The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Most of what you saying is pretty shallow and extreme and without any basis in reality. You don't have an example of support your claims; there is no community anywhere in the USA that does anything close to what your complaining about, and yet you want me and everyone else to believe that it is fair to be castigated? Got it. I grew up in a Protestant town with the people you are talking about. Guess what? Still found a job in school, still could buy a cake when I wanted one, and my family was able to buy a house and a car when we wanted. Why? Because some people were more interested in what we offered while others were not. The same "bigotry" exists today in the same community and Mormons have continued to thrive and membership grow. Let's keep our feet on solid ground and talk about real problems instead of creating the invisible ghost to scare people to accept your concerns that are not supported by facts. Where are the hoards of gay people on the streets of SLC or Provo because no one rents them a place to live? Where the famished gay people without cake to eat? Bring them forward and let's talk to them about this unanimous rejection by the terrible Mormons.There have been communities in the past that have matched my nightmare scenario. Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Asians, even Whites have all had and most still have communities where they are second-class citizens. Anti-discrimination laws were put into place in the US because this was happening. Your argument is that we should tear them down because it is not that bad now. The reason they are in place is to keep it from becoming that bad. They are not new. They are not unconstitutional.Your nonexistent right to discriminate between customers is not more important then preventing that nightmare from coming back, of creating a community hostile to a minority within it. It is almost comical. A lady I know from church was recently incensed that a Christian daycare would not take her Mormon children and was rambling on about taking legal action until a lawyer told her she had little chance as it has religious protections. She made it out to be persecution on the poor Mormons and you would think it was the equivalent of Haun's Mill the way she was going on. Then a few days ago she was defending the cake people from this lawsuit insisting they had the right to refuse to serve anyone.LDS often suspect that things are going to get bad for us yet many of us seem hard at work dismantling the legal protections that would mitigate persecution. If we keep it up and win we will deserve the persecution heaped upon us. The Book of Mormon talks about digging a pit for your neighbor and then falling into it.
thesometimesaint Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 How do you feel about unrighteous dominion?What do you see happening to a society when its government demands that its citizens do things that violate their conscience?Are you familiar with the Declaration of Independence?Maybe it's time for another revolution. Unrighteous dominion is largely in the eye of the beholder. Or as my Air Force TI said: Your soul may belong to God but your a$$ belongs to me. The result is we have a civilized society where we respect the rights of all to believe as they choose, and follow the law. I'm quite familiar with the Declaration of Independence. There are basically two reason not to follow it today.1. We're no longer at war with England.2. The US constitution supersedes it. Armed revolution is a crime punishable by death.
tonie Posted February 3, 2015 Author Posted February 3, 2015 How do you feel about unrighteous dominion? How do you feel about people using the Government to enforce/impose religious standards on others?
tonie Posted February 3, 2015 Author Posted February 3, 2015 Great clip, I believe Elder Holland virtually said the same thing: Elder Jeffery R. Holland "Every citizen’s rights are best guarded when each person and group guards for others those rights they wish guarded for themselves." 1
Ahab Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Ahab, my problem is that you and others on here use absolutes like "always" and "never" in support of your ideology. That to me is radical extremism. The lesson that the church is teaching us is "balance" through "give and take". We NEED compulsory means to prevent anarchy and lawlessness, we NEED non-discrimination laws to prevent evil masked as "conscience". We are a better society because of these laws. To remove such would be a devolution.You say you want a revolution, well you know, we all want to change the world Good, it worked. I was going to the other extreme to counter balance the extreme you seemed to be advocating by suggesting we should just smile and bake them a blooming cake!If we all just sit around smiling at each other while acting like everything is okay when our Lord comes back, our Lord is going to look like the bad guy. The gays would be like,What!?! All these people here are okay with me and some of my pals being gay, and gay marriage is legal! And this LDS baker even baked us a cake! What is YOUR problem, dear Lord? I had no clue you didn't approve of all this!
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Good, it worked. I was going to the other extreme to counter balance the extreme you seemed to be advocating by suggesting we should just smile and bake them a blooming cake!If we all just sit around smiling at each other while acting like everything is okay when our Lord comes back, our Lord is going to look like the bad guy. The gays would be like,What!?! All these people here are okay with me and some of my pals being gay, and gay marriage is legal! And this LDS baker even baked us a cake! What is YOUR problem, dear Lord? I had no clue you didn't approve of all this!I know that I endorse every action of every person I have ever done business with. Why wouldn't gays think that?Oh yeah, maybe the statements in General Conference to the contrary. Are you seriously suggesting that shunning gays from businesses is HELPING them? And that when they decide their life needs changing they are going to Mormon Q. Baker who kicked them our of their bakery for that help? Are we shooting for a kind of social Stockholm Syndrome?
california boy Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 You seem very convinced that only your have the moral high ground...the problem is that I am not convinced that is the case and could actually be the exact opposite. I think the leaders of the Church are trying to recognize that some areas there should be no discrimination and there are others where one's religious values should be respected. This is not a black and white issue regardless of how many times people try to paint it as such. The reality is that if one business, apartment owner, baker, photographer, take your pick of services rejects a person for whatever reason, there are a multitude of alternative sources for the exact same services. When did a private enterprise lose the right to shut it doors or reject business? They do it every day for a host of reasons. If someone does not want my business I am not interested in frequenting their store; I march across the street and happily spend my money with a competing business. Of course a business open to the public can discriminate against a lot of things. No shirt, no shoes, no service. But what they can not do is discriminate against their customers simply because they are a certain religion, race, gender, age and in most states sexual orientation. In answer to your question, the anti discrimination laws that you are referring to were passed about 50 years ago. Why is this news to you? Is it so heartbreaking that now you also have to serve gay customers that it has become devistating news??? You haven't been able to withold serve from sinners for almost a half a centruy. You have to ask yourself why are you getting so upset now? Is it simply because gays are on that list in many states?
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Of course a business open to the public can discriminate against a lot of things. No shirt, no shoes, no service.Steps are being taken.http://www.theonion.com/articles/nations-shirtless-shoeless-march-on-washington-for,262/
KevinG Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I had a gay couple who ran a local hair salon refuse service to my family because they only wanted to serve their own. I've been denied jobs because I was a Mormon. I have been insulted as a "breeder". It never occurred to me to sue to force bigots to serve, hire or respect me. 1
Ahab Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I know that I endorse every action of every person I have ever done business with. Why wouldn't gays think that?I see a correlation bwtween a cake to be used exclusively for a gay wedding and a gay wedding. Maybe you don't see that correlation, but I do. So, to me and my mind, agreeing to one is to agree to the other, and since I do not approve of gays getting married, that also means I would not approve of baking a cake for their gay wedding. If I didn't know it was going to be used to celebrate a gay wedding I would probably bake one, like if maybe some guy walked into a store to buy a wedding cake that I had already baked and prepared for any wedding, but I wouldn't bake a wedding cake that way and my wife wouldn't either. When we make a cake we know who we are baking it for and at least a little something about them. Not that we bake a lot of wedding cakes, or even have a store to sell baked goods, but we both know how to bake and can make one if and when we are so inclined.Oh yeah, maybe the statements in General Conference to the contrary. Are you seriously suggesting that shunning gays from businesses is HELPING them? And that when they decide their life needs changing they are going to Mormon Q. Baker who kicked them our of their bakery for that help? Are we shooting for a kind of social Stockholm Syndrome?I refuse to believe you don't understand what I have been saying. I've been speaking English. Continue to disagree if you want to.
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I had a gay couple who ran a local hair salon refuse service to my family because they only wanted to serve their own. I've been denied jobs because I was a Mormon. I have been insulted as a "breeder". It never occurred to me to sue to force bigots to serve, hire or respect me.I have to admit I giggle whenever I have that insult hurled at me. 1
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I see a correlation bwtween a cake to be used exclusively for a gay wedding and a gay wedding. Maybe you don't see that correlation, but I do. So, to me and my mind, agreeing to one is to agree to the other, and since I do not approve of gays getting married, that also means I would not approve of baking a cake for their gay wedding. If I didn't know it was going to be used to celebrate a gay wedding I would probably bake one, like if maybe some guy walked into a store to buy a wedding cake that I had already baked and prepared for any wedding, but I wouldn't bake a wedding cake that way and my wife wouldn't either. When we make a cake we know who we are baking it for and at least a little something about them. Not that we bake a lot of wedding cakes, or even have a store to sell baked goods, but we both know how to bake and can make one if and when we are so inclined.I refuse to believe you don't understand what I have been saying. I've been speaking English. Continue to disagree if you want to.Do you also refuse to sell things that are directly correlated with sin or is it only this one sin that you must publicly shame and discriminate on? If a morbidly obese couple came in to buy a wedding cake would you refuse so you were not enabling their obvious gluttony?It is an odd dialect of English. Are you Welsh by chance?
Ahab Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 It never occurred to me to sue to force bigots to serve, hire or respect me.They don't see themselves as bigots, though, as people who think others should think as they do. They just see that others are refusing to obey some law that they think should be obeyed, without really caring about why that person is not obeying it, so they take that person who didn't obey that law to court because they want to somehow punish that person for not obeying that law.In most cases it works, because courts usually uphold laws just because they are laws, but every once in a while the lawmakers amend or make changes to laws when there is a compelling reason. Like maybe to allow for freedom of religion? I guess we'll find out.
KevinG Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I admit I don't get the Gay wedding cake discrimination... That ranks right up there with outrage over public coffee sales. I've long advocated stripping the government benefits from marriage and returning it to the individual organizations who want to define it any way they wish.
Ahab Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Do you also refuse to sell things that are directly correlated with sin or is it only this one sin that you must publicly shame and discriminate on? If a morbidly obese couple came in to buy a wedding cake would you refuse so you were not enabling their obvious gluttony?Yes, I would also refuse to sell other things that I would correlate with other sins, too.I would also refuse to sell a gun or knife or any other kind of deadly weapon to a person or couple of people who I knew were going to use it to kill a person.Keep bearing in mind that in my mind I know a wedding cake Is going to be used to celebrate a gay wedding, which I would not want to celebrate or approve of celebrating, so not only would I not bake them a wedding cake but I would also not sell them a bed to be used as their marriage bed, or a house to live their gay lifestyle in, or anything else that correlated to committing that sin or continuing to live in it.And I would also not sell anything that I knew was going to be used to steal something, or to commit any other kind of sin.And wedding cakes are usually served as very thin slices to each individual person who eats a part of it, so I wouldn't consider it to be a big deal of even a morbidly obese person helped to eat it. Even fat people need to continue to eat to keep living.
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Yes, I would also refuse to sell other things that I would correlate with other sins, too.I would also refuse to sell a gun or knife or any other kind of deadly weapon to a person or couple of people who I knew were going to use it to kill a person.Keep bearing in mind that in my mind I know a wedding cake Is going to be used to celebrate a gay wedding, which I would not want to celebrate or approve of celebrating, so not only would I not bake them a wedding cake but I would also not sell them a bed to be used as their marriage bed, or a house to live their gay lifestyle in, or anything else that correlated to committing that sin or continuing to live in it.And I would also not sell anything that I knew was going to be used to steal something, or to commit any other kind of sin.And wedding cakes are usually served as very thin slices to each individual person who eats a part of it, so I wouldn't consider it to be a big deal of even a morbidly obese person helped to eat it. Even fat people need to continue to eat to keep living.Then I hope you do not become a majority in the Church. Making others suffer for our consciences sake, even if it is just the humiliation of being refused service, is wrong.You sidestepped the obesity question and instead took it straight to obvious murder. So what if it was a morbidly obese person buying a large cheesecake and he tells you how he plans to go home and eat the whole thing in front of the television tonight? Now would you refuse to sell. How about selling a cellphone to someone you know is an unrepentant gossip? What if you worked at a convenience store and someone you know to be unmarried buys condoms? Do you have a line as to which sins you will prevent or is it homosexuality and murder? 1
Ahab Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Then I hope you do not become a majority in the Church. Making others suffer for our consciences sake, even if it is just the humiliation of being refused service, is wrong.Those I refuse to serve don't necessarily need to suffer for my refusal to serve them, but I'll take that as a compliment anyway. They could more than likely find someone else who would be willing to serve them.You sidestepped the obesity question and instead took it straight to obvious murder. So what if it was a morbidly obese person buying a large cheesecake and he tells you how he plans to go home and eat the whole thing in front of the television tonight? Now would you refuse to sell.Yes, probably also suggesting they get less fat.How about selling a cellphone to someone you know is an unrepentant gossip?Yep, refused. I have no problems refusing to do anything I see as a bad thing to do.What if you worked at a convenience store and someone you know to be unmarried buys condoms?They wouldn't be buying them from me, for sure.Do you have a line as to which sins you will prevent or is it homosexuality and murder?I won't necessarily prevent any sin but I'll still refuse to be complicit. In any sin. Strange to me that everyone doesn't feel the same way.
The Nehor Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Those I refuse to serve don't necessarily need to suffer for my refusal to serve them, but I'll take that as a compliment anyway. They could more than likely find someone else who would be willing to serve them.Yes, probably also suggesting they get less fat.Yep, refused. I have no problems refusing to do anything I see as a bad thing to do.They wouldn't be buying them from me, for sure.I won't necessarily prevent any sin but I'll still refuse to be complicit. In any sin. Strange to me that everyone doesn't feel the same way.Okay, I do not know whether to be impressed horrified so I am going to be impressed with the horror. Please do not work for my company. You will force us under.
Ahab Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Okay, I do not know whether to be impressed horrified so I am going to be impressed with the horror. Please do not work for my company. You will force us under.I simply do not do what I don't feel right about doing, and if the people at your company can't say the same thing, sometimes doing what they don't feel right about doing, then no I would not want to work for your company. 1
The Nehor Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I simply do not do what I don't feel right about doing, and if the people at your company can't say the same thing, sometimes doing what they don't feel right about doing, then no I would not want to work for your company.No, it is not so much doing what they feel right about (the company does a lot of good) but someone with your conscience that is offended so easily would go into hysterics dealing with our customers.
Ahab Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 No, it is not so much doing what they feel right about (the company does a lot of good) but someone with your conscience that is offended so easily would go into hysterics dealing with our customers.No, no hysterics. My job now involves customer service and I handle the silly stuff well. Nothing wrong with saying no when I don't feel right about saying yes.
Stone holm Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 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.Hm, I think that Stoneholm thinks it is wrong to legislate religious beliefs. Unfortunately, morality has been reduced to sexual morality by many Christians. The problem is do you carve out an exemption for business activity based on religious beliefs. It is a tough question in a capitalist society such as ours which places a premium on private property rights. I was raised in a family which felt strongly that they should not be required to serve blacks in their many businesses, but they did anyway. I am relatively certain they would have felt the same about gays. I personally find gay behavior repulsive, but I can and do put that aside when providing legal services. I see no real problem with the concept of the government regulating economic activity in this regard, with one possible exception. There might be an issue if the State of Nevada were to force its prostitutes to not discriminate against lesbians on religious grounds.
thesometimesaint Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Hm, I think that Stoneholm thinks it is wrong to legislate religious beliefs. Unfortunately, morality has been reduced to sexual morality by many Christians. The problem is do you carve out an exemption for business activity based on religious beliefs. It is a tough question in a capitalist society such as ours which places a premium on private property rights. I was raised in a family which felt strongly that they should not be required to serve blacks in their many businesses, but they did anyway. I am relatively certain they would have felt the same about gays. I personally find gay behavior repulsive, but I can and do put that aside when providing legal services. I see no real problem with the concept of the government regulating economic activity in this regard, with one possible exception. There might be an issue if the State of Nevada were to force its prostitutes to not discriminate against lesbians on religious grounds. I think the state should get out of the religion business altogether. But see no legally justifiable reason to force "ladies of the night" to exclude. or include, for money sexual favors from any legally consenting adult.
Ahab Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) I think the state should get out of the religion business altogether. But see no legally justifiable reason to force "ladies of the night" to exclude. or include, for money sexual favors from any legally consenting adult.It could depend on who is considered the customer and who is considered the person offering the service/product. If prostitutes are considered the service/product provider, for a price, the legal issue would be whether or not the service/product provider can refuse their service/product to someone based on their religion, or gender, or sexual orientation, or race. Refusing to provide any service or product for any of those reasons is what passes as discrimination these days, as if everyone in business must offer their services or products to any adult with enough money to pay for it.The counsel from our Lord's servants have far reaching effects and careful consideration is warranted. Edited February 5, 2015 by Ahab
Recommended Posts