more on a straw man argument than on an argument anyone was actually making. I was just pointing that out.  As for how women and men view the world differently, here you go: 

Study finds significant differences in brains of men and women

The cognitive differences between men and women

Men and Women really do have different brains

Males and females differ in parenting skills

Men and Women really do see the world differently

 

 

 

I totally disagree with all those links. I have not read any of them as I got video gaming to do. 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just tried to respond to this, but my response disappeared when I posted it.

Maybe I've been banned because Hestia didn't like the last thread I opened.

 

Is "Hestia" Greek for "hesitation"? 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, bluebell said:

I actually read each one.  They are pretty clear and i'm not sure why you are even arguing against it.  Men and women's brains are different.  

Even linguistics teaches this. If a woman shares details about how hard her day was, the response she prefers are words which first and foremost those show empathy and understanding, while men prefer words which offer solutions to the problems he had. As always, this is not always the case in every situation or with every person, male and female, but definitely a general pattern of preference. 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

While I'm not CaliforniaBoy, my responses is this: I believe that men and women's brains are hardwired differently, and that there ARE generalized differences between genders.  Additionally, studies indicate there are generalized differences between the brains of straight men vs, gay men, and the same for straight women vs. lesbian women.  In fact, there's probably a LOT of differences between EVERYONE's brains, depending on a whole host of personality traits, genetics, biology, genetic expression, nutrition, development, drug/alcohol use, etc.  NO two parents are EVER going to be the same, whether they share the same gender, same Faith, same genetics, etc.  It seems over simplistic to focus in on gender differences as THE primary defining characteristic guiding what parents can (or can't) provide to their children.

I think CaliforniaBoy's point may be: even allowing for the fact that different peoples' brains are wired differently what essential differences between the genders do you believe are essential/vital to parenting/raising children that aren't or can't be otherwise provided by same-sex parents?  What essential characteristic(s), traits, lessons, etc. can't be effectively taught? 

I don't view it as "can't be" as much as it most likely "won't be". 

Share this post


Link to post

As I read through this thread I must express my doubts that if we as a nation cannot make a gender distinction between people then our society will not endure for much longer. If we use our own Constitution against gender distinction on a national level, many calamities will follow. Much confusion will result on many things, not just gender. These are dubious grounds to tread since never before in world history which I am aware have nations endrosed same sex marriages. I hope I am wrong but very worried I am not. 

Furthermore, what worried me about the emergence of the gay rights activism is its threat to religious liberty. That's our first and foremost liberty. I cannot see any of our freedoms endruing if religious freedom is trampled. Here's a very well written article on the matter. It is based around an amicus filed in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop whose case will be heard by the Supreme Court. Since Judaic (and Christian) laws exist within their respective communities prohibiting endorsement of same sex marriages, religious liberty is directly threatened by LGBT activism.

Quote

The brief notes numerous examples in which Jewish practices have been infringed, restricted, and prohibited in foreign countries. For example, Jewish law not only limits the species of that which can be consumed, but also mandates the method of slaughter that must be pursued for the meat to be kosher. Yet in Belgium, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, all countries with a Jewish population, the practice is prohibited. Indeed, the UK recently made a serious attempt to ban the practice there.

As another example: Jewish law requires circumcision of all male babies on the eighth day of their lives, except under certain unusual circumstances that might endanger the baby’s life. Yet, on October 1, 2013, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a resolution terming the practice a “violation of the physical integrity of children.” In May 2012, a regional appellate court in Cologne, Germany, ruled that religious circumcision amounted to bodily injury and was hence a criminal offense. Some months later, the Bundestag reversed this decision and promulgated a federal law permitting the practice for religious reasons.

But the attempt had been made.

A further example, and one that hits very close to home, is the case of the Vishnitz Girls School in the UK. In 2013, the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services, and Skills (OFSTED) visited the Orthodox Jewish primary school and passed it with flying colors. OFSTED highlighted the excellence of the commitment of teachers and staff to the pupils’ welfare and development.

That was before the British redefinition of “marriage.”

This year, OFSTED revisited the campus. While again noting the excellence of the curriculum and the fact that the girls were “confident in thinking for themselves,” the school was failed because of one issue:

Quote

Pupils are not taught explicitly about issues such as sexual orientation. This restricts pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and does not promote equality of opportunity in ways that take account of differing lifestyles. As a result, pupils are not able to gain a full understanding of fundamental British values.

The school is in imminent danger of losing its accreditation and being shut down.

As the brief goes on to note, the sole major difference between all of these jurisdictions and that of the United States is that none of them have the Free Exercise Clause -- but we do.

(Bold mine)

If it "happened there" it can and will "happen here". All we need to do is make the same choices as "over there".

https://pjmedia.com/faith/2017/09/13/lgbt-agenda-vs-religious-freedom/ 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post

 

Are you willing to give up your right to not be discriminated against?

Edited by provoman

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, provoman said:

 

Are you willing to give up your right to not be discriminated against?

If a business refused to serve or sell to me because I was Mormon, I would think the owner(s) misguided, but that's as far as it would go. I wouldn't take them to court, especially if the product or service were readily available elsewhere. So to the extent the bakery is discriminating, I guess the answer to your question would be yes in my case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Oh Good...finally we can return to the good ol days of Jim Crow and codified sege"gay"tion web17-blog-mcs-1160x768-v01-300x199.jpg

 

I honestly wish the church would make up their minds...I've got whiplash from all of their back and forth.  Ban Gays from buying wedding cakes...but support Concerts of Love and inclusion for gays...I wish they would make up their minds.  But I honestly think this is their last straw moment....the church, Unfortunately, will once and for all be classified as a hate group with no more places to hide.  They've made their choice...and now they'll have to deal with the consequences that are sure to follow.  Trust me...there will be consequences (this is not a threat but a prediction)

Why care is some nuts classify the Church as a hate group?  Can't please everyone and many of these people have a lot of hate towards others who do not agree with them.  Who is trying to ban gays from buying wedding cakes?  If a business does not want to make money off gays, why should that matter?   It is their financial loss.  There are plenty of people willing to take as much money from gays as they are willing to give.  I personally would not want to make someone angry if they are making my food.  Who knows what they might do to my food.  Forcing a baker to make a cake might persuade the baker to give some added goodies in that cake or at the very least under or overcook the cake. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, bluebell said:

In a lesbian household, I think that seeing and understanding the world the way a man does is less likely to be taught and modeled. 

In a gay household, I think the opposite would be true. 

That is significant to me because the same sex parent is the most important and powerful role model in a child's life, while seeing the opposite sex parent work and interact with the family/world is also beneficial.

You keep saying that.  But you never have stated how a man sees the world differently than how a woman sees the world.  

If you have n o answer to that, then I will quit asking.  I have probably repeated the question too many times already.  I am just interested in what the answer is for people who feel that the two sexes view things differently.  There was noting in the studies that you quoted that talked about different world views between the sexes.  

I honestly don't think there is a difference that can be ascribed to each sex.  I think everyone sees the world differently.  It has nothing to do with what sex you are.

Share this post


Link to post

The Colorado Baker amicus, if successful, will open a door that will be hard to close.

You will see Christians refusing to serve Muslims, and visa versa.

Prtoestants refusing to serve Catholics, and visa versa.

This brief will open the door to sectarianism like you have never seen before. The organisations supporting the brief, and I include the Church, are being exceptionally naive and short sighted in the cause of their own self-interest. That’s just my opinion of where this could go, but having seen real life sectarianism close up, let me assure you it is not worth taking the chance simply because a baker doesn’t like gay people celebrating a joyous event in their lives.

Edited by Marginal Gains

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well what do you know! I deleted a portion of my post, and it got through this time. I still don't know what was blocking it, although I now have a fairly strong suspicion. See below, where ellipses indicate where the part was that was left out.

 

I disagree that I am the best, or even a good, person to respond to this. It's not the sort of thing that is ordinarily on my radar, and I would have to research it.

That said, I can easily conceive of obvious situations in which religious freedom would come to bear in business. ...

Or suppose a printing and publishing business was owned by Jewish people and someone wanted to hire it to print and distribute anti-Semitic pamphlets and flyers.

Or, for a less-extreme example, until recently Catholic adoption agencies have been free to be guided by their own values in selecting couples for the adoption of children. It now appears the freedom to do this is under threat.

Well congratulations for finally getting your post to go through.  I appreciate your answer, but that is not really what I asked.  I can certainly see how there are times that a person may not qualify for a job position.  That happens all the time.  But that is not the issue with the baker.  They aren't hiring someone who lacks the qualifications for a job.  They are selling a product to the public.  This is what I asked 

Scott, I think you would be the best person to ask this question.  Has religious belief ever been a legally valid reason for a business to discriminate against someone in the past?  Or is this a new right that religion is trying to assert.

By business, I meant using religion to legally discriminate against selling something to a customer that they provide to the general public. Is this a new right that religion is seeking?  Or have they always had that right in the past.

And I get if you don't feel qualified to answer the question.  It is just that I know you have strong feelings about this issue.  I was wondering what you legally base those opinions on.  I am trying to understand the legal argument that might be used by the bakers.  Law is usually based on precedence and existing laws.  I get that they are basing their case on the first amendment.  But has that amendment ever been used as a basis for this kind of business discrimination against a targeted group.  The only thing I could think of is when people claimed religious beliefs for not serving blacks.  And that, as you know has been struck down.  

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Darren10 said:

As I read through this thread I must express my doubts that if we as a nation cannot make a gender distinction between people then our society will not endure for much longer. If we use our own Constitution against gender distinction on a national level, many calamities will follow. Much confusion will result on many things, not just gender. These are dubious grounds to tread since never before in world history which I am aware have nations endrosed same sex marriages. I hope I am wrong but very worried I am not. 

Furthermore, what worried me about the emergence of the gay rights activism is its threat to religious liberty. That's our first and foremost liberty. I cannot see any of our freedoms endruing if religious freedom is trampled. Here's a very well written article on the matter. It is based around an amicus filed in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop whose case will be heard by the Supreme Court. Since Judaic (and Christian) laws exist within their respective communities prohibiting endorsement of same sex marriages, religious liberty is directly threatened by LGBT activism.

(Bold mine)

If it "happened there" it can and will "happen here". All we need to do is make the same choices as "over there".

https://pjmedia.com/faith/2017/09/13/lgbt-agenda-vs-religious-freedom/ 

So should Jews be able to stone people who commit adultery?  How about just in their own community?  Do you think any religion should be bound by the laws of the country they live in?

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, california boy said:

You keep saying that.  But you never have stated how a man sees the world differently than how a woman sees the world.  

If you have n o answer to that, then I will quit asking.  I have probably repeated the question too many times already.  I am just interested in what the answer is for people who feel that the two sexes view things differently.  There was noting in the studies that you quoted that talked about different world views between the sexes.  

I honestly don't think there is a difference that can be ascribed to each sex.  I think everyone sees the world differently.  It has nothing to do with what sex you are.

Maybe this can help:

https://www.boredpanda.com/men-vs-women-see-world-comics-alex-distasi-nomi-kane/

https://www.psychologies.co.uk/do-women-and-men-literally-see-world-differently

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, california boy said:

So should Jews be able to stone people who commit adultery?  How about just in their own community?  Do you think any religion should be bound by the laws of the country they live in?

You make a good point. This amicus opens the door for Shariah Law in American communities - I mean, it’s freedom of religion, right?

Share this post


Link to post

https://books.google.com/books?id=xd-pBDsQuaEC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=differences+between+male+and+female+worldviews&source=bl&ots=mnQOx1Y1qG&sig=OJarVr6AtTR37PF7eN7KNfPezRs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjv6MznnKTWAhVs44MKHRb0DpwQ6AEIezAS#v=onepage&q=differences between male and female worldviews&f=false

cant quote so summary:

Women's ethical concerns:  usually caring, cooperation, and empathy

Men's ethical concerns:  usually principles,  duties, and laws

General mating/relationship strategies are affected by the fact the women are fertile for a shorter time span and able to have fewer children [the highest record for a woman is 69 children, but most women will not have multiple births and couldn't be healthy enough to bear them:  http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-prolific-mother-ever ; on the other hand, a man could have hundreds of children for pretty much his entire life once he hits puberty with no negative impact on his health].

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Surrogacy is not difficult or rare, and there simply are not enough children available for adoption.  This is solely a legal question.

There are plenty of children that need parents. There are plenty of problems placing the not so perfect children.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Surrogacy is not difficult or rare, and there simply are not enough children available for adoption.  This is solely a legal question.

Babies perhaps, not children:

"In 2014, 50,644 foster kids were adopted — a number that has stayed roughly consistent for the past five years. The average age of a waiting child is 7.7 years old and 29% of them will spend at least three years in foster care. "Some people wonder why there are so many teenagers still wanted to be adopted, still feeling that a family is so important," says Hochman. "One 16-year-old we worked with said that when he graduated high school, he wanted one person in that room to be there for him. It's always important.""

http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a35860/adoption-statistics/

Considering how this compares to surrogacy numbers, adoption could meet the need if it was just availability that mattered to potential parents:
"The number of surrogacy cases have gradually been picking up pace. For instance, the US saw over 859 gestational surrogacy cases during 2010, which was a 28 percent rise from the number of gestational cycles that were carried out in 2007. The total number of surrogacy cases in the US, during 2011, stood at 35,000. As of 2014, it was seen that gestational surrogacy number grew by 89 percent over a four-year period in the US. The general estimate is that 9 children are born through surrogacy each year, in every US state."

http://www.mymedholiday.com/article-info/50/639/surrogacy-statistics-numbers-success-rates-worldwide

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Thanks Calm.  I appreciate the time you took to look these up. And i have to say, they don't surprise me.  I have read Men are from Mars and women are from Venus.  Certainly a lot has been talked and speculated about the difference sexes.  Most of it is just generalizations, stereotypes and assumptions.  But that is not really what I am trying to understand. What does all of this mean in competence to raise a child.  In another post of yours, you talked about only having 2 dresses, and answering the door in your pj's.  Basically you were saying that you don't fit the stereotype that these books and comic strip represent. From what you wrote,  I don't picture you standing in front of the mirror putting on eyeliner 7 times, buying a new dress because your others didn't make your breasts fit right and spending 7 hours working on your hair.  

So what are we to do about that?  Not allow you to be a mother because you don't  fit the stereotype?  Brand you as not being an ideal family to raise kids?  Make generalizations to screen out those that don't fit the criteria of what a man or a woman is "suppose to be"?  These are the reasons why I think it is nonsense to suggest that the ideal way to raise a child is with a mother and a father when quite honestly there are SO many more attributes that are far more important.  And I think the studies that have been done on gay children being just as good as children raised by father/mother households bear this out.

I am not going to beat a dead horse on this issue.  People are going to come to this question with their own prejudice.  But that doesn't mean there are any facts or rational though that support those prejudice.  Loved the cartoons btw.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If a business refused to serve or sell to me because I was Mormon, I would think the owner(s) misguided, but that's as far as it would go. I wouldn't take them to court, especially if the product or service were readily available elsewhere. So to the extent the bakery is discriminating, I guess the answer to your question would be yes in my case.

 

If you were black in the 60's would you have protested the discrimination being inflicted on you?  At some point, doesn't someone have to make a stand against injustice?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Rivers
      In the same-sex marriage debate, I have heard it argued that the government should have no involvement whatsoever.  Let individuals and churches define marriage for themselves.  Its an intriguing idea and seems ideal from a libertarian perspective.
      I don't see this ever happening, but if it did, I am curious about how the LDS church would handle such a situation.  The church currently recognizes all legal heterosexual marriages as valid.  How would the church decide what or what is not a valid marriage if marriage were privatized?
    • By Daniel2
      I came across two articles today and I was struck by the contrast:
       
       
       
      "Free thought?" 
       
      How is anyone's freedom to think being threatened by same-sex marriage...??
       
      "Religious liberty"?
       
      Ironic that the church is still beating their drum to the tune that legal recognition of same-sex marriage to be a matter of “religious liberty,” given that the denial of legal recognition of same-sex marriage refuses to equally recognize and respect those religions that recognize and sanction marriages between same-sex couples.
       
      Now contrast the above tone and rhetoric with the thoughts brought up by this second article, which struck me as very applicable:
       
    • By Analytics
      Several people have noticed a pattern—when the tension between mainstream society and the Church becomes too large, the Church modifies to ease the tension.  The two most obvious examples are polygamy and the racial priesthood ban.  Many people think that society will continue to become more and more accepting of same-sex families as a normal, healthy variation of families, leading to more and more tension between mainstream society and the Church.  Several predict this tension will be resolved by the Church updating its position on same-sex families.  Others say this will never happen and anybody who thinks in might doesn’t understand the clear doctrine behind the Church’s current position.
       
      I’d like to discuss a counter-argument to this: the theory of evolution.  Apparently, a BYU professor and 84.26% of the participants on this message board think that faithful members of the Church can believe in evolution.  On the one hand, I agree—faithful Mormons can believe anything they want—as long as they pay their tithing, don’t smoke or drink, attend church, and don’t make waves, they can believe pretty-much anything they want about anything and still get a temple recommend.  But on the other hand, that doesn’t mean their beliefs are consistent with doctrine.
       
      The doctrinal point in question has been called by Bruce R. McConkie "The Three Pillars of Eternity."  In his own words:
       
      The three pillars of eternity, the three events, preeminent and transcendent above all others, are the creation, the fall, and the atonement. These three are the foundations upon which all things rest. Without any one of them all things would lose their purpose and meaning, and the plans and designs of Deity would come to naught.
       
      If there had been no creation, we would not be, neither the earth, nor any form of life upon its face. All things, all the primal elements, would be without form and void. God would have no spirit children; there would be no mortal probation; and none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.
       
      If there had been no fall of man, there would not be a mortal probation. Mortal man would not be, nor would there be animals or fowls or fishes or life of any sort upon the earth. And, we repeat, none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.
       
      If there had been no atonement of Christ, all things would be lost. The purposes of creation would vanish away. Lucifer would triumph over men and become the captain of their souls. And, we say it again, none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.
       
      https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_three-pillars-eternity/
       
      That’s classic Mormon doctrine and is absolutely central.
       
      Here is a quote from the book Straight Answers to Tough Gospel Questions by Joseph Fielding McConkie:
       
      Q: Is the theory of evolution compatible with the doctrine of the Fall?

      A: No. We can tug, twist, contort, and sell our birthright, but we cannot overcome the irreconcilable differences between the theory of organic evolution and the doctrine of the Fall.
       
      This is of course true, and is supported by multiple books of scripture, the temple ceremony, and multiple generations of latter-day Prophets.  Despite all of that, thanks to our modern sensibilities 84.26% agree that Mormons can believe in evolution.
       
      So if Mormon doctrine can evolve enough to make room for organic evolution, why can’t it evolve in a way that makes room for same-sex families?  The change to the core doctrine to make room for evolution is by far the more drastic.
    • By Coreyb
        I really don't have any doubt that in the future the LDS church will change its policy regarding same sex marriage. I am sure that will be disputed by many, and thats fine, just start a new thread on it. If I, and others, are right about this,I think allowing Gay couples to fully participate in the Sunday experience will be relatively easy to do. The real question becomes, is there ANY WAY to fit homosexual marriage into a traditional(ish) Mormon exaltation theology, or will it have to be discarded to accommodate, should this prediction come true?  I am a strong believer in exaltation, but I also am fairly convinced that for many individuals, there is no way they will be happy or whole with a spouse of the opposite gender. Your serious thoughts on this are appreciated...
    • By DJBrown
      I have been interested in this question for quite some time.  Does reading the Book of Mormon affect whether a person supports same-sex marriage?  
       
      I will state up front that I believe there is a link between these two things- reading the Book of Mormon and not supporting same-sex marriage.  I ask for your honesty in this poll.
       
      Update- sorry.  I changed the poll because I realized that I could not capture any correlation or lack thereof between reading the Book of Mormon and support of same-sex marriage.  Should have seen that before.  Sorry.
×