Church statement on Equality Act

[rockpond]

The Church posted a statement about the Equality Act on its Newsroom page.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-expresses-support-fairness-for-all-approach

 

I'm curious if anyone has any insight regarding the second to last paragraph.  What religious rights would the Equality Act repeal?

Quote

The Equality Act now before Congress is not balanced and does not meet the standard of fairness for all. While providing extremely broad protections for LGBT rights, the Equality Act provides no protections for religious freedom. It would instead repeal long-standing religious rights under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, threaten religious employment standards, devastate religious education, defund numerous religious charities and impose secular standards on religious activities and properties. The Church joins other religious organizations that also strongly oppose the Equality Act as unbalanced, fundamentally unfair and a path to further conflict.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 I thought this quote was rich coming from an organization at the center of the effort to remove the right to marry in California:

When conflicts arise between religious freedom and LGBT rights, the Church advocates a balanced “fairness for all” approach that protects the most important rights for everyone while seeking reasonable, respectful compromises in areas of conflict.

[Robert F. Smith]

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 I thought this quote was rich coming from an organization at the center of the effort to remove the right to marry in California:

You may have forgotten that Prop 8 was about maintaining the legality of marriage between a man and a woman only, which was also Federal law at the time - and which Pres Obama fully supported.   Now both Obama and the LDS Church are on board with the Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, which allows same sex marriage.  That is the supreme law of the land, even if it merely reflects the latest politically correct fashion.  Laws in the USA have changed through time, so that slavery became illegal, miscegenation laws became illegal, sodomy laws became illegal, etc.  Anti-polygamy laws will soon become illegal.  The only thing which is obvious from all that is that change is a constant factor.  Get used to it.

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When conflicts arise between religious freedom and LGBT rights, the Church advocates a balanced “fairness for all” approach that protects the most important rights for everyone while seeking reasonable, respectful compromises in areas of conflict.

I take it that you do not oppose this notion.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The Church posted a statement about the Equality Act on its Newsroom page.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-expresses-support-fairness-for-all-approach

 

I'm curious if anyone has any insight regarding the second to last paragraph.  What religious rights would the Equality Act repeal?

 

Gotta be honest. I just try to tune out the church completely on this stuff. I simply don't trust them to do anything other than focus on their own self-interest, and therefore "fairness" isn't really a factor at all. IMO It's about maintaining organizational power and relevance. "Religious Freedom" seems to have become a dog-whistle for the hard core right and code for anti-LGBTQ. It's unfortunate because religious freedom is important, but I don't trust what the church has to say on the issue.

Edited May 13, 2019 by HappyJackWagon

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The Church posted a statement about the Equality Act on its Newsroom page.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-expresses-support-fairness-for-all-approach

 

I'm curious if anyone has any insight regarding the second to last paragraph.  What religious rights would the Equality Act repeal?

 

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_(United_States):

“The Act would also remove all exemptions for religious organizations currently provided under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

“The Equality Act removes all exemptions for religious organizations currently provided under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

Summarizing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act : The Religious Freedom Restoration Act exempts faith-based organizations from employment discrimination involving religious-based hiring, firing, and other personnel policies (delineation of benefits, granting promotion and seniority, etc.). I imagine this might also extend to eligibility, matriculation and retention practices for students and tenure for professors at faith-based universities. It also protects traditional Indian religious practice (e.g. use of peyote) that might otherwise run afoul of federal or state laws, and this could extend to protecting the practices of organized religion systems that run afoul of the intent of the proposed Equality Act.

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Gotta be honest. I just try to tune out the church completely on this stuff. I simply don't trust them to do anything other than focus on their own self-interest, and therefore "fairness" isn't really a factor at all. IMO It's about maintaining organizational power and relevance. "Religious Freedom" seems to have become a dog-whistle for the hard core right and code for anti-LGBTQ. It's unfortunate because religious freedom is important, but I don't trust what the church has to say on the issue.

What about the "other religious organizations that also strongly oppose the Equality Act as unbalanced, fundamentally unfair and a path to further conflict"?

What about: “The Equality Act removes all exemptions for religious organizations currently provided under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_(United_States)?

Edited May 13, 2019 by CV75

[the narrator]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

which was also Federal law at the time - and which Pres Obama fully supported. 

Prior to Obergefell v. Hodges, the Obama administration announced that the did not believe that DOMA was constitutional and said the DOJ would not defend it.

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_(United_States):

 

“The Act would also remove all exemptions for religious organizations currently provided under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

 

“The Equality Act removes all exemptions for religious organizations currently provided under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

 

Summarizing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act : The Religious Freedom Restoration Act exempts faith-based organizations from employment discrimination involving religious-based hiring, firing, and other personnel policies (delineation of benefits, granting promotion and seniority, etc.). I imagine this might also extend to eligibility, matriculation and retention practices for students and tenure for professors at faith-based universities. It also protects traditional Indian religious practice (e.g. use of peyote) that might otherwise run afoul of federal or state laws, and this could extend to protecting the practices of organized religion systems that run afoul of the intent of the proposed Equality Act.

 

If that's the issue... that churches and faith-based universities would not be able to consider one's religion when considering employment, that's definitely a problem.

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

an organization at the center of the effort to remove the right to marry in California

Not just marriage. The Church supported efforts to prevent same-sex civil unions as well, such as Amendment 3 in Utah in 2004.

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If that's the issue... that churches and faith-based universities would not be able to consider one's religion when considering employment, that's definitely a problem.

I'm sure there are several issues, this is just one in reply to your question about what exemptions would be repealed. I would think that churches and faith-based universities not being to consider their own and the applicant's  religious beliefs when considering employment would be a problem also. One example is in the Wikipedia article on the Equaity Act, which uses biased language in favor of the Act: "...for example, a religion can refuse to hire an individual in a same-sex marriage as clergy or in any central capacity due to differences in belief around the stereotype of marriage. The Equality Act removes this exemption for all religious organizations, and would make the above example (discriminating based on the stereotype that marriage should be between a man and a woman) illegal discrimination."

[HappyJackWagon]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What about the "other religious organizations that also strongly oppose the Equality Act as unbalanced, fundamentally unfair and a path to further conflict"?

What about: “The Equality Act removes all exemptions for religious organizations currently provided under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_(United_States)?

What about them? If you're suggesting that the Church isn't the only church that does this, I'd agree. They're not alone. So what?

The boy has cried wolf repeatedly. I'm no longer paying attention to the boy's claims.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Gotta be honest. I just try to tune out the church completely on this stuff. I simply don't trust them to do anything other than focus on their own self-interest, and therefore "fairness" isn't really a factor at all. IMO It's about maintaining organizational power and relevance. "Religious Freedom" seems to have become a dog-whistle for the hard core right and code for anti-LGBTQ. It's unfortunate because religious freedom is important, but I don't trust what the church has to say on the issue.

I hadn't even heard of this Equality Act until right at this moment, and my initial reaction is the same as you.  The church is interested in maintaining its relevance, even when that maintenance intrudes on the interests of others, and the use of words like "fairness" is merely an attempt to persuade others to align with their interests.  If religious freedom includes discriminating against LGBTQ people in any way, then how is that fair?  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_(United_States):

 

“The Act would also remove all exemptions for religious organizations currently provided under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

 

“The Equality Act removes all exemptions for religious organizations currently provided under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

 

Summarizing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act : The Religious Freedom Restoration Act exempts faith-based organizations from employment discrimination involving religious-based hiring, firing, and other personnel policies (delineation of benefits, granting promotion and seniority, etc.). I imagine this might also extend to eligibility, matriculation and retention practices for students and tenure for professors at faith-based universities. It also protects traditional Indian religious practice (e.g. use of peyote) that might otherwise run afoul of federal or state laws, and this could extend to protecting the practices of organized religion systems that run afoul of the intent of the proposed Equality Act.

 

Thanks for the links.  Assuming that this is accurate, look at the # of organizations backing this Equality Act:

Quote

The Equality Act was jointly introduced in both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate on March 13, 2019, with the support of both Democratic and Republican members of Congress, national civil rights organizations (including the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League and the Human Rights Campaign), international human rights organizations (including Human Rights Watch), major professional associations (including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the American Bar Association), and major businesses (including Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, eBay, IBM, Facebook, Twitter, Visa, Mastercard, Intel, and Netflix).[3][4]

Why would the church put out a public statement from the PR group opposing something that has such a broad support across so many influential organizations.  How is this even smart strategically?  Its one thing to be opposed to something and to work through back channels to try and defeat it, but its a whole different thing to make a public statement like they did.  How is this even wise PR strategy?  This looks so stupid on so many different levels.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the links.  Assuming that this is accurate, look at the # of organizations backing this Equality Act:

Why would the church put out a public statement from the PR group opposing something that has such a broad support across so many influential organizations.  How is this even smart strategically?  Its one thing to be opposed to something and to work through back channels to try and defeat it, but its a whole different thing to make a public statement like they did.  How is this even wise PR strategy?  This looks so stupid on so many different levels.  

My understanding is one often needs to demonstrate one has consistently held a position to achieve standing in a court setting.  If the Church ends up challenging the implementation if the Act becomes law, they may need to show they never agreed with the law.  Just speculating (basically extrapolating from copyright and needing to show one defends one's trademark as well as hearing of cases being dismissed due to lack of standing), I am not very familiar with how the law works, so if someone wants to say this isn't even close to accurate, not going to hurt my feelings.  

Edited May 13, 2019 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the links.  Assuming that this is accurate, look at the # of organizations backing this Equality Act:

Why would the church put out a public statement from the PR group opposing something that has such a broad support across so many influential organizations.  How is this even smart strategically?  Its one thing to be opposed to something and to work through back channels to try and defeat it, but its a whole different thing to make a public statement like they did.  How is this even wise PR strategy?  This looks so stupid on so many different levels.  

Didn't Pres. Nelson recently tell leaders something to the effect of 'If you're not facing persecution on a daily basis, you're not doing your job"?  I think that's the mindset. They expect opposition, and it seems they interpret that as persecution, which means they are doing their job. I think they point to their unpopularity on some issues as evidence that it's truly God's will. I mean, why else would they be unpopular unless it's what God wanted?  They want to be in the world but not of the world. This kind of thing may help them feel good about not being too far inside Babylon.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

My understanding is one often needs to demonstrate one has consistently held a position to achieve standing in a court setting.  If the Church ends up challenging the implantation if the Act becomes law, they may need to show they never agreed with the law.  Just speculating (basically extrapolating from copyright and needing to show one defends one's trademark as well as hearing of cases being dismissed due to lack of standing), I am not very familiar with how the law works, so if someone wants to say this isn't even close to accurate, not going to hurt my feelings.  

I agree that consistency has its merits, and perhaps you're right about future legal challenges that they are anticipating.  Unfortunately on this topic for the church, this most recent statement shows just how out of touch their current position is with the rest of society.  I think many of their PR positions have often been much smarter articulated.  This looks like sour grapes and its out of touch with the same people they are trying to build bridges with like the NAACP and even with LGBTQ organizations.  It undercuts the good will they've been trying to foster.  Its seems like another example of the conflicting interests and internal struggles that seem to indicate that church leaders have vastly different positions on these topics within the hierarchy.  

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Didn't Pres. Nelson recently tell leaders something to the effect of 'If you're not facing persecution on a daily basis, you're not doing your job"?  I think that's the mindset. They expect opposition, and it seems they interpret that as persecution, which means they are doing their job. I think they point to their unpopularity on some issues as evidence that it's truly God's will. I mean, why else would they be unpopular unless it's what God wanted?  They want to be in the world but not of the world. This kind of thing may help them feel good about not being too far inside Babylon.

A confirmation bias of sorts.  I think the Scientology folks are winning when it comes to persecution in the public sphere, so clearly by that standard they are more favored by God.  

[provoman]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the links.  Assuming that this is accurate, look at the # of organizations backing this Equality Act:

Why would the church put out a public statement from the PR group opposing something that has such a broad support across so many influential organizations.  How is this even smart strategically?  Its one thing to be opposed to something and to work through back channels to try and defeat it, but its a whole different thing to make a public statement like they did.  How is this even wise PR strategy?  This looks so stupid on so many different levels.  

I would not be so quick to celebrate the virtue of all those in support.

last I checked twitter maintains an office in a country that does not allow for equality of men and woman or LGBT. 

Edited May 13, 2019 by provoman

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You may have forgotten that Prop 8 was about maintaining the legality of marriage between a man and a woman only, which was also Federal law at the time - and which Pres Obama fully supported.   Now both Obama and the LDS Church are on board with the Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, which allows same sex marriage.  That is the supreme law of the land, even if it merely reflects the latest politically correct fashion.  Laws in the USA have changed through time, so that slavery became illegal, miscegenation laws became illegal, sodomy laws became illegal, etc.  Anti-polygamy laws will soon become illegal.  The only thing which is obvious from all that is that change is a constant factor.  Get used to it.

I take it that you do not oppose this notion.

Please don't confuse the facts with the Gay Agenda and their activists. It is so much more effective to ignore facts and restructure history to make sure you score points.  Gads, do I hate this kind of drivel, but thank you for at least trying. 

[blueglass]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You may have forgotten that Prop 8 was about maintaining the legality of marriage between a man and a woman only, which was also Federal law at the time - and which Pres Obama fully supported.   Now both Obama and the LDS Church are on board with the Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, which allows same sex marriage.  That is the supreme law of the land, even if it merely reflects the latest politically correct fashion.  Laws in the USA have changed through time, so that slavery became illegal, miscegenation laws became illegal, sodomy laws became illegal, etc.  Anti-polygamy laws will soon become illegal.  The only thing which is obvious from all that is that change is a constant factor.  Get used to it.

I take it that you do not oppose this notion.

The church made a stand against the equality act in 2019 but was completely silent after Judge Clark Waddoups wrote a religious freedom argument decriminalizing polygamy.  As far as I understand today if families legally and lawfully consist of multiple wives in Niger or Liberia for example the church will not permit baby blessings, or baptism and will excommunicate members of the church who participate.  On the other hand as of April 2019 if gay couples wish to bless the baby in church, or baptize their children the church will enter these parents into the MLS system.  The church is against religious freedom which supports section 132.  

Edited May 13, 2019 by blueglass

[phaedrus ut]

The church was on a winning streak with the removing the November policy and new civil marriage rules.  By experience we knew it couldn't last. 

Phaedrus 

[blueglass]

removed as relational history of founder is irrelevant to missionary work.

 

Edited May 13, 2019 by blueglass

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You may have forgotten that Prop 8 was about maintaining the legality of marriage between a man and a woman only, which was also Federal law at the time - and which Pres Obama fully supported.   

What a load of cow manure. Prop 8 was a California constitutional amendment to remove gay’s right to marry. As for Obama’s position? He was against prop 8. https://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-ban-on-gay-marriage-3278328.php

And yes it is extremely ironic the church is now advocating “fairness for all.” 

[provoman]

37 minutes ago, blueglass said:

If the church really supports religious freedom then it will permit the following individual to join the church, bless and baptize their children, marry in the temple and attend BYU and play football:

1)  This individual eloped and married out of state against the will of his father in law but legally as witnessed by his employer who has an interest in the silver mine dig.

2)  This individual is married to the maid without his wife's knowledge

3)  This individual has married 11 wives already married to other men - but don't worry the men have never complained according to the written record.

4)  This individual is proposing to marry 3 sets of sisters pending approval of his first wife - oops forgot to get approval beforehand on one of these pairs.  

5)  This individual would like to marry two 14-year olds and the parents wholeheartedly approve.

6)  This individual after drinking wine at the house has decided to marry both the mother and her daughter.

7)  This individual proposes to marry two more women >50y/o and the bishop is in agreement if he agrees to pay their rent and send a stipend for food.   

 

not sure of your point, but it is interesting that you post about religious freedom while at the same time denying a religion the freedom to operate within the dictates of its own conscience.

Edited May 13, 2019 by provoman

[provoman]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the links.  Assuming that this is accurate, look at the # of organizations backing this Equality Act:

Why would the church put out a public statement from the PR group opposing something that has such a broad support across so many influential organizations.  How is this even smart strategically?  Its one thing to be opposed to something and to work through back channels to try and defeat it, but its a whole different thing to make a public statement like they did.  How is this even wise PR strategy?  This looks so stupid on so many different levels.  

 

49 minutes ago, provoman said:

I would not be so quick to celebrate the virtue of all those in support.

last I checked twitter maintains an office in a country that does not allow for equality of men and woman or LGBT. 

Have more time to post. How many of those companies, in support of the Act, maintain business or for profit enterprises in Countries where either homosexuality is illegal or homosexual conduct is punishable by death. Here is an article, it is from 2016,