Harry Reid & Enda

[rockpond]

This week Harry Reid was speaking to a smaller group of reporters about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).  He said:  "When I attend church here in Washington, D.C., I bet more people agree with me than disagree with me, and so the church is changing, and that’s good.”

 

So his perception is that in his ward, more than a majority agree with him that homosexuals deserve the rights delineated in ENDA and "bills like it".

 

I tend to agree with him that it would be the same in my ward.  Would you agree or disagree?

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/harry-reid-mormons-gay-rights-99507.html#ixzz2k1BNNky5

 

 

Since Senator Reid had said "the church is changing" (I assume, referring to membership only) the church put out a statement to clarify that the doctrine has not changed.  That statement is here for your reference:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-on-enda--same-sex-marriage

 

 

Moderators:  I thought this would be a fair topic for discussion since it had to do with Harry Reid's comments about members of his ward.  If you feel this crosses the line into the political arena, please delete and accept my apologies.

[Avatar4321]

He's wrong. Church hasnt changed and wont change on the issue of Same Sex marriage.

[thesometimesaint]

ENDA means you can't fire someone simply because of their sexual orientation. The Church agrees.

[Kenngo1969]

ENDA means you can't fire someone simply because of their sexual orientation. The Church agrees.

So do I, and I hope (and believe) that most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do, as well.  No one should be hindered in his or her ability to make a living because of sexual orientation.  Whatever disagreements the Church may have with those who are attracted to members of their own sex, there should be no disagreement on that point.  If I worked in an industry (or for a company) in which most of my coworkers were gay, I wouldn't want to be discriminated against based on my sexual orientation.

[rockpond]

He's wrong. Church hasnt changed and wont change on the issue of Same Sex marriage.

Reid didn't say anything about same sex marriage.

[rockpond]

ENDA means you can't fire someone simply because of their sexual orientation. The Church agrees.

Does the church agree? The newsroom made a point of publishing a response but they said that they don't have a position on the legislation.

[Daimao]

Seems like there's an "ENDA's Game" joke to be made here, but it's just out of my reach.

[Ron Beron]

I thought we already had bills on record for this?  Why clutter up the law books with more hubris?

[california boy]

I thought we already had bills on record for this?  Why clutter up the law books with more hubris?

Because it is still legal to fire someone simply because they are gay in 29 states.  This is legislation that was first introduced 40 years ago.  It seems like there is a group who feel it is consistent with American values to continue to discriminate against gays.  Here is a link of an interview on Jimmy Fallon.  If you would like to be more informed about this issue.

 

The bill has passed the senate with the help of Mormon Orrin Hatch who feels it is in keeping with Mormon theology to not discriminate against gays.  Do you agree with him?  Should this bill finally pass even with strong Republican objection to it?  

[thesometimesaint]

Because it is still legal to fire someone simply because they are gay in 29 states.  This is legislation that was first introduced 40 years ago.  It seems like there is a group who feel it is consistent with American values to continue to discriminate against gays.  Here is a link of an interview on Jimmy Fallon.  If you would like to be more informed about this issue.

 

The bill has passed the senate with the help of Mormon Orrin Hatch who feels it is in keeping with Mormon theology to not discriminate against gays.  Do you agree with him?  Should this bill finally pass even with strong Republican objection to it?  

 

Agreed. Whatever the employer religious belief's it is wrong to impose them on their employee's.

[thesometimesaint]

Does the church agree? The newsroom made a point of publishing a response but they said that they don't have a position on the legislation.

LDS public affairs managing director Michael Otterson testified that the Church supported the measure “because it is fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of marriage.”

Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/why-is-the-mormon-church-supporting-gay-workplace-protections-20091111/#ixzz2kGhEmwIL

[rockpond]

 

LDS public affairs managing director Michael Otterson testified that the Church supported the measure “because it is fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of marriage.”

Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/why-is-the-mormon-church-supporting-gay-workplace-protections-20091111/#ixzz2kGhEmwIL

 

 

Good point.  On that local (to SLC) initiative the Church took a position and published it through the Newsroom.  I wonder why they wouldn't take a position on ENDA?

[strappinglad]

Agreed. Whatever the employer religious belief's it is wrong to impose them on their employee's.

Does this work the other way around? Laws seem to be prevalent that require an employer to accommodate all kinds of beliefs. Of course , an employee cannot fire an employer, but they can put them out of business through law suits.

[thesometimesaint]

Does this work the other way around? Laws seem to be prevalent that require an employer to accommodate all kinds of beliefs. Of course , an employee cannot fire an employer, but they can put them out of business through law suits.

 

Who has the power? IE; A consensual agreement between two individuals of equal power, or where one has the power of command?

 

Happy employees don't file lawsuits. Unhappy ones do.

[BCSpace]

Since Senator Reid had said "the church is changing" (I assume, referring to membership only) the church put out a statement to clarify that the doctrine has not changed.  That statement is here for your reference:

 

http://www.mormonnew...me-sex-marriage

 

Notable about the Church's statement is the absence of it's blessing on positions members take in opposition to it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think poeple should be able to hire or fire anyone for what ever reason. In time the person that fires some one for not very good reason will be faced with law suits and be driven out of business. We don't need laws for this kind of crap. It really is unnecessary.

[california boy]

I think poeple should be able to hire or fire anyone for what ever reason. In time the person that fires some one for not very good reason will be faced with law suits and be driven out of business. We don't need laws for this kind of crap. It really is unnecessary.

To win a lawsuit, the employer has to have done something legally wrong.  If it is not legally wrong to fire someone simply because they are gay, what would the basis for the lawsuit be?  I think the whole point of EDNA is to give a person legal recourse if they are wrongfully terminated simply because they are gay.

 

I guess if you are not the one being discriminated against, then you are right: "We don't need laws for this kind of crap."  It is a bit disappointing that any member of the church would not be in favor of laws protecting other minorities from discrimination.  

[BCSpace]

It is a bit disappointing that any member of the church would not be in favor of laws protecting other minorities from discrimination.

 

It's far more disappointing that any member of the Church would equate a behavior with minority status.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

To win a lawsuit, the employer has to have done something legally wrong.  If it is not legally wrong to fire someone simply because they are gay, what would the basis for the lawsuit be?  I think the whole point of EDNA is to give a person legal recourse if they are wrongfully terminated simply because they are gay.

 

I guess if you are not the one being discriminated against, then you are right: "We don't need laws for this kind of crap."  It is a bit disappointing that any member of the church would not be in favor of laws protecting other minorities from discrimination.  

I am sorry but I am in favor of educating people and teaching them correct principals and then letting them govern themselves. But there is a reason we have courts. And he or she simply could file a civil case. We don't need to make laws the protect certain people and set them above the rest.  We need equal treatment under the law. And so far we as a country are going to wrong way. What happen if I as a white male don't get a job and IO was legitamtly discriminated against? Nothing. I would move one. I could not even file a law suit and win.  That is how things go sometimes. Keep in mind that I am not for people disciminateing against any minority. But I know people will do what they will do. And putting laws on the books really isn't going to solve the issues you think it will I mean affermative action is not exactly a good thing and all we would get is more affermative action from laws like this. Oh well I doubt we will see eye to eye on this issue. We are just coming from totally different view points.  

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's far more disappointing that any member of the Church would equate a behavior with minority status.

Or that you can only discriminate some one if they are a minority.

[rockpond]

Does this work the other way around? Laws seem to be prevalent that require an employer to accommodate all kinds of beliefs. Of course , an employee cannot fire an employer, but they can put them out of business through law suits.

Yes, it works both ways. One cannot sue an employer simply because they have different beliefs or a different sexual orientation.

[rockpond]

Notable about the Church's statement is the absence of it's blessing on positions members take in opposition to it.

Not sure what you mean by that.

[california boy]

I am sorry but I am in favor of educating people and teaching them correct principals and then letting them govern themselves. But there is a reason we have courts. And he or she simply could file a civil case. We don't need to make laws the protect certain people and set them above the rest.  We need equal treatment under the law. And so far we as a country are going to wrong way. What happen if I as a white male don't get a job and IO was legitamtly discriminated against? Nothing. I would move one. I could not even file a law suit and win.  That is how things go sometimes. Keep in mind that I am not for people disciminateing against any minority. But I know people will do what they will do. And putting laws on the books really isn't going to solve the issues you think it will I mean affermative action is not exactly a good thing and all we would get is more affermative action from laws like this. Oh well I doubt we will see eye to eye on this issue. We are just coming from totally different view points.  

So you don't think that our other discrimination laws have done anything for other minorities?  You would be ok with "Blacks need not apply?"  Or "I didn't know you were a Jew, you are fired?"  Or "we aren't promoting you simply because you are a woman?".  Is it all discrimination laws you are against or just ones written to protect gays?

 

While the world would surely run better if we simply could teach people correct principles and let them govern themselves, that hasn't ever been the direction of governmental protection laws.  If we could simply hope that through education people would do what is right, would there be a need for any laws?  Maybe I would be able to see your point of view if you could show me a country or even a city that doesn't have any laws protecting it's citizens from bad behavior.

 

And btw, EDNA has nothing to do with quotas. And another thing, you can't win a civil suit if there is no law broken.  The courts are there to enforce laws.  What law would be broken if ENDA is not passed?

[strappinglad]

Two men work in a hair style shop. One is gay, the other straight. The shop owner is bi. A lot of the clientel are gay. Over time the gay hairdresser is promoted and given benefits that the other man isn't. Eventually the straight stylist is let go, because he doesn't fit the 'atmosphere'. What would be his chances of winning a discrimination suit against the shop? As a WASP male he does not fit into any protected group. Now try the similar but reversed situation in a mechanics shop. Discrimination is discrimination except when the law doesn't recognize a particular class of discriminees(sic).

[rockpond]

It's far more disappointing that any member of the Church would equate a behavior with minority status.

And individual can be homosexual without acting on it. Sexual orientation is more than just a behavior. And homosexuality is a minority status -- that's just a simple fact. Whether or not that minority status deserves certain legal protections could be debated.