Jump to content

tonie

Members
  • Posts

    885
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by tonie

  1. Incidentally, Tonie is female. I think she devised her new avatar to disguise that fact.

    Why, I can't say. We have no gender discrimination here that I can see. One of the most popular posters here is female.

     

     

    Hey Scott - tried to send you a PM, but your mailbox wasn't accepting messages (probably full).  Just wanted to ask you about something.

     

    Here's a temporary e-mail address (self destructs in 24 hours) that will forward a message to my real e-mail address. If you have the time to shoot me a quick e-mail, I'll respond with my observation. If you don't have time, that's ok too.

     

    Thanks!

     

    shENtjQx5pB1@meltmail.com

     

    tumblr_lwh80pfSKg1r40waqo1_500.gif

  2. You missed the point.

    The point is that as a general term, "discrimination" is to subjective to be useful. Gay activists are using generalized accusations of "discrimination" without defining specifically what they mean.

    I was giving examples of discrimination that we allow in society as an example of why "discrimination" without specifics is useless.

    We do not want to do away with all discrimination. When we choose what to allow or disallow, there has to be a good reason for doing so. And that reason is NOT a generic accusation of "discrimination", such as Scouts for Equality have made.

    What should gays be prohibuted from participating in Scouts?

  3. I'm not so sure about that. I hope you are correct.

    Supreme Court Justice Robert's confirmed that the recent decision could affect tax exempt status of those churches who refuse to perform or recognize gay marriages. There are many pundits who are arguing that this should be the case.

    Chief Justice Roberts:

    hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38

  4. So, rockpond, since you're a supporter of tonie's myopic rants, do you agree with his post #359 where he claims that most of us in the church view all gays as pedophiles?

    As you stated "read for understanding". I stated "many here", this board is not the Church. Individuals in this discussion or similiar recent discussions have promoted statistics to exclude individuals from Scout postions.

  5. Are you willing to quit being offensive in your posts? That may be popular with some who are MINO, but your self-congratulatory rants and offensive characterizations of those who don't agree with you are pretty much a turn-off to normal people.

    It's not particularly productive responding to you otherwise.

    The Church publicly stated worthy individuals can be extended callings, so why shouldnt the male in your example be a Scout Leader.

    This or other discussion devolved statistics and stereotypes.

  6. Well, now you can!

    http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/explaining-religious-freedom-and-lgbt-rights

    • What examples do we have of the loss of such freedoms?

    Examples include religious universities facing threats of losing their accreditation because the school’s religious beliefs run contrary to popular opinion. Some companies face legal consequences or boycotting because the owner guides the company using religious principles. Business and community leaders have been bullied and forced to step down because of their support of traditional marriage. Judges in California can no longer be members of the Boy Scouts of America because of the organization’s stance on gay leaders. Many religious individuals are now being shamed and silenced because their beliefs are no longer popular or in accord with what is considered politically acceptable.

    http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/religious-freedom-and-fairness-for-all

    Accredidation is not a religious right or religious freedom.

    We already have examples. Where same-sex marriage has been legalized in some states, for instance in Idaho and New Jersey, gay rights advocates have brought lawsuits and administrative proceedings in an attempt to force religious denominations to make their religious properties and facilities available to celebrate same-sex weddings.

    Are you referring to the "public accommadations" to which non-discrimination laws apply?

    Otherwise CFR, to your claim about Idaho and New Jersey.

    Further, according to the brief, if the Supreme Court also designates sexual orientation as a class deserving special protection, like race, then “religious believers could find their speech, association, and free-exercise rights diminished or denied in a variety of contexts, such as public education, employment, public accommodations, and professional certification.”

    Has happenened and will continue to happen.

    Such restrictions are already happening. California judges will soon be banned from joining the Boy Scouts or any other nonreligious youth group that espouses traditional morality. The accreditation of Gordon College is being challenged because its honor code prohibits “sexual relations outside of marriage and homosexual practice.” A counseling student in Michigan was expelled from her program when she respectfully requested that a gay client be referred to one of numerous other counselors in the nearby area. A pluralistic society that shows true respect and fairness for everyone would not compel or coerce these individuals and entities to betray their religious beliefs and conscience.

    Again accredidation is a religious right or religious freedom.

    Professional licensing associations can set their terms.

    I agree that a counselor should be permitted to chose her clients. Lawyers can refuse clients, on such right of refusal is the clients conduct.

    No one should expect a person who has been trained to council heterosexual couples to know or be innately able to provide effective counseling to a same-sex couple.

  7. jwhitlock

    You do realize, don't you, that the CHURCH officiall pronounced that worthy individuals may be extended callings? So why wouldn't a worthy male be eligible for to serve as a Scout Master........

    that's right, in your mind and apparently many others here, he should be regarded as a pedophile because he admits same-sex attraction.

    Despite his admission to ssa, he is Temple Worthy and otherwise a worthy Priesthood holder.

    And if ssa males should be kept away from males,

    Then heterosexual males should be kept away from females; thus raising the necessity for a Female Priesthood bearers.

  8. Gray havent you realized how many experts on the gay agenda/gay juggernaut this board has.

    And you are correct, the thread has been very much lacking of vialable examples.

    Ohios civil rights law, would be a law too far. As it could be used (ultimately unsuccessfully) to abridge religious sermons. And by ultimately unsuccessful, the intitial court proceedings to final appeal and court if last resort resolution.

    But so many of examples fail, because no rights were abridged nor were any religious rights threatened.

  9. ugh...If men are more prone per capita to sexual abuse of children and youth than women, is that not a legitimate consideration in determining who shall be a Scoutmaster?

    Why are men in any sort of consideration at all when it comes to leadership callings over youth. Priesthood should be held only by women and men should sit quietly in Church, covering our faces and only do things when assisting women, it seems as Scott's reasoning would have it.

    Who has time for such logic that crumbles anothers house of cards

  10. How many times have you been warned about board nannying, yet you don't get the message.

    Tell you what: Take your complaints to the moderators. Then, if you please, report back to us their response.

    Scott, this is probably the 2nd or 3rd you have falsely accused me. You falsely accused of violating board by using your name in my signature - it is not and was not a violation.

    You once again accuse me of being a board nanny.

    You have not denied my assessment of your post, It seems very apparent, I was spot-on.

    Surmising the intent of you post is not being a board nanny. Surmising the intent of your post is being astute.

    As i have not accused you of violating board rules; who is the person playing board nanny?

  11. I will not deny that individuals are molested.

     

     

    I know you are being sarcastic but perhaps you should be more sensitive in your hyperbole because that stuff really happens.. I was molested by an older scout. No I didn't turn him in, I was embarrassed beyond belief. Whatever the Scouts do I will never, ever be a part of it. The Scout Troop I was in was not affiliated with the LDS Church.

     

     

    I was not being sarcastic. And I doubt Scott or Russell would disagree with my statement (if either does, it would only be to not allow my assessment to be correct).  

     

    Homosexuals trying to get into BSA for deviant reasons has and is a common claim made by those trying to keep open gays out  of BSA. Adult homosexuals being pedophiles has been, and appears, a common claim in these types of discussions.

     

     

     

    For example please see the following posts from this thread, and if you feel so inclined look at the diversionary conversation about statically analysis of homosexauls.

     

     

    If you do not think teenage boys are more at risk of sexual advances by homosexual adult men than by heterosexual adult men you are an idiot.

    -guerreiro9

     

    Edited to add:
    I misunderstood guerrero's post. I actually agree with him. I didn't think I did.

  12. I gave you a rep point.  That's one of the most sensible things I've ever seen you say on this Board. ;)  (Are you feelin' alright? :D)

     

    "Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded..."   (no I did not order the code red)

     

    I value the law and the Constitution and the attendant freedoms. I take my oath(s) to uphold it very seriously. I agree with Joseph Smith in having the most liberal of sentiments towards other regardless of belief.

     

    God's law is God's law.

     

    From a secular standpoint man's law governs us, and I try to follow "Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet."

  13. Knowing Oregon Jurisprudence, I think that the verdict will be discrimination, but the damages will be reduced.  Brad, I think, was in his mind assessing a penalty, where as the law only calls for economic damages.  I think the economic damages are absurd.  In  no way was going somewhere else to bake a cake costing the couple $135,000.00.  

     

     

    And just imagine if the couple got a cake for free.

     

    Is "foreseeable" a genuine legal standard for emotional distress? My understanding is that emotional distress claim have to be shown to be intentional; that is, done with the intent to cause emotional distress.   What is most disappointing about the damage award is less about what the Bakers said and or did; but seems entirely based on "family members argued with the plaintiff", "3rd party individuals said not nice things".    Ithe damages need to be reduced to nearly zero.

  14. I can't figure out how having gay scout leaders is in any way "compel[ling] the Church to act contrary to its clearly stated principles".

    Kinda silly. It's cute too since the Church calls so many less-active and never mos to be scout leaders--at least from what I've seen. Some of the leaders the Church has called, actually drink, or smoke, or as gross as it is, view porn.

    As it is a scout leader doesn't have to be "worthy" as the Church defines it.

     

    What do you mean by "worthy"?

     

    Local LDS Leadership "calls" the Scout Leaders - Scout Master, Varsity Scouts.  I think the subject is covered in the Church Handbook of Instruction.  And given that Church assignment of Scouting Leadership is so closely connected to membership standards, then yes, "forcing" the Church to assign openly active homosexuals to Scout positions would infringe on upon the rights of the Church.  It would not be a wise move on the part of BSA to remove the "local Charters may choose" clause.

  15. BYU would be in such danger if they generally granted married couple housing to any couple who is legally married while singling out SSM couples and discriminating against them, assuming they can't avail themselves of a specific legal exemption. OTOH, if married couple housing were available only to temple-sealed couples, it would be a lot easier to argue their policy is about religious exercise. Religious organizations are not required to recognize civil marriages as having religious validity. But if all that is necessary to qualify for married couple housing is civil marriage, then singling out SSM couples and denying them housing is discriminatory. See how that works?

     

    A gay or straight same-sex married couple, would "lack standing".  Same-sex married individuals are not eligible for attendance at BYU, therefore not eligible for the benefits BYU offers.

  16. Will the gay rights movement step in then to fill the support vacuum? My sense is that it won't. I don't believe gay rights advocates have any great love for Scouting. BSA might want to consider that, because I don't believe the juggernaut is going to let the matter rest with this concession.

     

     

    How does one develope such blinding animus?  Seriously Scott, you may not realize this, and you probably will deny it....But the LDS Church - by representation of the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostle, who speak for Christ -  can be considered a "gay rights advocate". The Church even announced its efforts for gay rights in the letter that was recently released.

     

    Of course this Eagle Scout feature in the picture (front center Pascal Tessier Eagle Scout and openly gay) is just looking to have easy access to teenage boys, right; because we can not trust "them gays" to do anything except recruit for their perverse lifestyle.

     

    AR_150409792_jpg_image_Version_Soft_Crop

  17. Any chance of appealing this outside of BOLI, to the courts?  Anyone know?

     

    I beleive Danzo said an appeal is being worked on. What he posted also made it sound like, the appeal can address aspects not covered in the ALJ ruling or other proceedings.

×
×
  • Create New...