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

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

That's a bit of a stretch, but if taken to the extreme. Sure if and only if that lady of the night offered her service to both sexes but refused on religious grounds to provide that service to a particular person of the same sex.

 

As a duly ordained servant of the Lord I think it is incumbent on me to not avail myself of the services of a prostitute whether female or male. As a citizen of the US it isn't within my purview other consenting adults sexual choices. 

Edited February 5, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Ahab]

That's a bit of a stretch, but if taken to the extreme.

That's the main issue to be considered, I think. How far do we take this, as a society? How do we write laws to exclude and allow for some level of discrimination? We, as a society, are the ones to decide these issues.

Sure if and only if that lady of the night offered her service to both sexes...

She may offer her services only to men but legally will that be upheld? She's discriminating agsinst women when she does that, so are we going to say that is legal or illegal to refuse her service/product to women while still allowing her to choose only men?

but refused on religious grounds to provide that service to a particular person of the same sex.

Whether she is discriminating against someone based on their religion or their gender or their sexual orientation or their race, etc, it is still discrimination. The question is whether our legal system will allow her to discrimate on those grounds.

As a duly ordained servant of the Lord I think it is incumbent on me to not avail myself of the services of a prostitute whether female or male.

I'm sure her business model allows for the fact that not everyone will go to her for her sexual services/products. The question is still whether or not she is legally allowed to refuse to serve another woman, or you.

As a citizen of the US it isn't within my purview other consenting adults sexual choices.

What? I don't understand what you meant. Edited February 5, 2015 by Ahab

[Stone holm]

That's the main issue to be considered, I think. How far do we take this, as a society? How do we write laws to exclude and allow for some level of discrimination? We, as a society, are the ones to decide these issues.She may offer her services only to men but legally will that be upheld? She's discriminating agsinst women when she does that, so are we going to say that is legal or illegal to refuse her service/product to women while still allowing her to choose only men?Whether she is discriminating against someone based on their religion or their gender or their sexual orientation or their race, etc, it is still discrimination. The question is whether our legal system will allow her to discrimate on those grounds. I'm sure her business model allows for the fact that not everyone will go to her for her sexual services/products. The question is still whether or not she is legally allowed to refuse to serve another woman, or you.What? I don't understand what you meant.

It seems to me the female prostitute who had deeply held religious beliefs against homosexual activity would have the strongest case because she would be being directly required to commit a sinful act, whereas most of the other situations merely involve tacitly facilitating or celebrating or tolerating the sinful acts of others. So it would be like the case of Yoder v Wisconsin, or like the JW pledge cases. Merely baking a cake or serving food for or to a sinner is not the same. The other possibility is the physician who has deeply held religious beliefs against an unnecessary abortion, but I don't think that would entitle him to remain in the employ of a hospital or clinic where such are part of his duties.

[Pahoran]

I previously wrote:

The matter at issue is that any anti-discrimination legislation should not be so wide-ranging as to force someone to violate his or her conscience, such as by actively supporting an activity or event that he or she finds immoral. They are NOT seeking to find reasons "not to provide housing to persons whose lifestyle is not in accordance with the Gospel."

Are you aware of any passage of Scripture, whether in Matthew or otherwise, in which Jesus, by precept or example, teaches us to enable, encourage or support sinful acts?

Because, you see, I'm not.

To which Daniel replied:

If Landlords only rented to sinless tenants, they wouldn't be landlords because they wouldn't have any tenants.

Umm, yes.

I fully agree.

Note that, in fully agreeing with what you wrote, I don't need to alter as much as a comma of what I previously wrote.

What does that tell you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Stone holm]

Getting the State out of the Religion business has proven to be a very difficult task.  The difficulty is not lightened by the fact that religion seems inevitably intent on getting in the government's business.  The Supreme Court has a test which calls for the government to try and avoid becoming overly entangled in the affairs of religion.  And if religion would just follow the Golden Rule, I suspect that the task would be much easier and we would have a lot less strife.

[The Nehor]

Getting the State out of the Religion business has proven to be a very difficult task.  The difficulty is not lightened by the fact that religion seems inevitably intent on getting in the government's business.  The Supreme Court has a test which calls for the government to try and avoid becoming overly entangled in the affairs of religion.  And if religion would just follow the Golden Rule, I suspect that the task would be much easier and we would have a lot less strife.

Solution: Violent overthrow of the government and establish and LDS theocratic monarchy.

[Ahab]

Solution: Violent overthrow of the government and establish and LDS theocratic monarchy.

Hmm, not sure if our Lord plans to use violence when he comes back to set things straight, or that he'll want us to use violence when we help him, having his authority to help him. It will be a lot quicker and less painful if he just takes people away while they're sleeping, if or when he decides that some people should die rather than continue to live here in that new millenium.

But yeah, something like that will need to happen to the people who won't repent from their evil and abominable ways.

[The Nehor]

Hmm, not sure if our Lord plans to use violence when he comes back to set things straight, or that he'll want us to use violence when we help him, having his authority to help him. It will be a lot quicker and less painful if he just takes people away while they're sleeping, if or when he decides that some people should die rather than continue to live here in that new millenium.

But yeah, something like that will need to happen to the people who won't repent from their evil and abominable ways.

That was a joke and you frighten me.

[Ahab]

That was a joke and you frighten me.

Awesome! How afraid of me are you, exactly?

[The Nehor]

Awesome! How afraid of me are you, exactly?

There is no scale so I must explain. You are like one guy in my department at work who always comes up with creative and idiotic ways to screw things up and humiliate all of us while stupidly imagining he is brilliant and diligent and that his new idea will improve everything and make us tons of money. It is not so much that I fear you but I fear what you might do to make things harder on the rest of us.

[Ahab]

There is no scale so I must explain. You are like one guy in my department at work who always comes up with creative and idiotic ways to screw things up and humiliate all of us while stupidly imagining he is brilliant and diligent and that his new idea will improve everything and make us tons of money. It is not so much that I fear you but I fear what you might do to make things harder on the rest of us.

So it's not so much that you fear me but that you're afraid I'll make life harder for you. Darn. I've always thought it would be kinda neat to have people fear me as they should fear our Lord and what he is going to do with them if they don't fear him as they should.

[The Nehor]

So it's not so much that you fear me but that you're afraid I'll make life harder for you. Darn. I've always thought it would be kinda neat to have people fear me as they should fear our Lord and what he is going to do with them if they don't fear him as they should.

I think you missed the point. If you fail to follow the Lord the Lord will do less with and to you in the eternities and that is the scary part.

As to you doing anything to me if you want to challenge me to a fight I am up for it.

[Stone holm]

Solution: Violent overthrow of the government and establish and LDS theocratic monarchy.

I suspect the Southern Fundamentalists would have us out gunned and we would be the first burned at the Stake for heresy

[Ahab]

I think you missed the point. If you fail to follow the Lord the Lord will do less with and to you in the eternities and that is the scary part.

You probably mean after he puts everyone in their proper place, judging them by what they have done and what they have become. I know that and agree that is the scary part. What some people don't realize is that he's not going to allow everyone to continue to live here, forever, with the wicked continuing to muck up the world for the righteous. Things like SSM, for example, are not going to continue here forever.

As to you doing anything to me if you want to challenge me to a fight I am up for it.

No, nothing like that. I'd rather hug you than hit you. I love you, don't cha know.

[The Nehor]

You probably mean after he puts everyone in their proper place, judging them by what they have done and what they have become. I know that and agree that is the scary part. What some people don't realize is that he's not going to allow everyone to continue to live here, forever, with the wicked continuing to muck up the world for the righteous. Things like SSM, for example, are not going to continue here forever.

No, nothing like that. I'd rather hug you than hit you. I love you, don't cha know.

I hate the obsession with SSM some members have. Why is it they pick the one son they are most likely never tempted with as the thing that must be wiped out instead of their own sins which also have to be wiped out.

And what is the point of the years I spent learning how to fight if I never get to use it?

Edited February 7, 2015 by The Nehor

[Stone holm]

I hate the obsession with SSM some members have. Why is it they pick the one son they are most likely never tempted with as the thing that must be wiped out instead of their own sins which also have to be wiped out.

And what is the point of the years I spent learning how to fight if I never get to use it?

It is a useful distraction to give us the illusion of being activists for Christ while we ignore issues that are causing widespread misery.

[Ahab]

I hate the obsession with SSM some members have. Why is it they pick the one son they are most likely never tempted with as the thing that must be wiped out instead of their own sins which also have to be wiped out.

It's not just that sin that is bad and should not be condoned, and I suppose the main reason it stands out in my mind is because it's something our society recently thought was bad but now thinks is okay even though it is still as bad as it ever was, So basically I'm venting about the disintegration of moral integrity in society that I see happening as it happens. The acceptance of adultery and fornication in society happened many years before I was born here on this planet so it's not something that is talked about much anymore, but FYI I know that is bad too and I would say so more often if there was a thread on the board that focused on those sins. But even we don't talk about that much anymore.

And what is the point of the years I spent learning how to fight if I never get to use it?

Go fight the bad guys in society if you want to. Put on a cape and a mask and a spandex suit and get yourself a utility belt. Or just wair until someone starts beating on you. You have options. Just don't pick a fight with a latter day saint who was formally known as Bat Man. I am in the market for a side kick, though, if you are interested.

[Stone holm]

It's not just that sin that is bad and should not be condoned, and I suppose the main reason it stands out in my mind is because it's something our society recently thought was bad but now thinks is okay even though it is still as bad as it ever was, So basically I'm venting about the disintegration of moral integrity in society that I see happening as it happens. The acceptance of adultery and fornication in society happened many years before I was born here on this planet so it's not something that is talked about much anymore, but FYI I know that is bad too and I would say so more often if there was a thread on the board that focused on those sins. But even we don't talk about that much anymore.

Go fight the bad guys in society if you want to. Put on a cape and a mask and a spandex suit and get yourself a utility belt. Or just wair until someone starts beating on you. You have options. Just don't pick a fight with a latter day saint who was formally known as Bat Man. I am in the market for a side kick, though, if you are interested.

Changing attitudes is interesting. I remember the outrage over cohabitation during the 70's. Then after I was out practicing law, I started to see the older pillars of their churches (not Mormons) who were in their late 60's coming in for cohabitation agreements because they were shacking up with their girl or boyfriends. Normally it was either because one of them didn't want to have their SS adversely affected or because they had just nursed a spouse through to the end with cancer and didn't want that obligation again. Often their kids were upset with them. So, yes attitudes change. Back in the 50's there were a lot of KKK still running around in Hoosierland, now with more and more people having bi racial grandchildren, attitudes changed. As more families come to terms with gay brothers, sisters, children, and grandchildren coming out we will see further attitude changes. There are so many other important social and economic issues involving morality that we could be addressing, but we appear to be letting Pope Francis lead the way there.

[Ahab]

Changing attitudes is interesting. I remember the outrage over cohabitation during the 70's. Then after I was out practicing law, I started to see the older pillars of their churches (not Mormons) who were in their late 60's coming in for cohabitation agreements because they were shacking up with their girl or boyfriends. Normally it was either because one of them didn't want to have their SS adversely affected or because they had just nursed a spouse through to the end with cancer and didn't want that obligation again. Often their kids were upset with them. So, yes attitudes change. Back in the 50's there were a lot of KKK still running around in Hoosierland, now with more and more people having bi racial grandchildren, attitudes changed. As more families come to terms with gay brothers, sisters, children, and grandchildren coming out we will see further attitude changes. There are so many other important social and economic issues involving morality that we could be addressing, but we appear to be letting Pope Francis lead the way there.

We can address and do address many other issues and we are free to address everything, so if you don't think we're addressing some other issues as much as you think we should just address them some more.

[Pahoran]

Changing attitudes is interesting. I remember the outrage over cohabitation during the 70's. Then after I was out practicing law, I started to see the older pillars of their churches (not Mormons) who were in their late 60's coming in for cohabitation agreements because they were shacking up with their girl or boyfriends. Normally it was either because one of them didn't want to have their SS adversely affected or because they had just nursed a spouse through to the end with cancer and didn't want that obligation again. Often their kids were upset with them. So, yes attitudes change. Back in the 50's there were a lot of KKK still running around in Hoosierland, now with more and more people having bi racial grandchildren, attitudes changed. As more families come to terms with gay brothers, sisters, children, and grandchildren coming out we will see further attitude changes. There are so many other important social and economic issues involving morality that we could be addressing, but we appear to be letting Pope Francis lead the way there.

FWIW, the picture of Pope Francis as a "gay" friendly "progressive" is a rather superficial one, based upon a pile of wishful-thinking assumptions loaded upon a single statement that said nothing at all about the morality of homosexual acts.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Stone holm]

FWIW, the picture of Pope Francis as a "gay" friendly "progressive" is a rather superficial one, based upon a pile of wishful-thinking assumptions loaded upon a single statement that said nothing at all about the morality of homosexual acts.Regards,Pahoran

I don't see him as gay friendly, I do see him addressing the issues that Christ would have addressed. Somehow we have turned things around to the point that we have Christ throwing the first stone at the adulteress and slapping the good ole boys changing money at the Temple. The reaction by non Catholics like myself out here in New England has been, finally someone talking like Christ. I know of no other religious leader currently at large that they feel that way about. He is having a very positive impact on how people view religion out here. But I suspect he is probably despised by many in the former Confederacy and the like.

[Pahoran]

I don't see him as gay friendly, I do see him addressing the issues that Christ would have addressed. Somehow we have turned things around to the point that we have Christ throwing the first stone at the adulteress and slapping the good ole boys changing money at the Temple. The reaction by non Catholics like myself out here in New England has been, finally someone talking like Christ. I know of no other religious leader currently at large that they feel that way about. He is having a very positive impact on how people view religion out here. But I suspect he is probably despised by

many in the former Confederacy and the like.

 

While it is interesting to learn what sort of caricatures of religious believers are passed around by Yankee elitists, I'm afraid it has little to do with reality.

 

The reality is that we don't have Christ throwing the first stone at the adulteress.  We have Christ calling her to repentance -- which is exactly what the Bible always said that he did -- and the reprobate clique silently suppressing that call.

 

In the meantime, Pope Francis remains a traditionalist when it comes to marriage and family, and squarely in line with normative Catholic teaching.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel2]

Another prominent non-LDS clergy member, Gene R. Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopalian Bishop, offered his opinion of the position advocated by the LDS church in their January 29th press conference:

Dear Mormons: Thanks But No Thanks

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6580318

Bishop Gene Robinson

Posted: 01/30/15 11:56 AM ET Updated: 01/30/15 11:59 AM ET

Yesterday's announcement by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) that they now support anti-discrimination legislation in housing, employment and public accommodation makes absolutely no sense.

Anti-discrimination bills, as the adjective would suggest, are meant to protect those named from being discriminated against. The Mormons' "new" stance merely proclaims that they now favor bills which would bar discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, as long as those who discriminate against them are given protection for doing so. Such a twisted and distorted approach stretches both the language and the substance of such legislation into an unrecognizable shape and takes us into the realm of the absurd.

LGBT people do not need protection from those who would not discriminate anyway, but rather from those who would. It doesn't matter where the discrimination comes from, or why, but rather such legislation says that citizens of this country shall not be discriminated against in housing, employment and public accommodations because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. It says that a gay couple who gets married on Sunday should not be fired from their jobs on Monday for doing so, nor should that same couple be refused their honeymoon hotel room because they are of the same gender. It means that if a medical facility offers the public service of artificial insemination, it should offer it to anyone who walks in desiring that service, not just heterosexuals. It means that pharmacists have to fill a prescription for HIV retroviral drugs whether or not they approve of the sexual orientation of the person needing them.

For a moment, let's contemplate the embarrassing spectacle of religious people and groups advocating for their right to discriminate. Couched in so-called "religious liberty" language, let's call these efforts what they really are: a license to discriminate. The Mormons' support for anti-discrimination is laudable, until you get to the part that begins with "except." It would be unlawful to discriminate, their support says, unless that discrimination comes from one's religious beliefs. Presumably, a restaurant waiter need not serve two men or two women who are quietly holding hands at their table, if the waiter objects to their "lifestyle." Also, presumably, one need not serve an African-American couple at that same restaurant if one's religion says that black people are an inferior race and should not mingle with whites. Or a Jewish couple who is not served by a waiter whose religion teaches her that Jews are not only eternally damned, but are "Christ-killers" to boot!

For a moment, let's pretend to be sympathetic to the notion that religious people should not be compelled to offer public accommodation to those who engage in behavior considered sinful according to the religious beliefs of the owner/proprietor. I think one could support such a notion if indeed it were applied consistently to everyone. Let's not offer services to anyone who does not contribute the Biblical tithe (10%) of one's income to God's work in the Church and elsewhere. (Yes, there are people who follow this Biblical guideline - principal among them, Mormons!) Prior to offering a room at a hotel or taking a lunch order, patrons would be asked for proof that they indeed have contributed that 10% of their income to charity. Jesus is silent on the issue of homosexuality, but speaks often, and vigorously, about greed, possessions and the corrupting influence of money. Why serve anyone wearing expensive clothes or seeking to dine at an outrageously expensive restaurant, without proof that they are contributing financially to the eradication of poverty, as the Bible prescribes? Why serve food to someone grossly overweight who obviously hasn't gotten the message about the sin of gluttony? Why not check patrons for spousal abuse, foul and profane language, or number of speeding tickets before offering service?

No, the Mormons and other religious people who object to LGBT anti-discrimination laws aren't really looking to discriminate against sin and those who voluntarily participate in it. Why? Because they would be unable to offer public services and accommodation to anyone, given that we are all sinners. Such anti-discrimination legislation now supported by the Mormon Church is concerned with one "sin" and one sin only, as a basis for the denial of services. I see no evidence in Scripture that the "sin" of homosexual behavior is greater or more serious than all the other sins and those who practice it are to be shunned above all others. This exception to following anti-discrimination laws doesn't even make sense on its own religious terms!

Many were quick to hail this announcement by the Mormons as a step forward. And I suppose it is, if dropping their opposition to LGBT protections in Utah and elsewhere means that these protections might become law. But if the religious exemption is allowed in such legislation, then the Mormons' support is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing. It looks to be a softening of their opposition to anti-discrimination laws, while at the same time exempting those who are most likely to perpetrate that discrimination and are the very people from whom that protection is needed. Those who support such a religious exemption to anti-discrimination legislation are trying to sound kind, while clinging to their right to be mean. I, for one, am not buying it!

The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Washington, DC, and the retired IX Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. Follow him on Twitter @BishopGRobinson.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Dup

Edited February 10, 2015 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

Another prominent non-LDS clergy member, Gene R. Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopalian Bishop, offered his opinion of the position advocated by the LDS church in their January 29th press conference:

 

 

I disagree. There is a big difference between not approving of something someone does, and prohibiting it by law. IE; I may not like people shopping on my Sabbath. But I see no justifiable reason to prohibit it by law.

Edited February 10, 2015 by thesometimesaint