Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rockpond

Church statement on Equality Act

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's all a little confusing.

That is a good thing, Right? 

Actually, it is the mind and not the heart that will be confused. So, go with your heart. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Have people considered the prospect of the so-called Equality Act undermining the Civil Rights and Women's movements? 

In other words, the LGBTQ... movement may crush the shoulders  of other movements upon which it stands?

It is already happening. Don't believe me?

The EA issue is much bigger than just the prospect of encroaching on religious liberty.

Thanks -Wade Enlgund-

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

Have people considered the prospect of the so-called Equality Act undermining the Civil Rights and Women's movements? 

In other words, the LGBTQ... movement may crush the shoulders  of other movements upon which it stands?

It is already happening. Don't believe me?

The EA issue is much bigger than just the prospect of encroaching on religious liberty.

Thanks -Wade Enlgund-

I'm not sure I understand how the Equality act could hurt civil rights and women's movements, could you care to elaborate on this point?  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Anijen said:

You can move the goalposts all you want. I was replying to your post that Stormrider was not wrong in his quote about revisiting history. That is all my post implied, but you had to answer back by insulting my intelligence.

Stormriders post came directly from my first post, which apparently you missed. No goalpost moving. I made no comment on your intelligence, only your lack of knowledge which was proven by the fact of your goal post comment and some of your comments below.

 

Quote

The marriages between 2008 and 2013 were deemed invalid.  

CFR

Quote

Since this post is about the Equality Act which is a federal issue and since the Church responded to it making points at federal issues and since  other states and other churches were quoted in the church's response were from many states many outside California. I guess my lack of intelligence was out of bounds to think we were um talking about the Constitution on a federal level not a state level. 

Yes you incorrectly assumed I was talking about the US constitution.

Quote

I was not wrong in any of my statements. Weird, that you now admit I do know what I am talking about (thank you very much) however, according to you I am still wrong...

You stated the marriages in 2008 were invaidated (false). You stated same sex couples didn’t have the right to marry in California until 2013. Also false. 

Quote

See your words here would make anyone think we are talking about the US Constitution not California's.

I am talking about constitutional rights in general. In my first post I was talking about Prop 8, a California constitutional amendment. Why would you think I was talking about the US constitution?

Quote

(1), The word privacy is never mentioned in the Constitution. It is implied in the Bill of Rights (particularly the 4th Amendment), for people who do not know, the Bill of Rights are the first Ten Amendments.

(2) Yes, we have "the constitutional individual right to bear arms" as this issue is specifically stated in the Second Amendment.

Yet wasn’t ruled on until the last decade?

Quote

(3) The word marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution and traditionally was done by church leaders. As marriage benefits became secular thus became subject to governmental definition and regulation. However,  marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. It is protected by the Constitution as a fundamental right via case law. 

Correct. 

Quote

By California law a marriage required a valid licence.

Valid licenses were issued in 2008 after the state Supreme Court established the right to marry. None of these were revoked. 

Quote

If the licence is invalidated so is the marriage, (although wikipedia says otherwise, I can show case law on this, but it is getting redundant already).

You’re not thinking of Gavin Newsom’s 2004 marriages are you? You know when he flouted state law and married 4000 couples? Then these marriages were declared null and void? https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/THE-BATTLE-OVER-SAME-SEX-MARRIAGE-One-Year-Later-2731442.php

Quote

It only counts as a state constitution. State constitutions are subordinate. The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Yes, but unless I am missing something, a state can guarantee a civil right not prohibited by the US constitution. 

Quote

First, there never was a right to marry for ssc in Cali's constitution.  Prop 8 did not alter the state constitution because the state constitution only allowed marriage between a man and a woman and that view was what Prop 8 supported. How could Prop 8 alter the state constitution when it agreed with it at that time? 

Are you sure you know the timeline.? You might want to brush up. Prop 8 was passed in direct response to the constitutional challenge brought by the above referenced illegal marriages performed in San Francisco in 2004. The California Supreme Court ruled that prop 22 violated the states constitution. Specifically the state Supreme Court ruled that access to marriage was constitutionally protected under the California constitution. There has never been a law in California to allow SSM. Also how can Prop 8 not alter the constitution when it is a constitutional amendment?

Quote

What happened was there were new SSM marriage laws introduced

CFR. There were no marriage laws introduced. 

Quote

, (these new laws violated the states constitution).

CFR. Prop 22 (which banned gay marriage) was found unconstitutional (State constitution!) in 2008. 

Quote

   Even today the state constitution says; marriage is only between a man and a woman, only in a footnote, added many many years later does it say that the view has been found unconstitutional.  

This is the language inserted by prop 8 to remove the constitutionally protected right of same sex couples to marry. Gotta tell you it really seems like you aren’t familiar with the details here. 

 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Anijen said:

That is why those who use Wikipedia need to find new sources because it is edited by one sided agenda people who do not want their particular side tarnished. IOW, wikipedia is no longer reliable IMO.

Good point, it was a convenient, quick (and at the moment uncontroversial) source of facts. I think we'll need to pull out the actual documents at this point!

EA:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/788

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5

ETA: I'm not a lawyer, but Section 1107 seems to show why the Church is concerned... any lawyers who can comment?

RFRA:

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/chapter21B&edition=prelim

 

Edited by CV75
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure I understand how the Equality act could hurt civil rights and women's movements, could you care to elaborate on this point?  

Look up Joe Rogan podcast about transitioning male to female competing against life long biological females. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Same people fighting against the Church and our freedom of religion.

The adversary is trying to empower the government to persecute the Saints. And he may succeed for a season. But the Lord will be back soon.

Edited by Avatar4321
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Sec 1107 from the link CV provides:

Quote

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”.

That is rather all inclusive in language.  Is there any other reason/law that could be applied to provide a claim/defense/basis for a church university for example denying employment?  I can see how BYU might avoid it by requiring temple recommends ( going off memory here for professors, not sure about staff), but other Church schools that don't have such additional requirements that could be argued to be unattached to sexual orientation and instead focused on active membership?  What protection options do they have?

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Have people considered the prospect of the so-called Equality Act undermining the Civil Rights and Women's movements? 

In other words, the LGBTQ... movement may crush the shoulders  of other movements upon which it stands?

It is already happening. Don't believe me?

The EA issue is much bigger than just the prospect of encroaching on religious liberty.

Thanks -Wade Enlgund-

How do you mean it encroaches? I'm asking honestly.

The EA will not stop women's right to abortion, or stop their right to vote, to be doctors or to go without a bra. (The last part is a joke I'd heard from a professor of gender and cultural studies).

The EA will not disallow blacks to vote, to participate in mixed ethnicity marriages, the right to use the front of the bus, to use the same entrance as whites. Furthermore, it won't force slavery and the portioned personhood.

Not at all to be a cheap shot but if a person refrains from allowing blacks the priesthood despite the already allowance of such a gift then that is blatant willingness to subvert the dignity of a creation of God and the work of His prophet. Therefore, this/these rogue person(s) should likely be hit in the face by St. Peter prior to entry into Heaven. Think in terms of St. Nicholas doing the right thing by slapping Arius for heresy at the Council of Nicea. Though in the case of these rogues their insolence isn't damnable like Arianism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, provoman said:

Look up Joe Rogan podcast about transitioning male to female competing against life long biological females. 

Hmm...even this is a tricky one for me. Does the rhetoric still stand for women transitioning to men? Ugh! I'm honestly the worst when it comes to LGBTQ issues.

On a fun note, a co-worker from several years ago informed me that I hadn't received my Gay Start-up Kit in the mail as a child due to my disdain for rainbows, chocolate, Britney, Madonna, Cher, techno music (or whatever pressing play on your laptop is), or binge watching Desperate Housewives. I know the list is stereotypical. But seriously!?! Hating chocolate invalidates my gayness?!? That is pure unholy discrimination. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, provoman said:

Look up Joe Rogan podcast about transitioning male to female competing against life long biological females. 

I’d rather not listen to a 2-3 hr long podcast.  Could you summarize the content in a couple sentences for me?  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’d rather not listen to a 2-3 hr long podcast.  Could you summarize the content in a couple sentences for me?  

I haven't watched it but transgendered females have an edge in most sports over biological females, similar to if men were allowed to compete in currently female only sports.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Same people fighting against the Church and our freedom of religion.

The adversary is trying to empower the government to persecute the Saints. And he may succeed for a season. But the Lord will be back soon.

End times nostalgic drivel is useless.

Since religion does not nor will it ever have a monopoly on marriage or what constitutes a "traditional" marriage then churches have no problem.

You can believe homosexuality is a sin and play the victim card all you want. At the end of the day, "conservative" religion can stay out of my bedroom, my relationships, my freedom and liberty and my sister-in-law's reproductive rights. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure I understand how the Equality act could hurt civil rights and women's movements, could you care to elaborate on this point?  

 

2 hours ago, Valentinus said:

How do you mean it encroaches? I'm asking honestly.

The EA will not stop women's right to abortion, or stop their right to vote, to be doctors or to go without a bra. (The last part is a joke I'd heard from a professor of gender and cultural studies).

The EA will not disallow blacks to vote, to participate in mixed ethnicity marriages, the right to use the front of the bus, to use the same entrance as whites. Furthermore, it won't force slavery and the portioned personhood.

Not at all to be a cheap shot but if a person refrains from allowing blacks the priesthood despite the already allowance of such a gift then that is blatant willingness to subvert the dignity of a creation of God and the work of His prophet. Therefore, this/these rogue person(s) should likely be hit in the face by St. Peter prior to entry into Heaven. Think in terms of St. Nicholas doing the right thing by slapping Arius for heresy at the Council of Nicea. Though in the case of these rogues their insolence isn't damnable like Arianism.

I am glad you asked. 

Let's start with the women's movement, particularly the Equal Opportunity in Education Act, also known as Title IX., which was intended, in part, to give women greater opportunities to participate in athletics in high school and collage.

Women's athletic programs  were established and funded, often at the expense of men's athletic programs.  If a school had a men's track team,  then they need to also have a women's track team, etc. If men received athletic scholarships, then women were to receive them as well.

However, according to certain state laws, and potentially under the EA, biological men who identify as women may now participate in women's sports and receive scholarships intended for women.  In other words, legislation once intended to equalize athletic opportunities for women, are now being encroached upon and even displaced by biological men. Biological men are increasingly taking over women's athletics.

Do you see what I mean? Would you like other examples?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, california boy said:

Looks like the media is starting to pick up on the Church's statement 

Mormon Church Says It Opposes LGBTQ ‘Equality Act’, Pushing Lie That It Threatens Religious Freedom

In the Church's statement, the Church makes these claims.

Threaten religious employment standards (Does the Church have any examples on how those employment standards are threatened?)

devastate religious education (Just how is religious education devastated?)

defund numerous religious charities (That has already happened.  The government does not fund organizations that discriminate)

impose secular standards on religious activities and properties (What secular standards on religious activities and properties will be enforced)

I agree with HappyJack.  Unless the church also provides examples of how exactly the Equity Act will actually take away their religious rights, and not just doomsday type alarmist ideas, it is once again the Church calling wolf.  

(I haven't seen a rash of people wanting to legally marry barnyard animals or computers or the Eifel Tower or straight couples not wanting to marry because now gays can marry or people being confused on what the term marriage means. Or the end of civilization now that gays can marry.   Remember those and all the other doomsday predictions?  Wolf.  Wolf. Wolf.)

Thank you introducing “Lie” into the conversation! So appealing!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Calm said:

I haven't watched it but transgendered females have an edge in most sports over biological females, similar to if men were allowed to compete in currently female only sports.

Maybe I'm a little slow, but I'm not connecting the dots here.  What would this have to do with the Equality Act? 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

I am glad you asked. 

Let's start with the women's movement, particularly the Equal Opportunity in Education Act, also known as Title IX., which was intended, in part, to give women greater opportunities to participate in athletics in high school and collage.

Women's athletic programs  were established and funded, often at the expense of men's athletic programs.  If a school had a men's track team,  then they need to also have a women's track team, etc. If men received athletic scholarships, then women were to receive them as well.

However, according to certain state laws, and potentially under the EA, biological men who identify as women may now participate in women's sports and receive scholarships intended for women.  In other words, legislation once intended to equalize athletic opportunities for women, are now being encroached upon and even displaced by biological men. Biological men are increasingly taking over women's athletics.

Do you see what I mean? Would you like other examples?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Since transgender women are supposedly increasing their participation in sports today, then I'm not sure why you think the Equality Act will exacerbate this perceived problem. 

The reality we're dealing with is we live in a world that is increasingly egalitarian and that prejudice on the basis of sex and gender are rapidly being looked down upon, which I see as an amazingly good thing for society at large.  The challenges of how to handle competitive sports in a world with performance enhancing substances is a problem that crosses gender identity.  Also, how to fairly handle the participation of transgender individuals is also a question I don't think society has quite figured out yet.  

Its not a problem created by the Equality Act and its not going away irrespective of the passing of the Equality Act.  

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Calm said:

Sec 1107 from the link CV provides:

That is rather all inclusive in language.  Is there any other reason/law that could be applied to provide a claim/defense/basis for a church university for example denying employment?  I can see how BYU might avoid it by requiring temple recommends ( going off memory here for professors, not sure about staff), but other Church schools that don't have such additional requirements that could be argued to be unattached to sexual orientation and instead focused on active membership?  What protection options do they have?

At any rate, the language clearly repeals the RFRA exclusions for faith-based organizations, and that is enough to warrant concern. The language in the EA is in itself the repeal and guaranteed under the act should it get passed. In such a climate, I can see why the faith-based organizations do not want to give up on any protection they have on any level. "I can do without work boots because I can get by with sneakers" sort of thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

 

I am glad you asked. 

Let's start with the women's movement, particularly the Equal Opportunity in Education Act, also known as Title IX., which was intended, in part, to give women greater opportunities to participate in athletics in high school and collage.

Women's athletic programs  were established and funded, often at the expense of men's athletic programs.  If a school had a men's track team,  then they need to also have a women's track team, etc. If men received athletic scholarships, then women were to receive them as well.

However, according to certain state laws, and potentially under the EA, biological men who identify as women may now participate in women's sports and receive scholarships intended for women.  In other words, legislation once intended to equalize athletic opportunities for women, are now being encroached upon and even displaced by biological men. Biological men are increasingly taking over women's athletics.

Do you see what I mean? Would you like other examples?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In another post above I admitted to not knowing how to deal with this issue. It is a concern needed to be addressed. I'd recommend, though stupidly I suppose, in creating trans sports. Then I'd likely be accused of ostracizing trans people from the gender they identify with. But what of the reversal? Trans female to male persons who wish to compete? I'm honestly lost on solutions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Thank you introducing “Lie” into the conversation! So appealing!

I much prefer disingenuous talking points. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Thank you introducing “Lie” into the conversation! So appealing!

Wait.  You are blaming me for what the media is writing about the Church's statement?  Should I have changed someone elses headline?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

In another post above I admitted to not knowing how to deal with this issue. It is a concern needed to be addressed. I'd recommend, though stupidly I suppose, in creating trans sports. Then I'd likely be accused of ostracizing trans people from the gender they identify with. But what of the reversal? Trans female to male persons who wish to compete? I'm honestly lost on solutions.

We could just ban the process outright as it is not shown to increase happiness, help with mental illness (and there is a lot of it in those who try this), and amounts to self-mutilation.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

We could just ban the process outright as it is not shown to increase happiness, help with mental illness (and there is a lot of it in those who try this), and amounts to self-mutilation.

I don't see this working either as trans people will feel discriminated against.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...