Could We Discuss The Podcast In My Post After Listening With Open Minds?

[Libs]

Please Libs all churches are open to the public. Anyone who wants to come in and play nice is welcome. Your definition of just cause for governmental interference puts all churches in the cross hairs.

Ray, you are obviously not familiar with the case.

Some church had a gazebo of some sort (I think it had an ocean view, or something not sure, but it was not inside their church...a completely separate venue) that they were renting out for marriages. There was no stated requirement that those renting the venue had to be affiliated with their religion. They were renting to the public and it was not even a religious building or anything close to that. It would be like the LDS Church renting out a facility in their new mall, for weddings. When you are selling something to the public (selling, leasing, whatever), then you must follow the non-discrimination laws setup for businesses. It's that simple. The LDS Temple is NOT a public building, nor is it being leased to the public for any reason. Completely different "rules" for private religious facilities.

[ERayR]

Ray, you are obviously not familiar with the case.

Some church had a gazebo of some sort (I think it had an ocean view, or something not sure, but it was not inside their church...a completely separate venue) that they were renting out for marriages. There was no stated requirement that those renting the venue had to be affiliated with their religion. They were renting to the public and it was not even a religious building or anything close to that. It would be like the LDS Church renting out a facility in their new mall, for weddings. When you are selling something to the public (selling, leasing, whatever), then you must follow the non-discrimination laws setup for businesses. It's that simple. The LDS Temple is NOT a public building, nor is it being leased to the public for any reason. Completely different "rules" for private religious facilities.

Why because I disagree with you do you assume I am unfamiliar with the case? I am familiar with the case. The same principle applies to almost all religious organizations I know. Church services are open to the public. One does not have to be affiliated to attend. Bishops, Priests and Reverends usually perform marriages for anybody that asks. However, I am sure they would decline homosexual marriages. Under your reasoning they would be forced to perform them.

[Libs]

Why because I disagree with you do you assume I am unfamiliar with the case? I am familiar with the case. The same principle applies to almost all religious organizations I know. Church services are open to the public. One does not have to be affiliated to attend. Bishops, Priests and Reverends usually perform marriages for anybody that asks. However, I am sure they would decline homosexual marriages. Under your reasoning they would be forced to perform them.

I know that "Priests" (if you're talking Catholic Priests) do NOT perform ceremonies for just anyone, and neither do most Ministers. There are almost always stipulations (church membership, or a class one must attend, or really any regulation they want to impose, it is their right to do so). My son (a non-Catholic) just married a Catholic woman, and they had to jump through many hoops, in order to get married in the church. He had to take catechism classes, they had to attend a full weekend retreat for about to be marrieds. Not only can churches impose rules for non-members (including not allowing them to marry in their churches) but for members, as well. When was the last time you saw a non-recommend holding Mormon get married in an LDS Temple? Churches imposing their own rules, is perfectly within their rights...UNLESS, they are leasing a venue TO THE PUBLIC. That's a different animal.

You may be familiar with the case, but it doesn't sound like you are familiar with the governing principles behind it.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

If the LDS Church ever decides to "lease out" their sealing rooms, to the public, and advertise, in the media, that they are open for business, then, they would fall under different rules than they, now, do. I don't foresee that happening, do you?

Edited August 16, 2012 by Libs

[DBMormon]

LIBS, would you mind addressing my previous post, I am curious how a progressive LDS reasons those questions I ask.

[ERayR]

I know that "Priests" (if you're talking Catholic Priests) do NOT perform ceremonies for just anyone, and neither do most Ministers. There are almost always stipulations (church membership, or a class one must attend, or really any regulation they want to impose, it is their right to do so). My son (a non-Catholic) just married a Catholic woman, and they had to jump through many hoops, in order to get married in the church. He had to take catechism classes, they had to attend a full weekend retreat for about to be marrieds. Not only can churches impose rules for non-members (including not allowing them to marry in their churches) but for members, as well. When was the last time you saw a non-recommend holding Mormon get married in an LDS Temple? Churches imposing their own rules, is perfectly within their rights...UNLESS, they are leasing a venue TO THE PUBLIC. That's a different animal.

You may be familiar with the case, but it doesn't sound like you are familiar with the governing principles behind it.

I am very familiar with the governing principles behind it but unlike you I know that governing principles are open to interpretation and amendment. I am also very familiar with the organizations who caused the furor and their penchant for pushing the limits. You are evidently unaware of their past and the tactics they employ or else you are unwilling to see.

[Libs]

Have to leave, again, DB. Will try to get back to your questions, later.

[Pahoran]

If the LDS Church ever decides to "lease out" their sealing rooms, to the public, and advertise, in the media, that they are open for business, then, they would fall under different rules than they, now, do. I don't foresee that happening, do you?

Nobody does. But here is the point you are missing: a church thought that it had the right to regulate the sorts of activities it would permit its facilities to be rented out for. That right was set aside by a court, in favour of another party's "right" which the court thought was more important.

It was not a case of a court enforcing a contract, or compelling performance thereof. It was a case of a court forcing a church to enter unwillingly into a contract it had no desire to enter into. The church in question appealed to a number of constitutional principles, including the Free Exercise clause, in its defence. The court dismissed those arguments.

You will retort (angrily) that this was a commercial transaction and did not impact upon that church's right to act according to its doctrines in its worship space. But that is not the point. The point is that the notion that a church could be compelled to collude with something it regards as fundamentally immoral really ought to be unthinkable -- and, up until fairly recently, it was unthinkable.

In fact, it was once every bit as unthinkable as forcing a church to actively perform "marriages" it finds doctrinally repugnant is now.

The right churches have to refuse to accommodate immorality was chipped away by that decision. There will be other decisions that will likewise chip away at that right.

So where is the insurmountable hurdle that will protect that right at the door of the temple, Libs?

Here is a case that may bring matters a little closer to that door: Salt Lake City has bylaws that protect the Church's Main Street Plaza from being trampled in the annual filth parade. Are you certain that no-one is planning a campaign in the courts to get those bylaws quashed?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Libs]

I am very familiar with the governing principles behind it but unlike you I know that governing principles are open to interpretation and amendment. I am also very familiar with the organizations who caused the furor and their penchant for pushing the limits. You are evidently unaware of their past and the tactics they employ or else you are unwilling to see.

I see just fine, Ray. There is nothing wrong with asking to be treated fairly.

[Libs]

Back later.

[CASteinman]

First you say:

I haven't justified infringing upon any religion liberties, CA.

Then you say:

If a church wants to open one of their venues, for lease, to the PUBLIC, then like any other business, they must provide services to the public, at large. If they don't want to allow the public to use their facility, then don't advertise it, as open to the public. (That's not only against the law, but it's false advertising)..

The LDS Wards and Chapels say "Visitors Welcome". By this standard, we will have to marry gays in our Chapels. Against our beliefs. All because we are being welcoming to the public.

Which is nonsense.

(P.S. the judgment did not REQUIRE that the public accommodation had to be leased. Only that it had to be open to the public)

(P.S.S. All Churches of even reasonably modest size are businesses)

Edited August 16, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

What I understand is, that you are presenting speculation with absolutely no supporting evidence. It's also a deflection.

Well, you understand incorrectly. Despite every reasonable attempt to explain it to you.

[ERayR]

I see just fine, Ray. There is nothing wrong with asking to be treated fairly.

The trouble is you see "fairly" pretty one sided. Was it fair to force a religious organization to violate their conscience? Or for Dan Cathy to be attacked? Tell me what was fair there?

[selek1]

Why because I disagree with you do you assume I am unfamiliar with the case?

Because if you were "informed" you would agree with her.

It is a conceit- nearly a sacrament- of Left/liberals that the only reason people disagree with them is because they are a) ignorant, b) stupid, or c) evil. There is no fourth category.

Unless you are singing the hosannas in exactly the same key and with the exactly the same kool-aid stained teeth, you are too stupid to be taken seriously.

The left/lib mindset is predicated on the evidence-(and calorie)-free assumption that they are "good" and "right-thinking" people. Any one who disagrees with them must, therefore, be "bad" and "wrong-thinking".

The cognitive dissonance sets in when pious, intelligent, and otherwise warm, fuzzy, and cuddly people such as ERayR, DaddyG, myself. and Pahoran not only disagree with their positions- but do so based on reason, logic, and sound public policy.

This contradicton- if taken at face value- will upset not only their own self-image but their entire world view- and so must be rationalized away.

No "good", "smart", or "special" person can possibly disagree with them- therefore there must be something wrong with you.

In that light, Post #29 applies not only to those who want to redefine marriage to their own benefit, but also to those whose self-esteem is predicated on the praise of Babylon and the Great and Spacious Building.

Edited August 16, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

Question 1.) If we begin with an assumption that The Church is not true and not led by God, and we are simply dealing with human's and their own reasoning for what is right and what isn't within the church's positions - What is the diference then between Homosexual behavior, pedophillia, and beastiality? Why is the first one ok, appropriate, and a human's right to practice while the other two are evil and wicked?

Functionally, there are obvious differences between bestiality and the other two, in that the latter involves animals and humans.

The distinction between the other two is not so clear as there is a venn diagram of behaviors where pedophilia and homosexual behavior will constitute separate behaviors as well as overlapping behaviors.

As LDS people we have been informed that God has determined all three behaviors are not permitted. They are viewed with high disfavor.

Question 2.) Does not every human being have desires that the natural man is susceptible to? heterosexuality, homosexuality, alcoholism, pornography, gambling, hoarding, OCD, drugs... ect.. (not that every individual has each temptation in this list but that each of us have temptations in difficult areas such as these and others and we each have at least something that is our thorn in the flesh) what makes some of this bad and others acceptable?

As far as I can tell, we are all susceptible to sins like this but it seems some of us are more susceptible than other others -- for who knows what reasons? It seems that there are even those among us, who from an early age, had a strong desire to hurt other people and to control them or exercise power over them. Who knows why some people face these struggles, but the Gospel teaches us that we must overcome these to at least some degree, even if we are tempted. I admit to myself that for some people this may not be achievable. I do not have an answer to that that I like.

Question 3.) is is possible that just because one has a inclination, that alone doesn't make it acceptable or right? if the answer is it does then refer to question 1 & 2.

According to the scriptures, the natural man is an enemy to God. So it is possible that most of our desires need to be trimmed up and refocused.

[Libs]

First you say:

Then you say:

The LDS Wards and Chapels say "Visitors Welcome". By this standard, we will have to marry gays in our Chapels. Against our beliefs. All because we are being welcoming to the public.

Which is nonsense.

(P.S. the judgment did not REQUIRE that the public accommodation had to be leased. Only that it had to be open to the public)

(P.S.S. All Churches of even reasonably modest size are businesses)

Not unless you start selling tickets for entry.

[wenglund]

Question 1.) If we begin with an assumption that The Church is not true and not led by God, and we are simply dealing with human's and their own reasoning for what is right and what isn't within the church's positions - What is the diference then between Homosexual behavior, pedophillia, and beastiality? Why is the first one ok, appropriate, and a human's right to practice while the other two are evil and wicked?

I have been in enough discussions to know the likely answer to this question. The difference between adult homosexuality and the other two sexual deviancies is consent--i.e. the later two aren't legally competent to consent to the sexual act.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 16, 2012 by wenglund

[Libs]

Please make no assumptions of me by my question. The question states neither my position nor how strongly or nuanced my position is.

Question 1.) If we begin with an assumption that The Church is not true and not led by God, and we are simply dealing with human's and their own reasoning for what is right and what isn't within the church's positions - What is the diference then between Homosexual behavior, pedophillia, and beastiality? Why is the first one ok, appropriate, and a human's right to practice while the other two are evil and wicked?

The first is between consenting adults. The other two are not. That's a big difference, IMO.

Question 2.) Does not every human being have desires that the natural man is susceptible to? heterosexuality, homosexuality, alcoholism, pornography, gambling, hoarding, OCD, drugs... ect.. (not that every individual has each temptation in this list but that each of us have temptations in difficult areas such as these and others and we each have at least something that is our thorn in the flesh) what makes some of this bad and others acceptable?

We all do have inclinations that are potentially sinful, yes. But, sexual orientation (heterosexual or homosexual) are more than just "inclinations". Your sexual orientation is something you are born with or is determined early on and generally not subject to change, kind of like skin color (whether some believe this or not, there is much evidence that this is true). Homosexual or heterosexual can most certainly commit sexual sin, but simply being attracted to the same sex is not a sin, IMO.

Question 3.) is is possible that just because one has a inclination, that alone doesn't make it acceptable or right? if the answer is it does then refer to question 1 & 2.

Well, I think we are going to get bogged down in vocabulary and meanings. I wouldn't call ss attraction an "inclination". It is an orientation..a natural way of being, even though rare. It's kind of like being an albino. We could judge any kind of aberration, as "sin", and past societies have done just that. But, in today's world, where we are a little more in tune with science and how nature works, judging aberrations as "sinful" seems kind of silly.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

I have been in enough discussions to know the likely answer to this question. The difference between adult homosexuality and the other two sexual deviancies is consent--i.e. the later two aren't legally competent to consent to the sexual act.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's right...and a very important difference.

[Somebodyz]

First you say:

Then you say:

The LDS Wards and Chapels say "Visitors Welcome". By this standard, we will have to marry gays in our Chapels. Against our beliefs. All because we are being welcoming to the public.

Which is nonsense.

(P.S. the judgment did not REQUIRE that the public accommodation had to be leased. Only that it had to be open to the public)

(P.S.S. All Churches of even reasonably modest size are businesses)

Here in the UK, I could see this effecting (affecting?) the wards (not the Temple). We perform marriages for non members already. If the Church is ever forced to do marriages that go against it's standards, I expect first it'll stop doing marriages for non members, then perhaps marriages in it's wards.

[ERayR]

Not unless you start selling tickets for entry.

Please show me in the court ruling the part about tickets.

[Libs]

Nobody does. But here is the point you are missing: a church thought that it had the right to regulate the sorts of activities it would permit its facilities to be rented out for. That right was set aside by a court, in favour of another party's "right" which the court thought was more important.

It was not a case of a court enforcing a contract, or compelling performance thereof. It was a case of a court forcing a church to enter unwillingly into a contract it had no desire to enter into. The church in question appealed to a number of constitutional principles, including the Free Exercise clause, in its defence. The court dismissed those arguments.

You will retort (angrily) that this was a commercial transaction and did not impact upon that church's right to act according to its doctrines in its worship space. But that is not the point. The point is that the notion that a church could be compelled to collude with something it regards as fundamentally immoral really ought to be unthinkable -- and, up until fairly recently, it was unthinkable.

In fact, it was once every bit as unthinkable as forcing a church to actively perform "marriages" it finds doctrinally repugnant is now.

The right churches have to refuse to accommodate immorality was chipped away by that decision. There will be other decisions that will likewise chip away at that right.

So where is the insurmountable hurdle that will protect that right at the door of the temple, Libs?

Here is a case that may bring matters a little closer to that door: Salt Lake City has bylaws that protect the Church's Main Street Plaza from being trampled in the annual filth parade. Are you certain that no-one is planning a campaign in the courts to get those bylaws quashed?

Regards,

Pahoran

I have no idea and further, I have no idea what in the world that has to do with LDS Temples being required to perform SS marriage. That is just not ever going to happen, Pahoran...not unless our Constitution is drastically amended. And, if it ever is, then, it will only be by the will of two-thirds of the people of this country. Frankly, I do not see that EVER happening.

You are mixing apples and oranges. Non-discrimination laws, in the "public sector", protect minority rights. These kinds of laws have been necessary, because of widespread discrimination, in this country...but, even so, our laws are extremely mild, compared to some, in other countries (perhaps, even in your own), where religions have very little protection, and even free speech is curtailed, if it is considered "hate speech". So, I think complaining about the small amount of regulation, we have here, is a bit nitpicky. Religious freedom is very well protected in this country, PLUS they even have the benefit of being tax-exempt...something that a lot of people complain about, because some churches, including the LDS Church, bring in a LOT of money. With all of the benefits religion has in this country, I just don't see a lot of room for complaint.

[Libs]

Please show me in the court ruling the part about tickets.

No tickets (that was an analogy), but they were leasing out their property to the PUBLIC for MONEY.

[selek1]

The first is between consenting adults. The other two are not. That's a big difference, IMO.

And yet it is not a settled difference.

Despite your assurances that LGBT activists will go "this far and no further", members of your caucus are agitating to changes to the age of consent laws.

Much of the "common culture" you are defending (if not celebrating) is predicated on the recruitment, sexual conquest, and domination of underage men.

And before you shriek "Godwins" and beg the moderators to shut down the conversation- NO- I'm not talking about the NAMBLA wackos.

LGBT activists in England have advocated that the age of consent might be set as low as AGE SEVEN.

We all do have inclinations that are potentially sinful, yes. But, sexual orientation (heterosexual or homosexual) are more than just "inclinations".

Why? Because you say so?

Your sexual orientation is something you are born with or is determined early on and generally not subject to change

Call For References. No- you may not cite the long-discredited Kinsey or his derivatives.

Homosexual or heterosexual can most certainly commit sexual sin, but simply being attracted to the same sex is not a sin,

The Church (and nearly all of us here agree. The problem is that your cause celeb is not simply homosexual attraction- but practice and advocacy of homosexual behavior.

Well, I think we are going to get bogged down with vocabulary and meanings. I wouldn't call ss attraction an "inclination". It is an orientation..a natural way of being, even though rare. It's kind of like being an albino. We could judge any kind of aberration, as "sin", and past societies have done just that. But, in today's world, where we are a little more in tune with science and how nature works, judging aberrations as "sinful" seems kind of silly.

In other words, once again, this issue boils down to the unproven assumption and conceit that you and your fellow travellers are smarter than the sum total of human history.

[CASteinman]

Not unless you start selling tickets for entry.

You don't seem to be paying attention at all.