Pahoran Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Daniel2 wrote: 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: Oh well then, that's our hash settled. After all, what "news" outlet was ever more even-handed than Huff'n'Puff Post? And what bastion of traditional family values was ever more staunch that the Episcopalian Church? Who could imagine that a "gay" Anglican would agree with his fellow reprobates? What a shock! Regards, Pahoran Edited February 10, 2015 by Pahoran 2
Daniel2 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Daniel2 wrote:Oh well then, that's our hash settled.After all, what "news" outlet was ever more even-handed than Huff'n'Puff Post?And what bastion of traditional family values was ever more staunch that the Episcopalian Church?Who could imagine that a "gay" Anglican would agree with his fellow reprobates?What a shock!Regards,PahoranSlander the newspaper...Slander the church...Slander the man...There's nothing quite as non-substantive as a good ol' fashioned TRIPLE-PLAY ad hominem attack (four, if we also count slandering his sexual orientation). Edited February 11, 2015 by Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) 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.I'm not sure I follow what it is your disagreeing with, from his article.I find his discussion of tithing somewhat misplaced and confusing.The rest of his article I found very compeling. Edited February 11, 2015 by Daniel2
california boy Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 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! This is an excellent point. As far as I can tell, the ONLY people that want to discriminate against gays are the "good christians" claiming to follow a Christ who never preached a doctrine of withholding service from sinners. So why say you are in favor of anti discrimination laws for LGBT and then want to pass laws that those who are currently discriminating against gays are now legally entitled to such discrimination. Seriously can anyone tell me why LGBT should be happy with the churches position? What do you feel is the upside for the gay community to what the church offers? What the gay community really wants is anti discrimination laws enforced against these alledged good christians who use their religion as a weapon to discriminate. The rest of the population doesn't seem to have a problem treating gays equally.
Pahoran Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Slander the newspaper...False.As you know.Huff'n'Puff is happy to be known as a "liberal" voice. That's its market niche. Do you deny it? Slander the church...False.As you know.The Episcopalians are happy to be seen as "avant garde." Or at least some of them are.By what standard could my remarks possibly be seen as "slander?" Slander the man...How?You were the one who told us he was "gay." There's nothing quite as non-substantive as a good ol' fashioned TRIPLE-PLAY ad hominem attack (four, if we also count slandering his sexual orientation). You mistake, Daniel. He's not a reprobate because he's "gay." He's a reprobate because he's an unrepentant immoralist.And you were the one who trotted him out as some kind of authority. Do you always lead with the chin, then bleat when your opponent aims at it?Regards,Pahoran Edited February 11, 2015 by Pahoran
Stone holm Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 This is an excellent point. As far as I can tell, the ONLY people that want to discriminate against gays are the "good christians" claiming to follow a Christ who never preached a doctrine of withholding service from sinners. So why say you are in favor of anti discrimination laws for LGBT and then want to pass laws that those who are currently discriminating against gays are now legally entitled to such discrimination. Seriously can anyone tell me why LGBT should be happy with the churches position? What do you feel is the upside for the gay community to what the church offers? What the gay community really wants is anti discrimination laws enforced against these alledged good christians who use their religion as a weapon to discriminate. The rest of the population doesn't seem to have a problem treating gays equally.I don't think the LGBT need to be happy with the Church's position on anything. On the other hand, Mormons do have to be concerned about whether Church leaders are proclaiming ideologically based legal positions which are going to promote strife and result in bad social behavior. It seems like the refusal of business services on religious grounds or promoting the refusal of business services on such grounds was determined fairly clearly in hard fought battles in the 20th Century to be a form of social mischief that creates civil strife unnecessarily. It is a shame to see an attempt to ruserect that behavior in the 21st.
california boy Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 I don't think the LGBT need to be happy with the Church's position on anything. On the other hand, Mormons do have to be concerned about whether Church leaders are proclaiming ideologically based legal positions which are going to promote strife and result in bad social behavior. It seems like the refusal of business services on religious grounds or promoting the refusal of business services on such grounds was determined fairly clearly in hard fought battles in the 20th Century to be a form of social mischief that creates civil strife unnecessarily. It is a shame to see an attempt to ruserect that behavior in the 21st.You are absolutely right. I hope the church considers the implications of what it is trying to do.
Pahoran Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 You are absolutely right. I hope the church considers the implications of what it is trying to do. As you perfectly well know -- but resolutely refuse to admit -- the claim that anyone is trying to create a "right to refuse service" to people of whom they disapprove is a completely "gay" lie. As you perfectly well know -- but resolutely refuse to admit -- people of conscience are claiming the right to avoid supporting actions they find inconscionable. And, as you perfectly well know -- but resolutely refuse to admit -- you have NO valid argument that there is anything wrong with such a course of action. Which is why you go right on loudly claiming that they are doing something else; which claim you know to be false. Isn't that right? Regards,Pahoran 3
Stone holm Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 As you perfectly well know -- but resolutely refuse to admit -- the claim that anyone is trying to create a "right to refuse service" to people of whom they disapprove is a completely "gay" lie. As you perfectly well know -- but resolutely refuse to admit -- people of conscience are claiming the right to avoid supporting actions they find inconscionable. And, as you perfectly well know -- but resolutely refuse to admit -- you have NO valid argument that there is anything wrong with such a course of action. Which is why you go right on loudly claiming that they are doing something else; which claim you know to be false. Isn't that right? Regards,PahoranNo, you are wrong this is the exact same type of argument that was made down South to support segregated lunch counters. 1
california boy Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 As you perfectly well know -- but resolutely refuse to admit -- the claim that anyone is trying to create a "right to refuse service" to people of whom they disapprove is a completely "gay" lie. As you perfectly well know -- but resolutely refuse to admit -- people of conscience are claiming the right to avoid supporting actions they find inconscionable. And, as you perfectly well know -- but resolutely refuse to admit -- you have NO valid argument that there is anything wrong with such a course of action. Which is why you go right on loudly claiming that they are doing something else; which claim you know to be false. Isn't that right? Regards,Pahoran I will say wrong also. Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you wrap it up or try to justify it. Following the example of Christ is never the wrong thing to do. Pretending that Christ would somehow justify this kind of behavior is just misguided. Period. 2
tonie Posted February 11, 2015 Author Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) I don't think the LGBT need to be happy with the Church's position on anything. On the other hand, Mormons do have to be concerned about whether Church leaders are proclaiming ideologically based legal positions which are going to promote strife and result in bad social behavior. It seems like the refusal of business services on religious grounds or promoting the refusal of business services on such grounds was determined fairly clearly in hard fought battles in the 20th Century to be a form of social mischief that creates civil strife unnecessarily. It is a shame to see an attempt to ruserect that behavior in the 21st. You are absolutely right. I hope the church considers the implications of what it is trying to do. Elder Oaks was asked directly to address the hypothetical of an evangelical resturaunt owner refusing service to missionaries...Elder Oaks response was along the lines of "we will not discuss hypotheticals". To date we do not what the Church thinks about discrimination at a lunch counter. (Though we could look to a letter from 1969 to get some insight into how the Church has may have viewed "lunch counter discrimination" - "Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights") Presently, all we know is the Church has spoken in favor of prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, and public transportation, and with the request for special exemption privilege for religious individuals to no provide these services, including not providing medical services or pharmaceutical services when there are others that provide the service. It is the epitome of propaganda to assert that people are not seeking special religious privelege to discriminate any place or any time in the public square. But someone from New Zealand, england, or australia would not necessarily understand what the US law currently are regarding non-discrimination in the public square. Edited February 11, 2015 by tonie
tonie Posted February 11, 2015 Author Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) I beleive it is fair to say that the Church regards "securing a job" and "a place to live" is a "basic human right". This was published on lds.org, mormonnewsroom, and ldscchurch news section of Deseretnews. According to at least one person on this board, publication in one of those venues, indicates that what is published is the position of the Church. Sister Neill Marriott, January 27, 2015: "Ultimately, most of society recognized that such [ridicule, persecution and even violence against homosexuals] was simply wrong, and that such basic human rights as securing a job or a place to live should not depend on a person’s sexual orientation.” Edited February 11, 2015 by tonie
thesometimesaint Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Elder Oaks was asked directly to address the hypothetical of an evangelical resturaunt owner refusing service to missionaries...Elder Oaks response was along the lines of "we will not discuss hypotheticals". To date we do not what the Church thinks about discrimination at a lunch counter. (Though we could look to a letter from 1969 to get some insight into how the Church has may have viewed "lunch counter discrimination" - "Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights") Presently, all we know is the Church has spoken in favor of prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, and public transportation ONLY, and with the request for special exemption privilege for religious individuals. It is the epitome of propaganda to assert that people are not seeking special religious privelege to discriminate any place or any time in the public square. But someone from New Zealand, england, or australia would not necessarily understand what the US law currently are regarding non-discrimination in the public square. I would take except to the "ONLY" part. There are issues of estate planning, medical care, notifications to next of kin as well as other issues that were addressed. Edited February 11, 2015 by thesometimesaint
tonie Posted February 11, 2015 Author Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) I would take except to the "ONLY" part. There are issues of estate planning, medical care, notifications to next of kin as well as other issues that were addressed. Hmmm, I am not seeing the estate planning, next of kin and other issues in the transcript; however, despite that, I will make the edit... To date we can make a guess about what the Church thinks about discrimination at a lunch counter. Elder Holland stated that individuals (citing a hypothetical Catholic phramacist and a LDS Doctor) should not have to provide services that violate their conscience. This same reasoning would also apply at the "lunch counter"; an Evengelical Christian, should have not to violate her conscience by being forced serve food to LDS Missionaries. Edited February 11, 2015 by tonie
Pahoran Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Stone Holm wrote: No, you are wrong this is the exact same type of argument that was made down South to support segregated lunch counters. Really? Call for references, please. What authentic source from "down South" ever said that segregated lunch counters were to avoid actively supporting reprehensible acts, and not just to keep people apart? And then, when you've provided that reference (if you can provide one) we can talk about what a failed argument your "Damnation by association" ploy is. Regards, Pahoran
Pahoran Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 I will say wrong also. Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you wrap it up or try to justify it. Following the example of Christ is never the wrong thing to do. Pretending that Christ would somehow justify this kind of behavior is just misguided. Period.Really?Call for references, please.I asked this question before, and was met with thundering silence: can you show even one instance of Jesus actively encouraging or enabling sinful acts? Regards,Pahoran 3
tonie Posted February 11, 2015 Author Posted February 11, 2015 please dont feed trolls.It is well documented that discriminatory polices in the United States were defended, at times, under the guise of religion. 1
Stone holm Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Really? Lunch counter discrimination down South was just to keep people apart? What American history books did you study growing up? That is like the Southern revisionism that tries to say the Civil War was not about slavery. 1
USU78 Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Stone Holm wrote: Really?Call for references, please. What authentic source from "down South" ever said that segregated lunch counters were to avoid actively supporting reprehensible acts, and not just to keep people apart?And then, when you've provided that reference (if you can provide one) we can talk about what a failed argument your "Damnation by association" ploy is.Regards,Pahoran Indeed. It is homosexuals' behaviors, especially symbolic/ritual behaviors that are being enjoined upon suppliers of goods and services that are the issue, not whether or not one person's money is as good as another's at a lunch counter.
Pahoran Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Stone holm evaded a CFR with: Really? Lunch counter discrimination down South was just to keep people apart? What American history books did you study growing up? That is like the Southern revisionism that tries to say the Civil War was not about slavery. So you admit that you have no references in support of your original claim. Thank you. Please note that, while the "gay" lobby have tried to pretend that they are merely trying to protect themselves from people refusing to serve them, in any capacity, entirely and only because they are "gay" (which would, if true, be at least superficially relevant to your attempts to draw invidious parallels to Jim Crow laws in the American South) NOT ONE example of such discrimination has been put forward. The Baker who has been sued into financial oblivion for refusing to bake a cake for a "gay wedding" explicitly offered to sell the "gay" customers anything else in the shop. There has not been the slightest intimation that the targeted florist or the victimised photographer had refused any products or services in any context other than a "gay" wedding. By contrast, the southerners you Yankees despise in order to make yourselves feel superior refused to serve Black people under any circumstances. Your "parallel" is a lie, and you know it. And besides: "Damnation by association" is a cheap bit of demagoguery. Used exclusively, and only, by cheap demagogues. Regards, Pahoran 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Indeed. It is homosexuals' behaviors, especially symbolic/ritual behaviors that are being enjoined upon suppliers of goods and services that are the issue, not whether or not one person's money is as good as another's at a lunch counter. Indeed. It is blacks behaviors, especially symbolic/ritual behaviors that are being enjoined upon suppliers of goods and services that are the issue, not whether or not one person's money is as good as another's at a lunch counter. 1
USU78 Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Indeed. It is blacks behaviors, especially symbolic/ritual behaviors that are being enjoined upon suppliers of goods and services that are the issue, not whether or not one person's money is as good as another's at a lunch counter. See Pahoran's evisceration of this bloviation, above.
Stone holm Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) I think this is the most evenly balanced discussion to be had that I can find. I don't think that it is necessary to cite authority for the fact that the lunch counter battles in the South were not just over keeping people separate -- unless you think making certain people stand and allowing others to sit is just keeping people separate. But here is a very good discussion: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-02024/gay-marriage-opponents-find-firmer-legal-ground Sorry, my computer doesn't allow me to cut and past from the web, so I have to retype the links, otherwise I would go ahead and cite all the lunch counter cases, etc. Edited February 11, 2015 by Stone holm
Stone holm Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 And when I retype the auto correct messes up the link, so sorry it doesn't work.
Ahab Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 The flaw in suggesting discrimination against people with black skin is the same as discrimination against gay marriage is that it's a sin for gay people to get married, at least if that includes them having sexual relations with each other, but it is NOT a sin to be black. Regardless of how someone got to be black, or gay.So please stop talking as if it is the same kind of discrimination.I'll help anyone who wants to and tries to do something that is good but I won't help or approve of anyone committing a sin. 1
Recommended Posts