Jump to content

First The Nfl, Now Disney...


Daniel2

Recommended Posts

For years, members on these boards have suggested that as homosexuality becomes more socially accepted, organizations like the BSA and the LDS Faith will experience increasing social pressure to change.

The NFL'S pressure in Arizona was one such example that echoed the pressure that BYU football experienced over the church's racial policies of the 70's. And likely foreshadowed what is to come, regarding its policies on gays and lesbians.

Now, after its recent first lesbian couple in prime time kids' programming, Disney has joined the growing number of corporations that have entered the fray against the BSA:

02/27/2014

WALT DISNEY WORLD CUTS TIES WITH BOY SCOUTS UNTIL THEY ARE FULLY INCLUSIVE

BY DANIEL VILLARREAL

You may recall that back in April of 2013, the Boy Scouts of America began allowing gay kids under the age of 18 to participate in scouting, but maintained that openly gay adults still could not serve as scout leaders.

This discriminatory policy has led Walt Disney World to discontinue fundingthe BSA through their annual “Ears to You” grant program until the policy changes:

In an e-mail to local members, Central Florida Council Board President Robert Utsey wrote: “We recognize that many Scout Units have received financial support over the last several years from this grant opportunity and are sad to see it go. The National BSA Council has reached out to [Walt Disney World] to try to resolve the situation, however, according to WDW, their views do not currently align with the BSA and they are choosing to discontinue this level of support.”

Since Scouts for Equality’s inception in 2012, seven major corporate sponsors of the Boy Scouts of America have ended their partnerships with the organization. These sponsors include Lockheed Martin, Caterpillar, Major League Soccer, Merck, Intel, UPS and now Walt Disney World.

Zach Wahls, the co-founder of Eagle Scout and Scouts for Equality — who is himself a straight Eagle Scout with two lesbian parents — said, “We’re never happy to see Scouting suffer as a result of the BSA’s anti-gay policy, but Disney made the right decision to withhold support until Scouting is fully inclusive.”

The world is changing fast. I figured it's worth a head's up that, IMO, this is the type of pressure that will ultimately change the LDS Faith, as well.

Link to comment

I doubt it.

 

Me too... at least I think your comment refers to the Church not changing its stance... right now that is that any LGBT can join the Church and participate fully as long as they... like me, a straight single woman... continue to live the Law of Chastity.  I'm expected to, so why not everyone else?  We have moral standards that we (single adults) must meet to enjoy full fellowship, including attending the temple.  This applies to everyone, as it should...

The challenge will come in states with approved SS marriage... but I still don't see the Church changing our stance on that issue.

 

GG

Link to comment

Me too... at least I think your comment refers to the Church not changing its stance... right now that is that any LGBT can join the Church and participate fully as long as they... like me, a straight single woman... continue to live the Law of Chastity.  I'm expected to, so why not everyone else?  We have moral standards that we (single adults) must meet to enjoy full fellowship, including attending the temple.  This applies to everyone, as it should...

The challenge will come in states with approved SS marriage... but I still don't see the Church changing our stance on that issue.

 

GG

 

Agreed.

Link to comment

There will be the day when all things good and virtuous will be condemned and ridiculed by the wicked and those who seek the destruction of God and his plan. The divide is clear and in that day those who seek after righteousness both within and outside of any Christian church will stand as one. 

 

I know what wrong is; I know what righteousness looks like; that ain't it. This war will continue to burn and it will end the destruction of either one side or the other. They are completely incompatible. This is not a demand by one side of live and let live; it is the absolute demand to force all citizens to condone, support, and accept iniquity as healthy, wholesome, pure, and righteous. It demands that we cast away the one and living God and accept the golden calf of hedonistic secularism. 

 

And we wonder why Muslims feel threatened by the West? You must be joking! The West represents a decadent culture that rots from the inside without any ability to correct itself. There is no community; it is a mass of individuals that demand instant gratification. 

 

There may come a day where the only place a Christian can reside freely will be within a Muslim community.  

Link to comment

For years, members on these boards have suggested that as homosexuality becomes more socially accepted, organizations like the BSA and the LDS Faith will experience increasing social pressure to change.

The NFL'S pressure in Arizona was one such example that echoed the pressure that BYU football experienced over the church's racial policies of the 70's. And likely foreshadowed what is to come, regarding its policies on gays and lesbians.

Now, after its recent first lesbian couple in prime time kids' programming, Disney has joined the growing number of corporations that have entered the fray against the BSA:

The world is changing fast. I figured it's worth a head's up that, IMO, this is the type of pressure that will ultimately change the LDS Faith, as well.

 

You are very mistaken to think that the statement from the NFL was "pressure" on Arizona.

 

Here are the facts,

 

The NFL is opposed to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation was legal in Arizona during the time period for EVERY SUPERBOWL held in Arizona.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation was legal in Arizona when the NFL decided to hold the next Superbowl in Arizona.

The Gov of Arizona vetoed the latest religious freedom in Arizona.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is STILL LEGAL IN ARIZONA.

The NFL, which is opposed to discrimination based on sexual orientation, has not pulled the SuperBowl from Arizona, despite the fact that discrimination based on sexual orientation is legal in Arizona.

 

The NFL offered nothing but platitudes, or at best gave the impression of empty threats.  Same goes for every corporation which has business in Arizona and spoke out againts the bill.

 

As for the Church, who can pressure them financially other than the IRS? I will say "No one", I am not aware of any "handouts" the gets from outside sources. My understanding is that the Church is financially self-sufficient.

Link to comment

The simple fact is that the governor of Arizona vetoed a bill that would have legalized discrimination based on religion.

 

Here is her statement:

Good evening and thank you all for joining me here this evening.

I'm here to announce a decision on Senate Bill 1062. As with every proposal that reached my desk I give great concern and careful evaluation and deliberate consideration, especially to Senate Bill 1062.

I call them like I seem them despite the cheers or the boos from the crowd. I took the necessary time to make the right decision.

I met and spoke with my attorneys, lawmakers and citizens supporting and opposing this legislation.

As governor I have asked questions, and I have listened. I have protected religious freedoms where there is a specific and present concern that exists in our state, and I have the record to prove it.

My agenda is to sign into law legislation that advances Arizona. When I addressed the Legislature earlier this year, I made my priorities for this session abundantly clear. Among them are passing a responsible budget that continues Arizona's economic comeback. From CEOs, to entrepreneurs, to business surveys, Arizona ranks as one of the best states to grow or start a business.

Additionally, our immediate challenge is fixing a broken child protection system. Instead, this is the first policy bill to cross my desk.

Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona.

I have not heard one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated. The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences. After weighing all of the arguments, I have vetoed Senate Bill 1062 moments ago.

To the supporters of this legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes, however, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and nobody could ever want.

Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value. So is non-discrimination. Going forward, let's turn the ugliness of the debate over Senate Bill 1062 into a renewed search for greater respect and understanding among all Arizona and Americans.

Link to comment
Me too... at least I think your comment refers to the Church not changing its stance... right now that is that any LGBT can join the Church and participate fully as long as they... like me, a straight single woman... continue to live the Law of Chastity.

 

Which has always been the case.

 

 

Rejoice in wickeness!  Wallow in the mire!  Dance as all things good that don't bow down to your altar burn!

 

Mosiah 29:26-27

Link to comment
The world is changing fast. I figured it's worth a head's up that, IMO, this is the type of pressure that will ultimately change the LDS Faith, as well.

 

The Church understands that 33% of all child sex abuse is homosexual.  The Stakes have been informed, for example, that if the BSA goes with allowing gays in Scout leadership, it is prepared to go it's own way with it's own program.  I don't think that's the change you're looking for.  I doubt you will ever see it. 

 

Consider the past on issues such as the priesthood ban and plural marriage.  Nothing has changed except the fulfillment of prophetic promises and in accordance with scripture and both remain the official doctrine of the Church.

Link to comment

You are very mistaken to think that the statement from the NFL was "pressure" on Arizona.

The NFL offered nothing but platitudes, or at best gave the impression of empty threats. Same goes for every corporation which has business in Arizona and spoke out againts the bill.

HERE are the actual statements to which I was referring. Given the fact that the NFL has moved the Superbowl from AZ to CA in 1993 due to NFL's disagreement with local AZ civil rights legislation (as per the following article), I submit it's naive to presume these were only "platitudes" or "empty threats."

NFL, Cardinals, Super Bowl committee sound off on SB 1062

Posted: Feb 25, 2014 5:18 AM MSTUpdated: Feb 25, 2014 5:21 AM MST

by Steve Stout

PHOENIX (CBS5) -

As the anticipation grows over what Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will do with Senate Bill 1062, the so-called Religious Freedom Bill, the National Football League, the Arizona Cardinals and Arizona's Super Bowl committee are chiming in.

The 2015 Super Bowl is scheduled to be played at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale.

The NFL said it was monitoring the progress of the bill, the Cardinals said they are concerned about the negative image the bill could bring the state, and the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee said it flatly opposes the legislation.

All three released their statements Monday.

The bill would allow Arizona businesses the right to refuse service to anyone based on the business owner's religious beliefs without fear of lawsuits.

Brewer has until Saturday to sign the bill into law, veto the bill or do nothing and allow it to become law.

The NFL's Greg Aiello issued the following statement Monday afternoon:

"Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard. We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time."

The Arizona Cardinals statement issued Monday:

"What so many love about football is its ability to bring people together. We do not support anything that has the potential to divide, exclude and discriminate. As a prominent and highly-visible member of this community, we strive to bring positive attention to the state. We are concerned with anything that creates a negative perception of Arizona and those of us who are fortunate to call it home."

The Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee's statement reads:

"We share the NFL's core values which embrace tolerance, diversity, inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination. In addition, a key part of the mission for the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee is to promote the economic vitality of Arizona. On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential. We do not support this legislation. Instead, we look forward to continuing to promote the NFL's values while focusing on the economic momentum apparent in Arizona and capturing the positive worldwide attention associated with hosting Super Bowl XLIX."

It's not the first time and Arizona issue and the NFL have collided.

In 1993, Arizona was in line to host the Super Bowl in Tempe, but Arizona voters in November 1992 voted against a referendum recognizing Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a state holiday, prompting the NFL to give the Super Bowl to Pasadena, CA.

Copyright 2014 CBS 5 (KPHO Broadcasting Corporation). All rights reserved.

However you read the above, the NFL (Along with the combined voices of many prominent Republicans and over 80 large corporations including Apple, Delta, American airlines, Yelp, and Marriott) had the effect of tremendous political and social pressure.

It is well known and often discussed that some schools refused to play football with BYU in the late 70's due to the church's policy against blacks.

My point is that all of these types of social pressure are a powerful force encouraging change towards gay and lesbian inclusion.

Link to comment

The Church understands that 33% of all child sex abuse is homosexual.  The Stakes have been informed, for example, that if the BSA goes with allowing gays in Scout leadership, it is prepared to go it's own way with it's own program.  I don't think that's the change you're looking for.  I doubt you will ever see it. 

 

Consider the past on issues such as the priesthood ban and plural marriage.  Nothing has changed except the fulfillment of prophetic promises and in accordance with scripture and both remain the official doctrine of the Church.

 

Nonsense. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Link to comment

Me too... at least I think your comment refers to the Church not changing its stance... right now that is that any LGBT can join the Church and participate fully as long as they... like me, a straight single woman... continue to live the Law of Chastity.  I'm expected to, so why not everyone else?  We have moral standards that we (single adults) must meet to enjoy full fellowship, including attending the temple.  This applies to everyone, as it should...

The challenge will come in states with approved SS marriage... but I still don't see the Church changing our stance on that issue.

 

GG

I don't think that anyone is disagreeing with what you wrote.  The disagreement is that they can not,  like you, be married and remain in the church.  (and I think you know what I mean by married)

Link to comment

HERE are the actual statements to which I was referring. Given the fact that the NFL has moved the Superbowl from AZ to CA in 1993 due to NFL's disagreement with local AZ civil rights legislation (as per the following article), I submit it's naive to presume these were only "platitudes" or "empty threats."

However you read the above, the NFL (Along with the combined voices of many prominent Republicans and over 80 large corporations including Apple, Delta, American airlines, Yelp, and Marriott) had the effect of tremendous political and social pressure.

It is well known and often discussed that some schools refused to play football with BYU in the late 70's due to the church's policy against blacks.

My point is that all of these types of social pressure are a powerful force encouraging change towards gay and lesbian inclusion.

Just because pressure is powerful does not make it right. 

Link to comment

There will be the day when all things good and virtuous will be condemned and ridiculed by the wicked and those who seek the destruction of God and his plan. The divide is clear and in that day those who seek after righteousness both within and outside of any Christian church will stand as one. 

 

I know what wrong is; I know what righteousness looks like; that ain't it. This war will continue to burn and it will end the destruction of either one side or the other. They are completely incompatible. This is not a demand by one side of live and let live; it is the absolute demand to force all citizens to condone, support, and accept iniquity as healthy, wholesome, pure, and righteous. It demands that we cast away the one and living God and accept the golden calf of hedonistic secularism. 

 

And we wonder why Muslims feel threatened by the West? You must be joking! The West represents a decadent culture that rots from the inside without any ability to correct itself. There is no community; it is a mass of individuals that demand instant gratification. 

 

There may come a day where the only place a Christian can reside freely will be within a Muslim community.  

 

If you think marginalizing gay people represents good Chrisitian living, I'd ask whether or not you've ever read the teachings of Christ.

Link to comment

HERE are the actual statements to which I was referring. Given the fact that the NFL has moved the Superbowl from AZ to CA in 1993 due to NFL's disagreement with local AZ civil rights legislation (as per the following article), I submit it's naive to presume these were only "platitudes" or "empty threats."

 

 

In 2008 a Superbowl was held in Arizona.  In Arizona in 2008 discrimination homosexuals was permissible. 

 

A Superbowl is scheduled in Arizona for 2015. This Superbowl was scheduled by the NFL, which knew discrimination against homosexuals is legal in Arizona. (And very like schedule AFTER passed a State Constitutional Amendment  prohibiting same sex marriage.)

 

SB1062 was vetoed, and discrimination against homosexuals is still legal

AND

Arizona is still on schedule to host the Superbowl in 2015.

 

If the NFL was issuing empty threats, then the NFL must stand up for its priniples and pull the 2015 Superbowl from Arizona.  Perhaps a petition or twitter campaign needs to organized.

Link to comment

In 2008 a Superbowl was held in Arizona.  In Arizona in 2008 discrimination homosexuals was permissible. 

 

A Superbowl is scheduled in Arizona for 2015. This Superbowl was scheduled by the NFL, which knew discrimination against homosexuals is legal in Arizona. (And very like schedule AFTER passed a State Constitutional Amendment  prohibiting same sex marriage.)

 

SB1062 was vetoed, and discrimination against homosexuals is still legal

AND

Arizona is still on schedule to host the Superbowl in 2015.

 

If the NFL was issuing empty threats, then the NFL must stand up for its priniples and pull the 2015 Superbowl from Arizona.  Perhaps a petition or twitter campaign needs to organized.

Well actually I think they were putting pressure on Arizona to not accelerate their gay discrimination to the next level which is what this law was perceived of doing.  At some point organizations like Disney and NFL may very well put pressure on any kind of discrimination against any minority.  We are making progress, but as you point out, not there yet.

Link to comment

The Stakes have been informed, for example, that if the BSA goes with allowing gays in Scout leadership, it is prepared to go it's own way with it's own program.

 

Do you have a reference for that?  I have heard rumors/gossip but never anything that could be confirmed.

Link to comment

For years, members on these boards have suggested that as homosexuality becomes more socially accepted, organizations like the BSA and the LDS Faith will experience increasing social pressure to change.

The NFL'S pressure in Arizona was one such example that echoed the pressure that BYU football experienced over the church's racial policies of the 70's. And likely foreshadowed what is to come, regarding its policies on gays and lesbians.

Now, after its recent first lesbian couple in prime time kids' programming, Disney has joined the growing number of corporations that have entered the fray against the BSA:

The world is changing fast. I figured it's worth a head's up that, IMO, this is the type of pressure that will ultimately change the LDS Faith, as well.

 

I don't believe that the church responds to external pressure.  But I do believe that the Brethren will ultimately respond to pressure from within the church membership.  I give it thirty years or less before gay marriage is accepted by the church as being within the law of chastity.

Link to comment

I don't believe that the church responds to external pressure.  But I do believe that the Brethren will ultimately respond to pressure from within the church membership.  I give it thirty years or less before gay marriage is accepted by the church as being within the law of chastity.

You and I, as well as you and others have gone round and round this topic before. No intention of doing so again. But suffice it to say that in their wisdom, the mods only allow "up" votes on posts. Or I'd give you a down vote. Not gonna happen. 

Link to comment

In 2008 a Superbowl was held in Arizona. In Arizona in 2008 discrimination homosexuals was permissible.

A Superbowl is scheduled in Arizona for 2015. This Superbowl was scheduled by the NFL, which knew discrimination against homosexuals is legal in Arizona. (And very like schedule AFTER passed a State Constitutional Amendment prohibiting same sex marriage.)

SB1062 was vetoed, and discrimination against homosexuals is still legal

AND

Arizona is still on schedule to host the Superbowl in 2015.

If the NFL was issuing empty threats, then the NFL must stand up for its priniples and pull the 2015 Superbowl from Arizona. Perhaps a petition or twitter campaign needs to organized.

Huh.... well, I'd say the glass is half full. ;)

In related news...

Tempe joins Az cities barring discrimination against gays

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/022814_tempe_discrimination/tempe-joins-az-cities-barring-discrimination-against-gays/

Posted Feb 28, 2014, 9:01 am

Dylan SmithTucsonSentinel.com

Just a day after the veto of a controversial bill that would have reinforced the ability of Arizona businesses to discriminate against LGBT customers, the Tempe City Council unanimously voted to join three other cities, including Tucson, that have broadened civil-rights protections for gay and transgender people.

With a 7-0 vote Thursday, Tempe now bans discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations such as hotels and restaurants. The ordinance includes exceptions for religious groups and private clubs.

"Each and every member of our council shares a real commitment to fairness and equal opportunity for all of our residents," said Councilman Corey Woods in a news release from Equality Arizona; he serves on the board of the gay-rights group.

"We worked for more than six months to craft an ordinance that would continue to move Tempe forward," Woods said. "The support this ordinance received is an indication of the kind of community we are. Tempe is truly a city committed to being open, inclusive and diverse."

Equality Arizona President Rebecca Wininger cheered the vote.

"I want to express my gratitude to the council, for being leaders in the movement for equality," she said in the release. "The work we are doing to achieve equality for the LBGTQ community in Arizona is building momentum. It is no longer a matter of if, but of when. Together, we took another big step toward our goal today."

Under the ordinance, Tempe businesses or individuals who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as race, color, gender, religion, national origin, familial status, age, disability and veteran status, face a civil sanction — with fines up to $2,500.

In Tucson, a city law has barred discrimination based on sexual orientation since 1999. Phoenix and Flagstaff passed such ordinances last year. The vetoed SB 1062 would've preempted those city laws, if discrimination were committed with a religious justification.

In the rest of the state, it remains legal to discriminate against LGBT people, although a recent decision in a jury selection case by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared LGBT individuals to be a protected class.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the controversial anti-gay SB 1062 on Wednesday, saying it would "create more problems than it purports to solve."

"Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value, so is non-discrimination," she said.

"Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific and present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner’s religious liberty has been violated," Brewer said. "The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences"

The bill would have given any individual or business an exemption from any state law that substantially burdens their exercise of religion, including laws forbidding discrimination in public accommodations.

Business leaders, advocates and Arizona’s two Republican U.S. senators urged Brewer to veto the measure, which opponents said would empower businesses to discriminate against gays and others and would trump ordinances in cities such as Phoenix and Tucson against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

"To the supporters of the legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before," Brewer said.

"Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes. However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve," she said. "It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want."

As CB said, we're not there yet, but I think it's clear that the combined actions of the NFL and other businesses have had an impact in favor of gay inclusion this week in preventing discrimination, both in preventing the explicitly discriminatory Az bill, as well as advancing national awareness of the issue.
Link to comment

Rejoice in wickeness! Wallow in the mire! Dance as all things good that don't bow down to your altar burn!

I appreciate your comment, which allows me to elaborate to hopefully further increase understanding on this issue.

My desire for the LDS faith to step aside from being a stumbling block for families and fathers (whether mortal or divine) to fully accept the inherent dignity and worth of the personhood, spiritual standing, and relationships of their gay and lesbians sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters should not be misconstrued as a lack of respect or desire to burn anyone's sacred alters.

Though I am sometimes frustrated by Mormonism's and some Mormons' human imperfections and biases, I also recognize my own human imperfections, and still honor, value, and respect my LDS family, and look forward to the day when the can do the same for my boyfriend (and hopefully, someday, husband) and I.

Link to comment

Do you have a reference for that?  I have heard rumors/gossip but never anything that could be confirmed.

 

Other than my notes from a recent Stake/Area Leadership Training meeting, I don't.  I've heard it stated twice now in Stake/Area level meetings but I have not see it published for the general membership.  It's likely the information was meant to assuage the damage caused by the Scout's decision in time for the Friends of Scouting donation drives.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...