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

[tonie]

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-

Fox13 Salt Lake City, March 11, 2013 Edited August 28, 2014 by tonie

[wenglund]

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

 

It would also be of great help were you to provide links to the text for both the non-discrimination law in SLC as well as SB262. This would enable us to compare and contrast the two in hopes of finding some explanation (i.e differences in wording and context, political or otherwise, etc.) for the Church's support for the one and not the other.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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:

 

 

 

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

 

I also appreciate you attempting to provide support for the claims of discrimination. However, while I am fully prepared to challenge the support, the author of the thread considers that matter to be off topic, and has personally asked me not to derail the thread further, and so I shan't out of respect for his wishes.

 

I had thought to start a new thread to speak to the studies you linked to, but since the topic would be highly political and not really relevant to the Church, it wouldn't be appropriate for this board, and so I decided against it, and will leave things as they now stand.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Fox13 Salt Lake City, March 11, 2013

 

While this isn't the primary source for the quote, I suppose it will have to do. We will just have to trust that Fox13 News quoted the Church correctly and in context.

 

With that out of the way, let's look again at what the Church is quoted as saying, and your followup question.

 

Here is what the Church purportedly said:

 

 

 

“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...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.”

 

and here is your followup question

 

 

 

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?

 

As I read things, there seems to be a disconnect between the Church's statement and your question. The Church appears to be saying that the rights to housing for people with SSA ought to be protected, or in other words, the Church believes that people with SSA ought not be denied housing. Yet, your question presupposes that Church may have given reason for members to deny housing to people with SSA.

 

Do you see the conflict? Your question presuppose something that is false. The Church isn't suggesting what you suppose it is. Rather, the point about preserving the "rights of religious conscience" is likely in reference to other things than housing and employment.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 28, 2014 by wenglund

[tonie]

It would also be of great help were you to provide links to the text for both the non-discrimination law in SLC as well as SB262. This would enable us to compare and contrast the two in hopes of finding some explanation (i.e differences in wording and context, political or otherwise, etc.) for the Church's support for the one and not the other.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I do not see how a side by side comparison of the Salt Lake City ordinance (here) and SB 262 (here) addresses the issue of the Church stance concerning "deeply held religious beliefs" in regard to housing and employment discrimination. Though, the comparison would be very interesting.

The text of the separate bills would not demonstrate that discrimination in housing or employment is a "deeply held religious belief". The analysis to be done, is what religious Doctrines or teaching instill in adherents a "deeply held religious belief" concerning discrimination in housing or employment - excluding for present purposes religious organizations and housing owned and operated by religious organizations.

Edited August 28, 2014 by tonie

[wenglund]

I do not see how a side by side comparison of the Salt Lake City ordinance (here) and SB 262 (here) addresses the issue of the Church stance concerning "deeply held religious beliefs" in regard to housing and employment discrimination. Though, the comparison would be very interesting.

The text of the separate bills would not demonstrate that discrimination in housing or employment is a "deeply held religious belief". The analysis to be done, is what religious Doctrines or teaching instill in adherents a "deeply held religious belief" concerning discrimination in housing or employment - excluding for present purposes religious organizations and housing owned and operated by religious organizations.

 

Again, much appreciated.

 

However, the point in my requesting the text for the two laws isn't to address your mistaken assumption about "deeply held religious beliefs" in relation to housing discrimination (see my post above), but rather, as stated, it was in the hopes of gleaning some plausible explanations for why the Church may have backed the one law and not the other--an issue hinted at earlier in the thread and in the Fox13 report.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

Since when did discrimination get made out to be a bad thing?

It just involves being selective, and there are usually good reasons to be selective in what we do.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Since when did discrimination get made out to be a bad thing?

It just involves being selective, and there are usually good reasons to be selective in what we do.

You are exactly right. It used to be a good thing.

[Daniel2]

Since when did discrimination get made out to be a bad thing?

It just involves being selective, and there are usually good reasons to be selective in what we do.

 

It is one thing to have "discriminating taste"....

 

dis·crim·i·na·tion noun \dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\

 

: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not

 

: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing

 

1

a :  the act of discriminating

 

b :  the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

2

:  the quality or power of finely distinguishing

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

 

The legal definition of "discrimination" is enterly different:

 

Discrimination:

 

In Constitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes. Federal laws, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, voting rights, education, and access to public facilities. They also proscribe discrimination on the basis of race, age, sex, nationality, disability, or religion. In addition, state and local laws can prohibit discrimination in these areas and in others not covered by federal laws.

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/discrimination

 

Hopefully the difference is clear, as well as why one type of discrimination may be good, and the other is not (and never has been).

Edited August 28, 2014 by Daniel2

[USU78]

 

Sure.

 

[snip]

1964 – Strom Thurmond, while U.S. senator from South Carolina switched to the Republican party on September 16, 1964.[2]

1964 - Howard Callaway, in order to run successfully as U.S. Representative from Georgia.

 

[snip]

 

 

As I stated, a very short list in 1964, with Strom being the only one of note that actually voted in July on the CRA of 1964.

 

Here is the voting breakdown:

 

 

By party

The original House version:^[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96   (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34   (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:^[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23   (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

The Senate version:^[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21   (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:^[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91   (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35   (80–20%)

 

I suspect we may have been talking about 2 different things.

 

In any event, this is somewhat off-topic and highly political . . . I'm rethinking continuing the discussion because of this.  I foresee this thread being locked very soon.

Edited August 28, 2014 by USU78

[USU78]

You are exactly right. It used to be a good thing.

 

Still is.

[Ahab]

It is one thing to have "discriminating taste"....

The legal definition of "discrimination" is enterly different:

Hopefully the difference is clear, as well as why one type of discrimination may be good, and the other is not (and never has been).

Dumb it down a little bit more for me, please. To me it seems like anti-discrimination laws require everybody to treat other people as if they are equal to all other people even though in reality they are really not equal. I don't approve of that and I didn't agree to make that a law.

[tonie]

As I read things, there seems to be a disconnect between the Church's statement and your question. The Church appears to be saying that the rights to housing for people with SSA ought to be protected, or in other words, the Church believes that people with SSA ought not be denied housing. Yet, your question presupposes that Church may have given reason for members to deny housing to people with SSA.

Do you see the conflict? Your question presuppose something that is false. The Church isn't suggesting what you suppose it is. Rather, the point about preserving the "rights of religious conscience" is likely in reference to other things than housing and employment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, regrettably I could not find an original statement. Fox13 was the most quoted source or even referenced source, so it really was the "best primary" source I could find.

I do read the Church position as saying rights to housing and employment should be protected - this is the first part of the statement attributed to the Church. The second part of the statement:

"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."

The bolded part seeks to protect the deeply held religious beleifs of individuals and organization. In context, the bill being about non-discrimination, the statement puts the religious beliefs to deny housing or employment above the right to housing and employment of persons whose lifestyle the landlord or proprietor disagree with.

Edited August 29, 2014 by tonie

[rpn]

I think that church doctrine supports people's right to exercise their varied faiths, even if lds doctrine is not the same.   It seems quite abhorrent to me to refuse to rent an apartment to or give most jobs to someone because of their  sexual orientation or gender identity.  But if my faith compelled me not to help further a gay lifestyle in any way, then renting or employing someone who was actively doing that might violate my religious faith.  (LDS allow all men the same privilege, and  therefore doesn't compel that approach, or even suggest it.)   On the other hand, would I want to be required to rent a room in my house to people who were living a lifestyle I didn't want to support?   How about half of  a duplex or 1/4 of a fourplex my family lived in?    And that is where faith gets sticky, because of course if someone is gay, that shouldn't matter to us --- our leaders say it DOESN;t matter as a faith issue.   So we would not be living the LDS faith if we excluded someone from anything just because they are gay.  

 

If I subsidize my farming venture by providing a venue for reunions and weddings, must I allow gay weddings too, when I absolutely do not support gay marriage because of religious faith (or for that matter because I think it bad for society)? 

 

While I see very big differences between rejection of people because of their ethnic origin or race and because of their lifestyle choices, I also understand how effective it has been for those pushing to normalize gay lifestyles to argue they are the same.   In a religious context they are not at all the same.   Not supporting gays to cohabitate or to marry or to have kids by surrogacy (lds policy appears not to support any surrogacy) or those who are cohabitating or marrying to adopt could be part of genunine faith concern.

 

There are many faiths that are not as open in accepting people who are gay as the lds faith.   (This is why so many evangelical churches left the BSA last year).    While we may not agree with their position, we need to preserve their right to live the lives of faith they choose too.

[Daniel2]

I think that church doctrine supports people's right to exercise their varied faiths, even if lds doctrine is not the same. It seems quite abhorrent to me to refuse to rent an apartment to or give most jobs to someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. But if my faith compelled me not to help further a gay lifestyle in any way, then renting or employing someone who was actively doing that might violate my religious faith. (LDS allow all men the same privilege, and therefore doesn't compel that approach, or even suggest it.) On the other hand, would I want to be required to rent a room in my house to people who were living a lifestyle I didn't want to support? How about half of a duplex or 1/4 of a fourplex my family lived in? And that is where faith gets sticky, because of course if someone is gay, that shouldn't matter to us --- our leaders say it DOESN;t matter as a faith issue. So we would not be living the LDS faith if we excluded someone from anything just because they are gay.

If I subsidize my farming venture by providing a venue for reunions and weddings, must I allow gay weddings too, when I absolutely do not support gay marriage because of religious faith (or for that matter because I think it bad for society)?

While I see very big differences between rejection of people because of their ethnic origin or race and because of their lifestyle choices, I also understand how effective it has been for those pushing to normalize gay lifestyles to argue they are the same. In a religious context they are not at all the same. Not supporting gays to cohabitate or to marry or to have kids by surrogacy (lds policy appears not to support any surrogacy) or those who are cohabitating or marrying to adopt could be part of genunine faith concern.

There are many faiths that are not as open in accepting people who are gay as the lds faith. (This is why so many evangelical churches left the BSA last year). While we may not agree with their position, we need to preserve their right to live the lives of faith they choose too.

Both sexual orientation and religious orientation include outward behavioral manifestations of individuals’ inward identities, so both should be treated in the same fashion when it comes to the scrutiny-level that is applied to qualify for anti-discrimination and public accommodation laws.

If it's legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians, it should be just as legal to discriminate against Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Fundamentalist Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, or anyone else.

Would I want to be required to rent a room in my house to people who were living a Jewish, Muslim, LDS, FLDS, Protestant, or Catholic lifestyle I didn't want to support? How about half of a duplex or 1/4 of a fourplex my family lived in?

If I subsidize my farming venture by providing a venue for reunions and weddings, must I allow Jewish, Muslim, LDS, FLDS, Protestant, or Catholic weddings and wedding receptions, too, when I absolutely do not support Jewish, Muslim, LDS, FLDS, Protestant, or Catholic marriage because of religious faith (or for that matter because I think they're all bad for society)?

While I see very big differences between rejection of people because of their ethnic origin or race and because of their lifestyle choices, I also understand how effective it has been for those pushing to normalize Jewish, Muslim, LDS, and FLDS lifestyles to argue they are the same.

In a religious context they are not at all the same. Not supporting Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Fundamentalist Mormons, Protestant, or Catholics to cohabitate or to marry or to have kids by surrogacy or those who are cohabitating or marrying to adopt could be part of genunine faith concern.

Since religion, like sexual orientation, includes outward behaviors to which others object and don't wish to condone, do you also support discrimination in Housing and Employment based on religious orientation?

Edited August 29, 2014 by Daniel2

[wenglund]

Wade, regrettably I could not find an original statement. Fox13 was the most quoted source or even referenced source, so it really was the "best primary" source I could find.

I do read the Church position as saying rights to housing and employment should be protected - this is the first part of the statement attributed to the Church. The second part of the statement:

"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."

The bolded part seeks to protect the deeply held religious beleifs of individuals and organization. In context, the bill being about non-discrimination, the statement puts the religious beliefs to deny housing or employment above the right to housing and employment of persons whose lifestyle the landlord or proprietor disagree with.

 

First, the phrase "while also" is preference neutral and suggests that the Church believes both rights should be preserved. 

 

Second, the antecedent words "any legislation" tells us that the stated belief that followed (which you highlighted in bold) is general rather than specific in nature. And, since the stated belief was somewhat vague, one cannot necessarily assume a specific application as you have done.

 

Third, while the statement was made in response to queries regarding the 2013 bill, the statement also clearly indicated that the Church didn't take a position on that bill. So, one cannot assume that the general and vaguely stated belief necessarily applies to the bill in question, let alone in the specific way that you purport. 

 

Fourth, one need also keep in mind the broader context or general milieu in which the statement was made--i.e on the heals of a number of recent government actions (in relation to homosexual issues and otherwise) that portend a threat to religious liberties. See, for example, Elder Oaks' 2011 speech at the Chapman School of Law commencement on Preserving Religious Freedom

 

There are other points that could be made, but hopefully this will suffice in demonstrating that in several respects you are misreading things into the Church's statement and that your presupposition in the OP question of this thread is false.

 

You are tilting at straw men.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 29, 2014 by wenglund

[Ahab]

Part of the problem as I see it is that by the use of anti-discrimination laws our (American) government officials are trying to impose what I consider to be acts of charity, such as employing people who live a lifestyle an employer considers to be morally wrong based upon religious beliefs. If an employer wants to support a person in what they believe to be an immoral lifestyle I believe that employer should be allowed to do that, and I would consider that decision to be a chatitable act, but for a government to legislate that employers must do that and enforce penalties if they don't is to tread on ground that only God should occupy. Government officials are just people like us and often make bad decisions.

[tonie]

 

First, the phrase "while also" is preference neutral and suggests that the Church believes both rights should be preserved.

Second, the antecedent words "any legislation" tells us that the stated belief that followed (which you highlighted in bold) is general rather than specific in nature. And, since the stated belief was somewhat vague, one cannot necessarily assume a specific application as you have done.

Third, while the statement was made in response to queries regarding the 2013 bill, the statement also clearly indicated that the Church didn't take a position on that bill. So, one cannot assume that the general and vaguely stated belief necessarily applies to the bill in question, let alone in the specific way that you purport.

Fourth, one need also keep in mind the broader context or general milieu in which the statement was made--i.e on the heals of a number of recent government actions (in relation to homosexual issues and otherwise) that portend a threat to religious liberties. See, for example, Elder Oaks' 2011 speech at the Chapman School of Law commencement on Preserving Religious Freedom

There are other points that could be made, but hopefully this will suffice in demonstrating that in several respects you are misreading things into the Church's statement and that your presupposition in the OP question of this thread is false.

You are tilting at straw men.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for the post.

As to the your points:

Point 1 - I agree that the Church thinks both should be protected, but in context of the issue (non-discrimination), I see the Church as placing higher priority on religious beliefs. The religious argument isn't unique to the Church. I was quite surprised to read the Church repeating common claims of the times e.g. religious freedom of butchers, bakers, and candle-stick makers who businesses are open to the public - to refuse services based on religious beliefs.

Point 2 - "Any legislation" is both specific and general. It specifically address the legislation at hand, and it references all legislation.

Point 3 - The Church statement is that it did not take a state a position publicly, however, behind closed doors one can assume the Church had some position(s) from the same Fox13 article:

Supporters also acknowledged The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not give its blessing to the legislation. The legislation is modeled after non-discrimination ordinances passed in 16 municipalities across Utah, with the support of the LDS Church. Dabakis told FOX 13 they could not “close the gap” with the LDS Church on SB 262, but he refused to say what the Mormon faith objected to.

(another article which is no longer accessible described negotiations with the Church and other groups)

Point 4 - Businesses open to the public, were held accountable to violations of State law. The proprietors of the business claimed religious beliefs justified the violation of the State law. The various States disagreed. I agree these events gave rise the call for religious exemption from non-discrimination laws.

Edited August 29, 2014 by tonie

[wenglund]

  Thanks for the post.

As to the your points:

Point 1 - I agree that the Church thinks both should be protected, but in context of the issue (non-discrimination), I see the Church as placing higher priority on religious beliefs. The religious argument isn't unique to the Church. I was quite surprised to read the Church repeating common claims of the times e.g. religious freedom of butchers, bakers, and candle-stick makers who businesses are open to the public - to refuse services based on religious beliefs.

Point 2 - "Any legislation" is both specific and general. It specifically address the legislation at hand, and it references all legislation.

Point 3 - The Church statement is that it did not take a state a position publicly, however, behind closed doors one can assume the Church had some position(s) from the same Fox13 article:

Supporters also acknowledged The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not give its blessing to the legislation. The legislation is modeled after non-discrimination ordinances passed in 16 municipalities across Utah, with the support of the LDS Church. Dabakis told FOX 13 they could not “close the gap” with the LDS Church on SB 262, but he refused to say what the Mormon faith objected to.

(another article which is no longer accessible described negotiations with the Church and other groups)

Point 4 - Businesses open to the public, were held accountable to violations of State law. The proprietors of the business claimed religious beliefs justified the violation of the State law. The various States disagreed. I agree these events gave rise the call for religious exemption from non-discrimination laws.

 

I am sorry, but each of your points requires too much reading or misreading between the lines. I am happy to address what the Church actually said. However, I see no value examining words you unwarrantedly put in their mouths.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

Part of the problem as I see it is that by the use of anti-discrimination laws our (American) government officials are trying to impose what I consider to be acts of charity, such as employing people who live a lifestyle an employer considers to be morally wrong based upon religious beliefs. If an employer wants to support a person in what they believe to be an immoral lifestyle I believe that employer should be allowed to do that, and I would consider that decision to be a chatitable act, but for a government to legislate that employers must do that and enforce penalties if they don't is to tread on ground that only God should occupy. Government officials are just people like us and often make bad decisions.

 

You are correct, Ahab.

 

This is compulsory employment of a specific segment of the population whose behavior may be repugnant to employers . . . and the compulsory renting to a specific segment of the population whose behavior may be repugnant to lessors.

 

And the compulsion is brought to bear without any finding of systematic or significant failures in either employment, housing or any other meaningful economic activity for the specific segment.

[USU78]

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:

 

 

 

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

 

The issue is not whether someone might get turned down for specific housing, but rather was that someone turned down for housing.

 

There is a huge difference between the two questions.

 

The first happens where there is liberty for landlords and, if the study is remotely accurate, even where such liberty does not exist  . . . but the second has always been true and remains true:  if you have the scratch, you'll have a place to live regardless of your behavioral quirks.

Edited August 29, 2014 by USU78

[Daniel2]

You are correct, Ahab.

This is compulsory employment of a specific segment of the population whose behavior may be repugnant to employers . . . and the compulsory renting to a specific segment of the population whose behavior may be repugnant to lessors.

And the compulsion is brought to bear without any finding of systematic or significant failures in either employment, housing or any other meaningful economic activity for the specific segment.

I make the same point and put the same question to you that I made previously in the thread:

Both sexual orientation and religious orientation include outward behavioral manifestations of individuals’ inward identities, so both should be treated in the same fashion when it comes to the scrutiny-level that is applied to qualify for anti-discrimination and public accommodation laws.

If it's legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians, it should be just as legal to discriminate against Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Fundamentalist Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, or anyone else.

Would I want to be required to rent a room in my house to people who were living a Jewish, Muslim, LDS, FLDS, Protestant, or Catholic lifestyle I didn't want to support? How about half of a duplex or 1/4 of a fourplex my family lived in?

If I subsidize my farming venture by providing a venue for reunions and weddings, must I allow Jewish, Muslim, LDS, FLDS, Protestant, or Catholic weddings and wedding receptions, too, when I absolutely do not support Jewish, Muslim, LDS, FLDS, Protestant, or Catholic marriage because of religious faith (or for that matter because I think they're all bad for society)?

While I see very big differences between rejection of people because of their ethnic origin or race and because of their lifestyle choices, I also understand how effective it has been for those pushing to normalize Jewish, Muslim, LDS, and FLDS lifestyles to argue they are the same.

In a religious context they are not at all the same. Not supporting Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Fundamentalist Mormons, Protestant, or Catholics to cohabitate or to marry or to have kids by surrogacy or those who are cohabitating or marrying to adopt could be part of genunine faith concern.

Since religion, like sexual orientation, includes outward behaviors to which others object and don't wish to condone, do you also support discrimination in Housing and Employment based on religious orientation?

Edited August 29, 2014 by Daniel2

[Storm Rider]

Daniel,

 

The fundamental problem with your logic comparing the discrimination between people who practice SSA and people that belong to different religions is that religious people are not holding church in your apartment.  I know Muslims that you would never guess were Muslims; the same for Catholics or a host of other religions.

 

I wonder if the same could be said for all people with SSA? 

 

How would a law of this nature without any allowance for strongly held religious beliefs be used when a tenant is having parties that get out of hand where gay sex is a prominent feature?  This is a sincere question.  How does a landlord write the complaint?  Too much noise?  What if it was moderate music volume, but it was the gay sex on the balcony that was partially secluded? 

 

I am not a lawyer, but I can easily see a poorly worded law being used to crush all those who begin any form of complaint with a person that has SSA. 

 

I acknowledge that these are exceptions to the majority of cases.  I personally don't have a problem renting out a unit to most people as long as they respect their fellow tenants, keep the unit clean, and pay the rent on time.  I remain concerned that special rights are being created for a group that does not seem to be having problems finding apartments now.  This seems more about propaganda than actually addressing a problem. 

[Ahab]

I make the same point and put the same question to you that I made previously in the thread:

My short answer is yes, that all people should be allowed to be selective/discriminating about every decision they make, including who to hire for any type of job, who to rent or sell anything to, and who to live with or provide housing for. Does that really seem unreasonable to you?

And yes I approve of everyone being as charitable as anyone can possibly be, without force or compulsion.

[EllenMaksoud]

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

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

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

The Church provided a statement for not supporting SB262:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the minds of some people, I would be in the group that should be excluded. However the church has been uncommonly kind to me in several states.  I think the issue you face can be remedied by making sure that "Your" actions comply with the wishes of God. You can't do anything about the actions of others.