Matthew 25, "deeply Held Religious Beliefs", And Discrimination

[tonie]

I think this topic is appropriate for general discussion because the focus is on the Gospel and not the politics. This topic is about how the relation of Gospel teachings and discrimination.

Yesterday I heard a discussion about State wide non-discrimination law for the State of Utah. The person I heard was from the Sutherland institute, he made claims that "religious exemptions" should be included and also made the ill-informed and false claim that non-discrimination against gender identity or sexual orientation favored a small class of people.

In looking into the matter, I came across an article from 2013 about a non-discrimination bill in Utah (SB262) that failed. The LDS Church did not take a position on it; yet the Church took a position and officially endorsed the non-discrimination law in Salt Lake City.

The Church provided a statement for not supporting SB262:

“The Church did not take a position on the current bill, but is on the record supporting non-discrimination protections for gay and lesbian citizens related to housing and employment,” the statement said. “We believe any legislation should protect these rights while also preserving the rights of religious conscience — to act in accordance with deeply held religious beliefs — for individuals and organizations.”

I have to wonder, do we LDS have "deeply held religious beliefs" e.g. Official teachings or Doctrine, that direct us not to provide housing to persons whose lifestyle is not in accordance with the Gospel? And this is why I bring up Matthew 25:

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Is there a difference with to "take in" a stranger (to include a homosexual), than renting or selling to stranger (to include a homosexual) who needs housing?

[thesometimesaint]

Luke 10:25-37New International Version (NIV) The Parable of the Good Samaritan

²⁵ On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

²⁶ “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

²⁷ He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’^[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’^[b]”

²⁸ “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

²⁹ But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

³⁰ In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. ³¹ A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. ³² So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. ³³ But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. ³⁴ He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. ³⁵ The next day he took out two denarii^[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

³⁶ “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

³⁷ The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

[Kenngo1969]

No, I don't believe the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, properly interpreted, direct its members, generally, to, e.g., not provide housing to gays and lesbians.

 

I think the Church's concern is that non-discrimination statutes be narrowly drawn to accomplish their stated objectives without infringing on religious exercise.  For example, take Salt Lake City, which per capita, has the lowest concentration of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the state, out of the equation for a second.  Suppose, instead, that Provo City were considering an ordinance to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing.  Well and good, right?  No one of good conscience and good will should, in good faith, oppose such an ordinance.  I agree.

 

But what if the ordinance were not carefully drafted?  And what if, as a result, the housing policies of Brigham Young University became the subject of litigation, the outcome of which (because of a poorly-drafted nondiscrimination ordinance) were such that BYU could no longer offer housing under its control solely to those who are willing to live the Honor Code?

 

There is ample reason for the Church of Jesus Christ to exercise great care in matters such as this, and it has nothing to do with not paying sufficient attention to scriptural admonitions such as that contained in Matthew 25.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[USU78]

I'd like for somebody to point to actual facts demonstrating homosexuals lack adequate housing in places like Pwovo and Farmington notwithstanding the absence of nondiscrimination statutes/ordinances.

[thesometimesaint]

Let's set aside the gays issue for just a moment. Would a private company, like a lunch counter, to be legally to refuse service to blacks, based on deeply held religious beliefs that blacks could go some place else? Would a Christan apartment owner be legally allowed to refuse to rent to Jews based on deeply held religious beliefs that they could rent some place else?

Edited August 20, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Currently, no, but for the vast majority of it's existence, that there has been a "U.S." you could.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[thesometimesaint]

We are, or should be, trying to form a more perfect union.

[tonie]

I'd like for somebody to point to actual facts demonstrating homosexuals lack adequate housing in places like Pwovo and Farmington notwithstanding the absence of nondiscrimination statutes/ordinances.

Please stay on topic or refrain from participation. This is a discussion about whether or not LDS beliefs justify discrimination in such innocuous things like housing. This discussion is not about your personal discontent with a segment of society.

What deeply held religious beliefs (as taught and instructed by the LDS Church) justify discrimination in housing?

[tonie]

Let's set aside the gays issue for just a moment. Would a private company, like a lunch counter, to be legally to refuse service to blacks, based on deeply held religious beliefs that blacks could go some place else? Would a Christan apartment owner be legally allowed to refuse to rent to Jews based on deeply held religious beliefs that they could rent some place else?

The must be yes, there is no alternative for those claiming religious beliefs should exempt them from the general laws of the land.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What deeply held religious beliefs (as taught and instructed by the LDS Church) justify discrimination in housing?

Non that I know of. What USU is saying is please provide evidence that said discrimination is actually taking place. If it is not taking place why worry about it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

We are, or should be, trying to form a more perfect union.

Yes we should, its funny because Stoneholm thinks its wrong to legislate morality. And he thinks like you do on a whole lot of issues. But I guess that might be for a different thread.

 

Just ribbing you a little.

[3DOP]

One person's freedom is another's discrimination. Either way, we should be free to make deals with who we want for whatever reason we want. The motive doesn't matter. If one will lose money because of their right to "discriminate" then it shows conviction. Leave people to their convictions you users of government to force people to make deals against their wills. There is nobody so weird or icky that everybody will turn down their money anyway. So how about getting the government out of our minds, trying to figure out if we aren't making deals because we are mean to somebody that gives us the creeps? Everybody should have the freedom to lose money because they are mean. 

[tonie]

What is interesting about the demand for evidence, is that those demanding the evidence wish to maintain the status quo of discrimination.

[tonie]

One person's freedom is another's discrimination. Either way, we should be free to make deals with who we want for whatever reason we want. The motive doesn't matter. If one will lose money because of their right to "discriminate" then it shows conviction. Leave people to their convictions you users of government to force people to make deals against their wills. There is nobody so weird or icky that everybody will turn down their money anyway. So how about getting the government out of our minds, trying to figure out if we aren't making deals because we are mean to somebody that gives us the creeps? Everybody should have the freedom to lose money because they are mean.

Is there Doctrine or teachings in your religious system that justifies discrimination in something as innocuous as renting or selling a house?

[3DOP]

Is there Doctrine or teachings in your religious system that justifies discrimination in something as innocuous as renting or selling a house?

 

Yes, I am confident that my church teaches that I am free to decide to whom I will rent or sell my car, my shoes, my cats, my pool table, or my real property. Although it is clearly a precept of the natural law, Pope Leo XIII affirms the rights of private property against the claims of the state, which was already threatening to usurp private property rights during his reign in the 19th Century. Catholic Tradition holds that nobody else has a right to another's private property. There is also a commandment against coveting our neighbor's property. If I don't properly love my neighbour, my virtue is not increased if against my will I am forced to make deals with those with whom I am not pleased to make deals. Therefore, until it is demonstrated, against my faith principles, that our neighbours have rights to our property, there can be no legitimate reason to use force to prompt economic activity.  

[Kenngo1969]

We are, or should be, trying to form a more perfect union.

I agree.  Do you think the government should be allowed to dictate the housing policies of Brigham Young University in that "more perfect union"?

[Kenngo1969]

Yes, I am confident that my church teaches that I am free to decide to whom I will rent or sell my car, my shoes, my cats, my pool table, or my real property. ...  

You have cats for rent?  Kewl!  Not sure I'd like to own one, but maybe I'll rent one for a few weeks and try it out!

[thesometimesaint]

I agree.  Do you think the government should be allowed to dictate the housing policies of Brigham Young University in that "more perfect union"?

 

To a limited extent yes. IE; Health and safety; Equal opportunity, that type of thing.

[thesometimesaint]

You have cats for rent?  Kewl!  Not sure I'd like to own one, but maybe I'll rent one for a few weeks and try it out!

 

As a cat guardian believe me it is more like he is renting me.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What is interesting about the demand for evidence, is that those demanding the evidence wish to maintain the status quo of discrimination.

ROfl. So you have no evidence for it yet you claim there is a status quo for it. Do you see how absurd that claim is?

 

Of course this is really all not relevant anyway. I share Rory's view of things.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[USU78]

What is interesting about the demand for evidence, is that those demanding the evidence wish to maintain the status quo of discrimination.

a tautology

[thesometimesaint]

One person's freedom is another's discrimination. Either way, we should be free to make deals with who we want for whatever reason we want. The motive doesn't matter. If one will lose money because of their right to "discriminate" then it shows conviction. Leave people to their convictions you users of government to force people to make deals against their wills. There is nobody so weird or icky that everybody will turn down their money anyway. So how about getting the government out of our minds, trying to figure out if we aren't making deals because we are mean to somebody that gives us the creeps? Everybody should have the freedom to lose money because they are mean. 

 

That didn't work out all that well at certain lunch counters.

[Calm]

Depends on what you mean.

The owners were certainly clear about what they cared about and showed to the world what kind of men they were.

Some were mobilised to reject that type of treatment for their brothers, others were not. I find that much more informative about these individuals and others than observing action performed out of fear of government reprisal or penalty.

[thesometimesaint]

Here is what  mean.

SEE http://www.nps.gov/malu/forteachers/jim_crow_laws.htm

[3DOP]

Here is what  mean.

SEE http://www.nps.gov/malu/forteachers/jim_crow_laws.htm

I am bewildered at why you would conclude that anybody here is in favor of laws restricting trade between persons of different race. Freedom isn't when government gets involved in our economic activity either to prevent or to force people into making deals with each other. You like one and dislike the other?  

 

I am against the use of force to prevent economic activity between persons disposed to trade. I am against the use of force to prompt economic activity between persons indisposed to trade.

 

I guess you think we must choose either government restricting economic activity, or government enforcing economic activity. I choose neither.