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

[tonie]

Wrong.

You, like the sometimesaint, are evidently unacquainted with the legislative process and the fundamental principles upon which it operates (particularly the nature of hearings and reports and debates on the floor of congress)--which aren't all that different from decision-making principles by which most rational individuals operate (i.e. the basic economic principle of cost/benefits and maximizing happiness). I am not making them up or arbitrarily imposing them on the legislative process. Rather, they are so well established as to be blatantly obvious and go without saying. But, since it is evidently lost on you, here are a few links setting for the basic notion of state/government or national interest as well as cost benefit analysis (CBA):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)#Types_of_legitimacy (see in particular III. Rational-Legal Legitimacy)

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/3470

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+Interest

http://my.ilstu.edu/~jkshapi/Habermas_ConstitutionalDemocracy.pdf (pp. 771-772, 776, and 779)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_interest

Wade this does not demonstrate a numerical statistical threshold that must be met before a proposed can be enacted - as you so assert.

All your hand-wringing will not detract from the salient point that you can't demonstrate that there is any, let alone significant problem where homosexuals are being denied housing or employment in Utah and select counties, and thus the alleged controversy and alleged discrimination is manufactured--vague press notices from the Church notwithstanding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If you need to call it vague to dismiss it and not acknowledge what the statement represents then go ahead.

Since we are discussing statistics, and comparisons to Jim Crows, then Elder Oaks was clearly "hand-wringing" when he compared the backlash from Proposition 8 to "voter-intimidation of blacks in the South."

Edited August 27, 2014 by tonie

[wenglund]

Utter rubbish.

 

Murder is statistically insignificant, and all but impractical to totally prevent. You illogical proposition would eliminate all law.

 

Wrong. See my post above.

 

If you had read more carefully the post you are here responding to, you would have learned that statistical significance isn't just a quantitative factor of consideration (such as "widespread"), but it is also a qualitative factor (such as "seriousness").  Murder is statistically significant because of the seriousness of the act--though, if no murders occurred, there would be no point in creating laws to prevent and deal with it regardless of its seriousness. Death Stars can supposedly vaporize a planet--which would be the ultimate in quantitative seriousness, but since none exist (at least not in reality on this planet), it wouldn't make sense to create laws banning them. Right?

 

To see better what I am saying, ask and answer to yourself two simple and insightful questions: 1) Are social statistics often used in promoting legislation and adjudicating legislation? 2) If so, why?

 

To see the inanity of your question, ask yourself in relation thereto: Since the NBA has hired only ever 8 players that were 5ft 7in or smaller (see HERE), in terms of Equal Justice Under the Law, is this statistically significant enough of a rate as to warrant enacting federal or state laws preventing discrimination in the NBA against "short people," and requiring NBA owners to higher more players under 5ft 8in?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 27, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Wade this does not demonstrate a numerical statistical threshold that must be met before a proposed can be enacted - as you so assert.

 

You aren't reading for comprehension. I haven't asserted a "threshold," statistical or otherwise. Rather, I have asserted the general/amorphous principle of "state interest," and the rational need for proponents of laws to demonstrate such. 

 

You still have yet to demonstrate that homosexuals have been discriminated against at all  let alone to a significant extent, in housing and employment practices within the state of Utah and select counties, such that it warrants laws addressing those alleged problems. Until you do, the alleged controversy and supposed discrimination is simply you blowing so much smoke. You are proposing wasting precious legislative time fixing a problem that doesn't exist, which takes their time away from fixing problems that do exists--like the alarming rise in STD's among gay men over the past several years.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[tonie]

You aren't reading for comprehension. I haven't asserted a "threshold," statistical or otherwise. Rather, I have asserted the general/amorphous principle of "state interest," and the rational need for proponents of laws to demonstrate such.

Hmmm...you haven't asserted a threshold? Are you sure?

As ... I have repeatedly intimated, you have yet to demonstrate a statistically significant rate ...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Regardless of adding "state interest" you have, repeatedly, asserted a statistical threshold.

You keep claiming it is made up, yet, the Church spoke in favor of it.

Edited August 27, 2014 by tonie

[wenglund]

Should a law be enacted preventing landlords and employers from discriminating against this one, 62-year-old, single, white, slightly balding and plump, heterosexual male with a couple of teeth missing?

 

If not, then "what level would it be a statistically significant enough of a rate not to deny Equal Justice Under Law?"

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Wrong. See my post above.

 

If you had read more carefully the post you are here responding to, you would have learned that statistical significance isn't just a quantitative factor of consideration (such as "widespread"), but it is also a qualitative factor (such as "seriousness").  Murder is statistically significant because of the seriousness of the act--though, if no murders occurred, there would be no point in creating laws to prevent and deal with it regardless of its seriousness. Death Stars can supposedly vaporize a planet--which would be the ultimate in quantitative seriousness, but since none exist (at least not in reality on this planet), it wouldn't make sense to create laws banning them. Right?

 

To see better what I am saying, ask and answer to yourself two simple and insightful questions: 1) Are social statistics often used in promoting legislation and adjudicating legislation? 2) If so, why?

 

To see the inanity of your question, ask yourself in relation thereto: Since the NBA has hired only ever 8 players that were 5ft 7in or smaller (see HERE), in terms of Equal Justice Under the Law, is this statistically significant enough of a rate as to warrant enacting federal or state laws preventing discrimination in the NBA against "short people," and requiring NBA owners to higher more players under 5ft 8in?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 Incorrect again. Simply remove all laws concerning murder(The illegal taking of a human life) and its "Seriousness" disappears. IE; The Mormons must be eliminated or driven from the state. Less "Serious" It was all that long ago that Mormon men could vote, hold public office, be on a jury. As to NBA players

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shortest_players_in_National_Basketball_Association_history

[thesometimesaint]

Should a law be enacted preventing landlords and employers from discriminating against this one, 62-year-old, single, white, slightly balding and plump, heterosexual male with a couple of teeth missing?

 

If not, then "what level would it be a statistically significant enough of a rate not to deny Equal Justice Under Law?"

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Yes. If the reason for that discrimination is based on age/marital status//race/ color/ physical attributes/sex or sexual orientation. See I want those protections for everyone including those with the characteristics of a 62-year-old, single, white, slightly balding and plump, heterosexual male with a couple of teeth missing?

Edited August 27, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

 

Hmmm...you haven't asserted a threshold? Are you sure?

Regardless of adding "state interest" you have, repeatedly, asserted a statistical threshold.

 

No. I have repeatedly asserted statistical justification (as in "warranted") and repeatedly pointed out that you have none for the proposed legislation. You haven't established that there is a problem that needs to be legislatively fixed. Hence, the alleged controversy and discrimination are manufactured and a waste of precious legislative time.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No. I have repeatedly asserted statistical justification (as in "warranted") and repeatedly pointed out that you have none for the proposed legislation. You haven't established that there is a problem that needs to be legislatively fixed. Hence, the alleged controversy and discrimination are manufactured and a waste of precious legislative time.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not to mention the complete waste of time going back on forth on a point that is rather clear but seems to  be not seen by some in this thread. I am really quite baffled to a whole new level here.

 

Another case of people thinking they know what you are talking about instead of actually reading what you wrote.

[wenglund]

 Incorrect again. Simply remove all laws concerning murder(The illegal taking of a human life) and its "Seriousness" disappears. IE; The Mormons must be eliminated or driven from the state. Less "Serious" 

 

This might make sense if "seriousness" were only a function of established law rather than intrinsic to the nature and impact of various actions themselves. It isn't, and so you aren't making sense. Otherwise, by your "reasoning," slavery would have only became "serious" when laws were enacted abolishing it. Before then, it wouldn't have been serious. Rather, laws abolishing slavery were enacted because slavery was "serious," so much so that a civil war was fought because of it.

 

Besides, taking of human life is "serious" even when legal--as it is in war. If you doubt this, talk to anyone who has lost a loved one in that manner.

 

 

It was all that long ago that Mormon men could vote, hold public office, be on a jury. As to NBA players

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shortest_players_in_National_Basketball_Association_history

 

Re-posting the link I posted earlier doesn't in any way answer the question I asked you. But, then, your answering my question to you risks illuminating the inanity of the question you asked me, and so I can't expect much cooperation.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 27, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Yes. If the reason for that discrimination is based on age/marital status//race/ color/ physical attributes/sex or sexual orientation. See I want those protections for everyone including those with the characteristics of a 62-year-old, single, white, slightly balding and plump, heterosexual male with a couple of teeth missing?

 

You are missing the point. I am not asking about enacting legislation that addresses these listed discriminations generally, but rather enacting a law specific to me and my relatively unique demographic.

 

By the way, it might prove useful for you to draft a law preventing landlords and employers from discriminating against slightly bald and plump people with several teeth missing (you can call it the Wade law), and attempt to get it passed through your state congress. When you barely get the time of day, then perhaps what I have been saying will suddenly distill within your mind with illuminating clarity, though I wont hold my breath.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

This might make sense if "seriousness" were only a function of established law rather than intrinsic to the nature and impact of various actions themselves. It isn't, and so you aren't making sense. Otherwise, by your "reasoning," slavery would have only became "serious" when laws were enacted abolishing it. Before then, it wouldn't have been serious. Rather, laws abolishing slavery were enacted because slavery was "serious," so much so that a civil war was fought because of it.

 

Besides, taking of human life is "serious" even when legal--as it is in war. If you doubt this, talk to anyone who has lost a loved one in that manner.

 

 

 

Re-posting the link I posted earlier doesn't in any way answer the question I asked you. But, then, your answering my question to you risks illuminating the inanity of the question you asked me, and so I can't expect much cooperation.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Believe me I'm not cavalier about taking any life, particularly human life. I'd be royally pissed if anyone deliberately killed my cat, or even my neighbor's yappy little dog. I've directly killed(self defense) a fellow human being, and indirectly through being in the US military in time of war. I mourn the loss of life, even the persons life whom I took. The law and hopefully God recognizes that.

 

To use your slavery example for thousands of years it wasn't thought to be a "Serious" problem. People just accepted it as the Status Quo, and invented at types of rationalizations for it including a body of law that demanded it.

 

The US fought a Civil War over the right to secede from the union. The proximal cause to secession was that "Peculiar Institution" of slavery. In fact our US Constitution codifies slavery, and was amended AFTER the Civil War to eliminate it. 

[wenglund]

Believe me I'm not cavalier about taking any life, particularly human life. I'd be royally pissed if anyone deliberately killed my cat, or even my neighbor's yappy little dog. I've directly killed(self defense) a fellow human being, and indirectly through being in the US military in time of war. I mourn the loss of life, even the persons life whom I took. The law and hopefully God recognizes that.

 

To use your slavery example for thousands of years it wasn't thought to be a "Serious" problem. People just accepted it as the Status Quo, and invented at types of rationalizations for it including a body of law that demanded it.

 

The US fought a Civil War over the right to secede from the union. The proximal cause to secession was that "Peculiar Institution" of slavery. In fact our US Constitution codifies slavery, and was amended AFTER the Civil War to eliminate it. 

 

You seem intent on missing the point, and so I won't belabor it with you. If you don't think murder or slavery is "serious" prior to enacting related laws, then there is little basis for reasoned discussion on the matter.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[tonie]

No. I have repeatedly asserted statistical justification (as in "warranted") and repeatedly pointed out that you have none for the proposed legislation. You haven't established that there is a problem that needs to be legislatively fixed. Hence, the alleged controversy and discrimination are manufactured and a waste of precious legislative time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, you have used statistical significant, once (here) and you repeatedly use statistical significant state interest (here and here). You are asserting what can be understood as statistical threshold - which you now relabel a justification.

You require statistical significance, which is what? Is it amorphous, .00001% is significant in once instance but 3% is insignificant in another?

Edited August 27, 2014 by tonie

[thesometimesaint]

You seem intent on missing the point, and so I won't belabor it with you. If you don't think murder or slavery is "serious" prior to enacting related laws, then there is little basis for reasoned discussion on the matter.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I didn't say that. "Serious" is largely subjective depending on time and locale for reference. IE; For Paul, of the Bible, to come out against slavery in the Roman Empire would be quixotic at best, and suicidal at worst. Hopefully we know better now.

 

I don't have nice days any more. But with enough drugs I make it through another one.

[wenglund]

Wade, you have used statistical significant, once (here) and you repeatedly use statistical significant state interest (here and here). You are asserting what can be understood as statistical threshold - which you now relabel a justification.

You require statistical significance, which is what? Is it amorphous, .00001% is significant in once instance but 3% is insignificant in another?

 

I will try this one more time, and that is all.

 

Yes, I have repeatedly used the term statistical significance, but as a means of JUSTIFICATION (i.e. "warranted"), and not as any hard and fast or definable threshold (I haven't ever used that word to describe what I am asserting).  

 

Common sense, and not me, demands that proposed laws be justified, in part, through statistical significance.

 

Justification through statistical significance (quantitatively or qualitatively) will vary from case to case depending upon a variety of other factors including cost/benefit analysis, level of public interest, competing issues, etc.

 

For example, if a state is deciding between building a multi-million dollar bridge or increasing teacher salaries, it may opt for the bridge were it to service hundreds of thousands of cars each day and save millions of miles and hours of driving per month and promote sizable tax revenues, particularly if the cost of living expenses for teachers has recently gone down; whereas they may opt for salary increases for teachers were the proposed bridge to only service a couple of cars a day and save only several miles and minutes of driving a month and cause substantial drain on the state budget, and were the cost of living for teachers to have gone up.

 

Because of the "serious" nature of the disease, the government may get involved in costly response to only a couple instances of the ebola virus nation-wide.

 

When deciding which areas will or won't be designated as empowerment zones, the federal government takes into consideration a number of statistical factors. Areas that don't statistically quality as "distressed" won't be so designated. And, prior to enacting empowerment zone laws, the legislature first determine how widespread is the economic distress, and whether it is widespread enough to warrant government intervention, and whether designating empowerment zones (with all the costs that entails) will result in net economic benefits.

 

Governors may decide whether or not to call out the National Guard based on statistical significance. They may call out the Guard in cases of large scale riots, but not a peaceful rally of a handful of boy scouts.

 

Not every school district came under the mandate to desegregate and bus students, nor were all voting districts subject to stricter voting regulations. Only those where there was a statistically significant problem with race. And, once the racial problems substantially diminished, the mandates and stricter regulations were rescinded.

 

I could go on and on and on with example where statistical significance rightly factored into government decisions and action, but hopefully the small sample I have presented will suffice in making my point.

 

Do these examples of statistical significance consist of a definable, across the board "threshold?" Not really.

 

Do they consist, in general principle, as justification for laws and policies? Yes.

 

With that said, again, you still have yet to demonstrate that homosexuals have been discriminated against at all  let alone to a significant extent, in housing and employment practices within the state of Utah and select counties, such that it warrants laws addressing those alleged problems. Until you do, the alleged controversy and supposed discrimination is simply you blowing so much smoke. You are proposing wasting precious legislative time fixing a problem may not even exist, which takes the legislator's time away from fixing problems that do exists--like the alarming rise in STD's among gay men over the past several years.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 27, 2014 by wenglund

[tonie]

Wade if you don't to get back into a corner about some arbitrary number, perhaps you should stop relying on arbitrary numbers, specifically repeated calls for statistical significance. Should laws be related to some Government interest, sure. You repetitious reliance on statistical significance, continues to imply there is some arbitrary moving number. As for desegregation and schools, schools bound by the Brown ruling is not limited to (and I dare say not about) statistical analysis, it much more to do with State sponsored discrimination practices.

The topic of the thread is about the Church claim that a persons "deeply held religious belief" justifying discrimination and exemption from non-discrimination laws. Do you care to address the topic? Will you demonstrate how LDS teachings create or instill a "deeply held religious belief" that require the average LDS business owner not to hire a homosexul or a LDS person who happens to rent residential properties, to not rent housing to a homosexual? The Church claim is that this type of discrimination is a deeply held religious belief...which begs the question, what religious beliefs are taught to us LDS which justify the discrimination?

Please stay on topic and stop the repeated attempts to derail. Create your own discussion about the statistics you want.

[wenglund]

Wade if you don't to get back into a corner about some arbitrary number, perhaps you should stop relying on arbitrary numbers, specifically repeated calls for statistical significance. Should laws be related to some Government interest, sure. You repetitious reliance on statistical significance, continues to imply there is some arbitrary moving number. As for desegregation and schools, schools bound by the Brown ruling is not limited to (and I dare say not about) statistical analysis, it much more to do with State sponsored discrimination practices. The topic of the thread is about the Church claim that a persons "deeply held religious belief" justifying discrimination and exemption from non-discrimination laws. Do you care to address the topic? Will you demonstrate how LDS teachings create or instill a "deeply held religious belief" that require the average LDS business owner not to hire a homosexul or a LDS person who happens to rent residential properties, to not rent housing to a homosexual? The Church claim is that this type of discrimination is a deeply held religious belief...which begs the question, what religious beliefs are taught to us LDS which justify the discrimination? Please stay on topic and stop the repeated attempts to derail. Create your own discussion about the statistics you want.

 

Evidently, I can't control you misreading things into what I have said, even with repeated clarifications to the contrary, and so I will leave it at that, and no longer expect you to demonstrate that there is any, let alone statistically significant instances of landlords and employers in Utah discriminating against homosexuals such that it warrants enacting a law to fix the non-existent problem. .

 

With that said, I will return you to the topic. Have a nice day.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel2]

Here's a 2014 study of Employment Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Utah:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=wXn-U7a4E8iuogSE_YDIAw&url=http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/UtahNDReport-Jan-2014.pdf&cd=4&ved=0CCQQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNHG6fcnj25pKKEfrnaxEM-BZ-WrlA&sig2=B5SjmxO-N73wj-_1H1npaA

[tonie]

Evidently, I can't control you misreading things into what I have said, even with repeated clarifications to the contrary, and so I will leave it at that, and no longer expect you to demonstrate that there is any, let alone statistically significant instances of landlords and employers in Utah discriminating against homosexuals such that it warrants enacting a law to fix the non-existent problem. .

With that said, I will return you to the topic. Have a nice day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If you are excusing yourself, I thank you for your participation. It is regrettable that the specific topic at hand is left unaddressed.

[wenglund]

If you are excusing yourself, I thank you for your participation. It is regrettable that the specific topic at hand is left unaddressed.

 

I am not excusing myself entirely from the discussion, just the portion that you considered as off topic. I will address the topic when I get time. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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?

 

Would you be so kind as to provide a link to the original source of this statement so that I can read it in context?

 

I ask because from what little you have quoted here, I am not sure you are interpreting the statement correctly.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel2]

Regarding comments that there's no data supporting housing discrimination against LGBT couples:

 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development recently published a study identifying that there is "significant Housing Discrimination" for LGBT couples:

 

 

 

 

Same-Sex Couples Face Significant Housing Discrimination, Historic Government Study Says

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/same-sex-housing-discrimination_n_3455463.html

 

Posted: 06/18/2013 1:06 pm EDT Updated: 06/18/2013 5:26 pm EDT

 

A study by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, led by Shaun Donovan, found that same-sex couples face discrimination in the rental market.

 

WASHINGTON -- Same-sex couples face significant levels of discrimination in the rental housing market, according to a landmark government study released on Tuesday.

The new survey by the Department of Housing and Urban Development is the first-ever study examining housing discrimination against same-sex couples at the national level.

 

HUD found that same-sex couples were "significantly less likely than heterosexual couples to get favorable responses to e-mail inquiries about electronically advertised rental housing." In fact, heterosexual couples were favored over gay male couples in 15.9 percent of the tests, and over lesbian couples in 15.6 percent.

 

The survey is based on 6,833 email correspondences in 50 metropolitan markets from June to October 2011. Testers would send two emails to the landlord, each asking about the availability of a rental unit advertised online. The only difference between the two was in the sexual orientation of the interested couple.

 

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan announced the findings on Friday during an event at the agency for HUD GLOBE, the association for federal LGBT employees. In his remarks, he told a story illustrating the different treatment that heterosexual and same-sex couples were given by some rental agents.

 

"We had a married couple, Christina and Jonathan, ask if a one-bedroom apartment was available. A short time later, an email was sent from Mark and Thomas, clearly identifying themselves as partners, inquiring about the same apartment," he said. "At 2:20 p.m., the rental agent responded to Jonathan and Christina, saying the apartment was still available, and providing his phone number to schedule an appointment. Just one minute later, the rental agent replied to Mark and Thomas, saying, 'I think I have it rented. But I can check back in a day or so.'"

 

"This is simply wrong. It is unjust, and we as a country cannot stand for it," he added.

 

Housing discrimination against LGBT individuals is still legal in many states. The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap -- but not sexual orientation and gender identity. However, about 20 states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation with these added protections.

 

The Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME) Act would add sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status and source of income to those FHA protected classes, but it has not yet been introduced in the 113th Congress.

 

One of the most interesting findings of the new HUD survey is that discrimination was actually slightly higher against same-sex couples in states with protections for LGBT individuals.

 

"Several factors could account for this unexpected finding, including potentially low levels of enforcement, housing provider unfamiliarity with state-level protections, or the possibility that protections exist in states with the greatest need for them," HUD concluded.

 

In 2012, HUD enacted an equal access housing rule, which bars officials at HUD-funded housing units from making decisions based on an applicant's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. While the HUD equal access rule enacted in 2012 applies only to entities that receive public funds, the HOME Act would prohibit housing discrimination everywhere.

 

 

 

 

Here is the link the study: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/hud.pdf

Edited August 28, 2014 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Would you be so kind as to provide a link to the original source of this statement so that I can read it in context?

 

I ask because from what little you have quoted here, I am not sure you are interpreting the statement correctly.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

From the church's official website:

 

News Story —  10 November 2009

Church Supports Nondiscrimination Ordinances

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-supports-nondiscrimination-ordinances

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has declared its support of nondiscrimination regulations that would extend protection in matters of housing and employment in Salt Lake City to those with same-sex attraction.

 

The Church said the Salt Lake City Council’s new nondiscrimination ordinance “is fair and reasonable” and balances fair housing and employment rights with the religious rights of the community.

 

The remarks, representing the position of the Church’s leadership, were read by Michael Otterson, managing director of Church Public Affairs, as part of a public comment period discussing the ordinances at a Salt Lake City Council meeting tonight.

 

Otterson told city council members: “The issue before you tonight is the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against. But, importantly, the ordinances also attempts to balance vital issues of religious freedom.  In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor Becker is taking on this matter.”

 

The Church said that while protections in housing and employment were fair and reasonable, the Church also remains “unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.”  Otterson also pointed out that this position was “entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters.”

 

Otterson added, “I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree — in fact, especially when we disagree.”

 

Edited August 28, 2014 by Daniel2

[wenglund]

From the church's official website:

 

I appreciate the info, but it doesn't contain the quote posted in the OP for which I requested a linked reference, though it does provide useful context.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-