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

[rpn]

 

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.

Religious expression is protected by the United States Constitution, expressly, for a good secular reason ---- it makes for an overall more civil society that functions better, generally.    No just historical or constitutional expectations for sexual orientation or gender identity.

[USU78]

Religious expression is protected by the United States Constitution, expressly, for a good secular reason ---- it makes for an overall more civil society that functions better, generally.    No just historical or constitutional expectations for sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

Even more important, Congress hath not the power to change hearts and minds . . . all it can do is tax, regulate and prescribe punishment.

 

Moreover, Congress hath not the power to change the tides or stop the rivers or seas . . . and whipping them with chains, taxing them, or forbidding them doesn't do a bit of good . . . and makes Congress simply look stupid.

[ERayR]

 

Even more important, Congress hath not the power to change hearts and minds . . . all it can do is tax, regulate and prescribe punishment.

 

Moreover, Congress hath not the power to change the tides or stop the rivers or seas . . . and whipping them with chains, taxing them, or forbidding them doesn't do a bit of good . . . and makes Congress simply look stupid.

 

There are some in that august body that really think they do have those powers.

[Daniel2]

Religious expression is protected by the United States Constitution, expressly, for a good secular reason ---- it makes for an overall more civil society that functions better, generally. No just historical or constitutional expectations for sexual orientation or gender identity.

I agree that religious expression is protected by the United States Constitution--as it should be.

And although I agree that freedom of religious expression may assist in "making an overall more civil society that functions better, generally," I don't believe that's the reason it is so protected by the United States Constitution.

Rather, I submit that the actual "good reason" that the United States Constitution protects freedom of religious expression is not "to benefit the state," but because the Constitution aims to preserve individual citizens' personal freedoms and liberties.

Our founding fathers, having fled the religious oppression of state-imposed religious requirements of Europe, sought to form a govenrment which preserved individual liberties, instead of making individuals slaves to state opinions and interests.

Of course, a case could also be made that there are some religions which do not "make an overall more civil society that functions better, generally" (Westboro Baptist Church, the Church of Satan, etc).

While you are correct that there are no historical expectations regarding sexual orientation or gender identity, there is certainly a growing legal precident and rulings that show that constitutional expectations definitely do apply to the freedom of sexual expression and gender expression. That is the beauty of our constition and system of govenrment--it provides the means by which newly enumerated constitutional rights and liberties can be expanded as society expands to recognize the rights of previously unknown and unforseen minority groups.

In sum, when I said,

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

my intent was not to suggest that religious orientation should be de-classified as qualifying for protections from discrimiation and public accomodations. Other comments were indicating that sexual orientation must be held to a different classification because it rests on behavior, not an inherent physical characteristic like race or ethnicity.

My point, therefore, was that if religion (which is not an inherent and/or observable physical characteristic, but is an outward behavioral expression of the choices and beliefs of the individual) is protected from discrimination, then sexual orientation cannot be discounted (whether or not it's an inherent and/or observable physical characteristic).

Ironically, many of those who resent the idea that businesses should be "forced" to serve LGBT couples based on the freedom of choice of business owners and employees insist that the freedom of choice of gay couples should be rejected, when it comes to their choice of spouse.

In other words, a double standard is clearly being employed by those holding this view. They're saying that:

• it would be untenable for the government not to respect the freedom of religious expression (because "religion is directly specified in the constitution"),
• it's untenable for the government not to respect the feedom of choice of businesses falling under public accomodation laws to refuse service from whomever they wish (even though that isn't directly specified in the constitution), but
• it's entirely reasonable for the government not to respect the freedom of religion or choice of gays and lesbians to choose their own legal spouse (because that isn't directly specified in the constition)

By the way, race wasn't originally a protected class in the Constitution, either...

Edited August 30, 2014 by Daniel2

[USU78]

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.

 

Precisely!

 

But the State must never impose upon the free person what he must do.  Better the precatory language used by King Benjamin:  "I would that ye should . . ." than the State's compulsory:  "Thou shalt, upon pain of imprisonment, fine and confiscation of thy goods, donate thy funds to charity "X" and hire person "Y" and bake a cake for person "Z.""

[Daniel2]

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?

Including gays' and lesbians' freedom to choose to civilly marry their same-gender spouse?

[Ahab]

Including gays' and lesbians' freedom to choose to civilly marry their same-gender spouse?

Yes, as long as nobody else is legally required to marry them (the ceremony part) or sell them anything for their ceremony or do something to help them get married or do anything for them after they're married, including giving them or selling them a place to live.

[Ahab]

Precisely!

But the State must never impose upon the free person what he must do. Better the precatory language used by King Benjamin: "I would that ye should . . ." than the State's compulsory: "Thou shalt, upon pain of imprisonment, fine and confiscation of thy goods, donate thy funds to charity "X" and hire person "Y" and bake a cake for person "Z.""

Yes you and I, and I believe Rory, are in agreement on this.

[Daniel2]

I am amazed by the blind spots when it comes to Public Accommodation Laws.

The argument is being made that sexual orientation discrimination is different from religious, racial, or gender discrimination because acting on sexual orientation is a sin, but it’s not a sin to be any specific race, religion, or gender.

Here’s some blind spots to that line of thought:

First example: Religion

Religion is clearly a “chosen behavior,” and yet it is still protected from anti-discrimination laws.

It is illegal to say, “I refuse to allow a Jewish/Mormon/Satanist/Catholic/Atheist couple to use my business for their wedding reception, because I believe it’s a sin to deny Christ/worship a different Jesus/Follow Satan/Be a member of the Great and Abominable Whore of All The Earth/deny God and fail to follow his commandments.”

And yet, every religious affiliation is based on choice, and it (appropriately) violates public accommodation laws.

Second example: Race

Another blind spot:

Race is an inherent, innate, un-chosen attribute that requires heightened levels of legal scrutiny, warranting it’s inclusion in anti-discrimination laws.

Up until recently, being born into a specific race was viewed by many to be the result of less than moral pre-mortal behavior.

Secondly, many people view/ed it as sinful for mixed-race couples to marry:

Prophet Brigham Young (1801 -1877):

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 10, p. 110

Prophet George Albert Smith (1870 – 1951):

“Your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and white races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs until now.... there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”

- LDS First Presidency (George Albert Smith), letter to Virgil H. Sponberg (critic of the anti-black ban), May 5, 1947, quoted in Lester E. Bush, Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview, p. 42

Apostle Mark E. Peterson (1900 – 1984):

“We must not inter-marry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn’t any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there?”

- Apostle Mark E. Peterson, “Race Problems – As They Effect the Church,” Address given at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, delivered at BYU, August 27, 1954

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie (1915 – 1985):

“However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.”

- Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 114

Others:

“Brigham Young made a very strong statement on this matter when he said, ‘... shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.’ God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be to sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death.... It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-one hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is still the same.... To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a ‘Nation of Priesthood holders.’”

- Elder John L. Lund, The Church and the Negro, pp. 54-55, 1967

As we can see, historically, at best, interracial marriage has not viewed favorably, and at worst, was spiritual death (and I limited my examples to LDS members… Examples from the deep south would likely be far more severe, and even punished by lynching).

Again, race is an inherent, innate, unchosen attribute that requires heightened levels of legal scrutiny, warranting it’s inclusion in anti-discrimination laws.

But… discrimination against interracial couples would clearly be based on a chosen behavior. After all, blacks could choose to marry other blacks, and whites could choose to marry other whites.

Despite it being a behavior-based discrimination, discrimination against interracial couples is still a violation of public accommodation laws for a baker, photographer, or wedding dress maker to refuse services for interracial weddings.

What if the business owner would say, “I believe that God intentionally created the races as distinct, separated them on different continents so they never intermingle, and that interracial marriage is a sin.”

To which, of course, someone could respond, “But people can’t help what race they’re born.”

But what business owner today would respond, “That may be—the people didn’t choose what race they’re born… but choosing a spouse of a different race is still a choice they are making. And since interracial marriage is a choice that violates my deeply held religious beliefs, I should be free to refuse service to them.”

In such an example, the business owner would clearly be violating public accommodation laws based on the race of their customers---------even though it is a behavior choice for two individuals from different races to marry one another, especially when they could choose to marry someone of the same race, which would therefore not run contrary to that business owner’s deeply held religious beliefs. Such discrimination is and should be illegal.

Third Example: Gender

Gender has been found to be an inherent, innate, un-chosen attribute that requires heightened levels of legal scrutiny, warranting it’s inclusion in anti-discrimination laws.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation attempts to focus the discussion that the objection is being made based on objectionable sexual choices/behaviors (even though the sexual behaviors certainly aren’t usually on display in bakeries, flower shops, dress-makers, etc).

However, the case could clearly be made that discrimination against same-sex couples is actually considered to be discrimination based on said couples’ gender, rather than sexual behavior.

In fact, that idea is gaining traction in the legal system, as demonstrated in the Judges’ questions to Monte Stewart on this past Monday’s 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing.

This line of thinking is that gender is an inherent, innate, un-chosen attribute that requires heightened levels of legal scrutiny, warranting it’s inclusion in anti-discrimination laws.

If that is the case, then gender discrimination laws would apply to same-sex couples—even their behavioral choice of spouse of an innate, un-chosen gender—just like racial discrimination applies to interracial couples—even their behavior choice of spouse of an innate, un-chosen race.

Despite it being a behavior-based discrimination, just like interracial marriage, it would still fall under the violation of public accommodation laws for a baker, photographer, or wedding dress maker to refuse services for the wedding of a same-sex couple.

That business owner may attempt to say, “I believe that homosexual behaviors are immoral, and that marriage between same-sex couples is a sin.”

Someone could respond, “But people can’t help what gender they’re born.”

The business owner may respond, “That may be—the people didn’t choose what gender they’re born… but choosing a spouse of the same sex is still a choice they are making. And since same-sex marriage is a choice that violates my deeply held religious beliefs, I should be free to refuse service to them.”

In such an example, the business owner would thedrefore also be violating public accommodation laws based on the gender of their customers---------even though it is a behavior choice for two individuals from same genders to marry one another, especially when they could choose to marry someone of the opposite gender, which would therefore not run contrary to that business owner’s deeply held religious beliefs. Just like interracial discrimination, such discrimination is and should be illegal.

There may still be some who now feel that it’s un-American to force business owners not to discriminate under whatever circumstances any business owners may want to. And, of course, anyone is free to hold that view. However, don’t delude yourself that public accommodation laws protecting against discrimination based on the choices within a same-sex marriage are inherently different from public accommodation laws protecting against discrimination based on choices made involving different races, religions, and genders.

EDIT: Thanks, SS. I removed that quote that was taken out of context.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

 

To be fair to JS he also said:

 

In 1838, Joseph Smith had the following conversation:

 

"Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on. Elder Hyde remarked, "Put them on the level, and they will rise above me." I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant? […] Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization." (History of the Church, Volume 5, p. 216)

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

 

To be fair to JS he also said:

 

In 1838, Joseph Smith had the following conversation:

 

"Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on. Elder Hyde remarked, "Put them on the level, and they will rise above me." I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant? […] Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization." (History of the Church, Volume 5, p. 216)

 

Thanks, Sometimesaint.  I deleted that quote from the list. 

 

For what it's worth, I don't get hung up on attempting to suggest that LDS leadership were any more racist that others of their time.  Like everyone, we are all products of our society and culture.  So, my intent was not to trash LDS leadership over their racism, or imply such was radically unreasonable considering the culture and society of their time.

 

History does seem to move from prejudice towards those who are different to expanding acceptance and equal protections, as understanding of our shared humanity increases.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Daniel2

[tonie]

seems like an apropos bump.

 

 

What I find troubling about the Church position from 2014 and current, is the apparent desire to exempt individuals from having to follow anti-discrimination laws, which must include the right to discriminate based on race, skin color, family status, religion, national origin...etc. It would almost impossible to claim the aforementioned categories should be protected from discrimination but not sexual orientation.

 

I also find it very curious, that the current chorus from religious folk, is to seek special privileges from following established laws; yet when it comes to protecting individuals from discrimination based on sexual orietation, those same religious folks decry the "special privilege".

Edited January 29, 2015 by tonie

[Sleeper Cell]

seems like an apropos bump.

 

 

What I find troubling about the Church position from 2014 and current, is the apparent desire to exempt individuals from having to follow anti-discrimination laws, which must include the right to discriminate based on race, skin color, family status, religion, national origin...etc. It would almost impossible to claim the aforementioned categories should be protected from discrimination but not sexual orientation.

 

I also find it very curious, that the current chorus from religious folk, is to seek special privileges from following established laws; yet when it comes to protecting individuals from discrimination based on sexual orietation, those same religious folks decry the "special privilege".

 

So religious freedom -- which the founding fathers considered so fundamental to liberty that it is the first right mentioned by the Bill of Rights (even before freedom of speech) --  is now a mere “special privilege” for “religious folk?” 

 

 Special privilege from following established laws?  Funny, I always thought that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were “established law” and any conflicting laws were unconstitutional, hence not established law. 

[tonie]

 

So religious freedom -- which the founding fathers considered so fundamental to liberty that it is the first right mentioned by the Bill of Rights (even before freedom of speech) --  is now a mere “special privilege” for “religious folk?” 

 

 Special privilege from following established laws?  Funny, I always thought that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were “established law” and any conflicting laws were unconstitutional, hence not established law. 

 

 

And if you educated yourself on the legal system, the laws, and such, you would find that religious freedom isn't a blanket exemption from the law. You will find that the United States Supreme Court and Congress have established guidelines for laws affecting religion.

 

 

And yes, religious folks, are now seeking what they have long decired; special privilege from the law.  The Civil Rights Act has been in place for decades, and I am unaware of anyone claiming "religious freedom" to discriminate against, race, national origin, color, etc. Everyone seemed (deliberate past tense) ok with prohibiting discrimination based on those factors. 

 

But now that States are considering laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, people are having a fit and demanding that their "religious freedom" is being threatened if they can not get a special privilege exemption from the law and be allowed to discriminate specifically against those who identify as homosexual.

 

 

 

 

I will note, that the Civil Rights Act, does permit discrimination by religious entities. So does Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

[Sleeper Cell]

And if you educated yourself on the legal system, the laws, and such, you would find that religious freedom isn't a blanket exemption from the law. You will find that the United States Supreme Court and Congress have established guidelines for laws affecting religion.

 

 

And yes, religious folks, are now seeking what they have long decired; special privilege from the law.  The Civil Rights Act has been in place for decades, and I am unaware of anyone claiming "religious freedom" to discriminate against, race, national origin, color, etc. Everyone seemed (deliberate past tense) ok with prohibiting discrimination based on those factors. 

 

But now that States are considering laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, people are having a fit and demanding that their "religious freedom" is being threatened if they can not get a special privilege exemption from the law and be allowed to discriminate specifically against those who identify as homosexual.

 

 

 

 

I will note, that the Civil Rights Act, does permit discrimination by religious entities. So does Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

 

CFR that I said that religious freedom was a blanket exemption from the law.  

 

Please address my primary point -- that the Bill of Rights, itself, recognizes and protects  what you deprecatingly refer to as a “special privilege” for “religious folk..”   Or at least admit that the reason the Civil Rights Act exempted religious entities was that including  them would have been unconstitutional.  

 

What you  refereed to as a “current chorus from religious folk to seek special privilege from following established laws” is hardly a “current chorus.”.  As the Bill of Rights demonstrates, it is as old as the country.

 

 Had I “educated myself on the legal system, the laws, and such,” I would refer to a long list of supreme court decisions over the years that reaffirmed the “special privilege of religious folk” to be exempt from following all sorts of laws, should they conflict with their deeply held religious beliefs -- ranging from compulsory military service to refusing to participate in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.  But I will leave that to others.  .  

Edited January 29, 2015 by Sleeper Cell

[Yirgacheffe]

The discussions on the board lately have dovetailed with my kids unit in school.  Many thoughts put forward by posters here have been the catalyst for a number of heated outbursts from my kids and their friends.  It makes me smile, I like that it's believers that cause this reaction and move them in the direction they are taking. 

[Rob Osborn]

I see the day fast coming when God commands his people to separate themselves from the wicked and come to and build Zion.

[Storm Rider]

I was reminded of Isaiah 5:20-25:

 

 20 ¶Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

 22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:

 23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!

 24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

 25 Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcasses were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

 

I am not advocating that this scripture applies specifically to this topic, but I am advocating that we each need to understand what God has taught his children and that violating his teachings have a real impact on our collective relationship with him.  He is our Father and he actually has a better understanding of things than we do.  It is funny when I see those who think they are capable of lecturing God about morality and what is a better, more enlightened way of thinking and acting.  

 

As Latter-day Saints we all know that societies draw closer to God and they fall away from following God; they lean upon their own understanding and create their own gods that are not nearly as restrictive or confining as the God of Abraham.  Those societies that do this are called to repentance and they are either change or they fall apart and are forgotten. 

Edited February 1, 2015 by Storm Rider

[Pahoran]

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?

There are none. The question is a straw man. 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."

As is apparent to those who have mastered what appears to be a rare skill in this forum: reading English.

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.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited February 1, 2015 by Pahoran

[Daniel2]

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.

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

Edited February 2, 2015 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

History does seem to move from prejudice towards those who are different to expanding acceptance and equal protections, as understanding of our shared humanity increases.

 

Only if you are very selective about what samples from history you use.

[Daniel2]

Only if you are very selective about what samples from history you use.

Which samples did you have in mind that don't conform to the trend I suggested?

[Kenngo1969]

I thought, Didn't I weigh in on a thread in which the subject was under discussion earlier in the year?  Lo and behold, come to find out, not only did I weigh in on a thread in which the subject was under discussion earlier in the year, it was this very thread!    And I thought, As long as we're resurrecting the thread, I might as well resurrect my reply: I can't say it any better now than I said it then, so here it is again:

 

No, I don't believe the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, properly interpreted, direct its members, generally, to, e.g., not provide housing to gays and lesbians.

 

I think the Church's concern is that non-discrimination statutes be narrowly drawn to accomplish their stated objectives without infringing on religious exercise.  For example, take Salt Lake City, which per capita, has the lowest concentration of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the state, out of the equation for a second.  Suppose, instead, that Provo City were considering an ordinance to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing.  Well and good, right?  No one of good conscience and good will should, in good faith, oppose such an ordinance.  I agree.

 

But what if the ordinance were not carefully drafted?  And what if, as a result, the housing policies of Brigham Young University became the subject of litigation, the outcome of which (because of a poorly-drafted nondiscrimination ordinance) were such that BYU could no longer offer housing under its control solely to those who are willing to live the Honor Code?

 

There is ample reason for the Church of Jesus Christ to exercise great care in matters such as this, and it has nothing to do with not paying sufficient attention to scriptural admonitions such as that contained in Matthew 25.

P.S.:  Substitute the word statute for the word ordinance in the above quotation, and the same concern still holds with respect to prospective/proposed legislation.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Daniel2]

I thought, Didn't I weigh in on a thread in which the subject was under discussion earlier in the year? Lo and behold, come to find out, not only did I weigh in on a thread in which the subject was under discussion earlier in the year, it was this very thread! And I thought, As long as we're resurrecting the thread, I might as well resurrect my reply: I can't say it any better now than I said it then, so here it is again:

I'm not sure that doing away with BYU's policy against honor-code-approved housing would be seen as a negative by most people--especially landlords.

I think most would consider it an over-reach on BYU's part.... BYU certainly has the right to enforce an honor code on campus and for those that attend there (even off campus), but it does seem excessive/intrusive to patrol private, off-campus living quarters.

What of the right of landlords in the area...? Why should they be compelled to either comply with BYU's Honor Code or be forced to turn away other prospective tenants...?

Edited February 2, 2015 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not sure that doing away with BYU's policy against honor-code-approved housing would be seen as a negative by most people--especially landlords.

I think most would consider it an over-reach on BYU's part.... BYU certainly has the right to enforce an honor code on campus and for those that attend there (even off campus), but it does seem excessive/intrusive to patrol private, off-campus living quarters.

What of the right of landlords in the area...? Why should they be compelled to either comply with BYU's Honor Code or be forced to turn away other prospective tenants...?

I'm not sure I'm following you.  What do you mean "doing away with BYU's policy against honor-code-approved housing [sic]"?

 

What would be an overreach on BYU's part?  Any agreement to house BYU students would be covered by a contract, and there's no reason BYU cannot/should not say, "OK, Mr./Ms. Landlord, if you want to house our students, these are the terms, among which is that student renters will agree to abide by the Honor Code even though the housing is off campus."  If a landlord or a student-renter considers such a term onerous s/he need not agree to it, but, by so doing, foregoes the opportunity to house BYU students.

 

Choke on the words "Honor Code" all you want, but, while it's certainly possible, I doubt BYU's situation is unique.  I'm fairly certain other institutions of higher learning impose certain standards on landlords who wish to rent to their students, which standards are also governed by contract: Landlord (or student) doesn't want to abide by the contract terms?  Fine; landlord doesn't rent to student, or student doesn't rent those particular accommodations, and no one hyperventilates about it.

 

You seem to be equivocating.  On the one hand, you say BYU has the right to enforce the Honor Code, but, on the other hand, you take issue with how the University does it.  Logically, that seems to be the rough equivalent of, "BYU has the right to enforce the Honor Code ... as long as it doesn't enforce the Honor Code."  Care to clarify?

 

Best,

 

-Ken