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

[tonie]

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

 

Great point!

[tonie]

 

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.  .  

 

 

Your primary point was addressed.

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

 

God can do whatever he wants with the sinners but for us

John 8:7 King James Version

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

[The Nehor]

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

History is a series of tolerance increasing and then decreasing depending on prevailing conditions. The most primary indicator is how threatened someone feels they are. Tolerance is a cheap virtue in times of relative peace which is what we have now. The Romans were tolerant until the empire collapsed. Christians and Muslims in the borders of their territories were friendly until conflict flared up on one side or the other. Look at 9/11. On the scales of history it was a pinprick but I remember the fear that flared up and the hatred it engendered. Intolerance and hatred of the other is still there and few people can stay tolerant in the face of real fear.

Tolerance is good but we really shouldn't pat ourselves on the back for it or imagine that it will stick around forever. It never has in the past. Why should this time be different?

[Yirgacheffe]

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

As long as it's up to BYU to insure that the students are living up to the honor code and any non-BYU student renters are not required to live the honor code I don't see why it should be a problem.  But if the landlord is expected to police the students and only rent to people who abide by the BYU honor code even if they are not students then you have very onerous and limiting requirements.  They may even conflict with the landlords religious beliefs.

[california boy]

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

 

It always seemed odd to me that BYU would even have a contract with a landlord.  I understand the right to have an honor code for those who attend a private university.  But wouldn't that honor code agreement with the students be the proper way to govern housing?  If it is against the honor code for students to live with those of the opposite sex, why would it be the landlord's responsibility to make sure students were complying with BYU's honor code.  It seems like it would be up to the students.

 

The irony is, I think that two gay guys could live together and share the same room both on campus and off.  What they are not allowed to do is share one with the opposite sex.  Do I have that wrong?  It has been a while since I attended BYU.

[Kenngo1969]

The bottom line, still, is that if a landlord thinks the requirements for renting to BYU students are onerous enough to dissuade him from doing so, he can rent to UVU students instead.  (I'm not sure how common it is for Provo landlords to rent to UVU students, since UVU is in Orem, but the point still stands.)  And whatever one thinks of the Honor Code or of how adherence to it is policed, I think it's a good idea for an adult third party to have that primary responsibility than for (an)other student(s) to do so.  I think it probably cuts down on (potential) discord between tenants.

[Tacenda]

The bottom line, still, is that if a landlord thinks the requirements for renting to BYU students are onerous enough to dissuade him from doing so, he can rent to UVU students instead. (I'm not sure how common it is for Provo landlords to rent to UVU students, since UVU is in Orem, but the point still stands.) And whatever one thinks of the Honor Code or of how adherence to it is policed, I think it's a good idea for an adult third party to have that primary responsibility than for (an)other student(s) to do so. I think it probably cuts down on (potential) discord between tenants.

My son went to UVU and rented through BYU Housing. They had to have monthly checks of the apartment. Didn't bother me.

[Kenngo1969]

My son went to UVU and rented through BYU Housing. They had to have monthly checks of the apartment. Didn't bother me.

That seems reasonable.  If I remember my undergrad on-campus residency days from 100 years ago , I did, too.

[Scott Lloyd]

Quoting this for tonie, who, last I heard, had Pahoran on "ignore".

 

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".

 

 

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 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

Great point.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[california boy]

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

What do you think you are doing that would fall under enable, encourage or support sinful acts?  Withholding service to others???? Because that is what we are talking about here.  

 

Do you think Christ is encouraging sin by serving sinners?  Is He encouraging sin by admonishing us to visit those who are in prison?    Are we not all sinners?  Are we not all beggars? 

 

No one is asking you to make a donation to some monthly orgy party, or going door to door recruiting people to fight for gay marriage are they?  As far as I can tell, is all that is being asked is for you to consider following the example of Christ.  Maybe only serve those who Christ would serve.  Show charity to all, not just your friends.  Do more than is required or expected of you no matter who you are serving.

[The Nehor]

What do you think you are doing that would fall under enable, encourage or support sinful acts?  Withholding service to others???? Because that is what we are talking about here.  

 

I have to agree with this. For some reason this is the only sinful act that seems to warrant withholding economic services. I am guessing he would scream bloody murder if fast food locations and restaurants decided to be anti-sin and refuse to serve the fat and thus not enable their gluttonous ways.

 

What about a boat shop that refuses to sell to people who do not make a certain minimum wage to encourage frugality? What about a wedding cake maker that refuses to make a cake for a wedding where alcohol will be served? Or a hotel that demands a wedding license before allowing a couple to rent a room?

[Ahab]

I have to agree with this. For some reason this is the only sinful act that seems to warrant withholding economic services. I am guessing he would scream bloody murder if fast food locations and restaurants decided to be anti-sin and refuse to serve the fat and thus not enable their gluttonous ways.

What about a boat shop that refuses to sell to people who do not make a certain minimum wage to encourage frugality? What about a wedding cake maker that refuses to make a cake for a wedding where alcohol will be served? Or a hotel that demands a wedding license before allowing a couple to rent a room?

Oh no! You're being sucked into the void!

Run away!

Try to remember that this is about saying No! to the government when or if they ever try to coerce or intimidate you into doing something that violates your conscience, which would then make it a religious issue.

Government says: have sex with that person!

You can say No! if that would violate your conscience!

Government says: approve of that relationship, even when you believe it is not a righteous relationship!

You can say No! if that would violate your conscience!

Government says: bake a cake for those 2 people who want to use it to celebrate a wedding which you believe is an unrighteous relationship!

You can say No! if it would violate your conscience!

Even if it results in you being thrown into a prison, or scoffed at by wicked men, or both, hold on to your religous principles, man!

... unless your religious principles are corrupt and in need of correction, then just change them for heavens sake, man!

[california boy]

Oh no! You're being sucked into the void!

Run away!

Try to remember that this is about saying No! to the government when or if they ever try to coerce or intimidate you into doing something that violates your conscience, which would then make it a religious issue.

Government says: have sex with that person!

You can say No! if that would violate your conscience!

Government says: approve of that relationship, even when you believe it is not a righteous relationship!

You can say No! if that would violate your conscience!

Government says: bake a cake for those 2 people who want to use it to celebrate a wedding which you believe is an unrighteous relationship!

You can say No! if it would violate your conscience!

Even if it results in you being thrown into a prison, or scoffed at by wicked men, or both, hold on to your religous principles, man!

... unless your religious principles are corrupt and in need of correction, then just change them for heavens sake, man!

 

Except the government does not say have sex with that person.  Who you have sex with is entirely up to you.  

 

the government does not say approve of that relationship.  You don't have to accept a single gay marriage.

 

the government does not require you to approve of a gay wedding.  It only requires you serve a sinner.

 

And the whole point of what we have been talking about is WHERE do Christians get the idea that serving others that have sins is against Christianity????????  If they are followers of Christ, then the scriptues compel them to serve others even if they are sinners.  But hey, it is up to each person to choose who they follow and how.  I just hate those who use Christ falsely as a weapon to discriminate against anyone.  But that is my problem.  

[tonie]

What do you think you are doing that would fall under enable, encourage or support sinful acts?  Withholding service to others???? Because that is what we are talking about here.  

 

Do you think Christ is encouraging sin by serving sinners?  Is He encouraging sin by admonishing us to visit those who are in prison?    Are we not all sinners?  Are we not all beggars? 

 

No one is asking you to make a donation to some monthly orgy party, or going door to door recruiting people to fight for gay marriage are they?  As far as I can tell, is all that is being asked is for you to consider following the example of Christ.  Maybe only serve those who Christ would serve.  Show charity to all, not just your friends.  Do more than is required or expected of you no matter who you are serving.

 

Why even bother pointing the obvious to those who willfully ignore.

 

Christ did not say "Love thy enemy...unless he is a sinner." "Bless them that curse you...unless he is a sinner".

 

And Matthew 25 we are not taught the "least of these" are the sinless. Nor are we taught that we are Christ limited His compassion etc. to the sinless.

[california boy]

I have to agree with this. For some reason this is the only sinful act that seems to warrant withholding economic services. I am guessing he would scream bloody murder if fast food locations and restaurants decided to be anti-sin and refuse to serve the fat and thus not enable their gluttonous ways.

 

What about a boat shop that refuses to sell to people who do not make a certain minimum wage to encourage frugality? What about a wedding cake maker that refuses to make a cake for a wedding where alcohol will be served? Or a hotel that demands a wedding license before allowing a couple to rent a room?

 

You can see how crazy this idea gets very quickly when applying this concept to regular everyday situations.  I have yet to hear a business refusing to serve anyone because they are sinners.  I have only hear of businesses refusing service to blacks, Jews and gays.  What does that tell us.  Is it really about not wanting to serve someone in sin? Or is it age old prejudice rearing its ugly head.  We have heard religion as an excuse to discriminate before.  We will hear it again.  Prejudice is as old as mankind itself.  And using religion is an excuse is just as old.

[pogi]

Matthew 5: 45 ...for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

 

In other words:

​We should maketh our cakes to rise in the oven for the evil and the good, and selleth our pastries to the just and the unjust.  

 

If it is good for the righteous, withhold it not from the wicked. 

Edited February 3, 2015 by pogi

[Ahab]

Except the government does not say have sex with that person. Who you have sex with is entirely up to you.

Well thank goodness it hasn't gone that far yet.

the government does not say approve of that relationship. You don't have to accept a single gay marriage.

Another breath of fresh air.

the government does not require you to approve of a gay wedding. It only requires you serve a sinner.

Not only serving but aiding and abetting.

That's going too far, in my belief. They don't even have the right to compel me to serve anyone.

And the whole point of what we have been talking about is WHERE do Christians get the idea that serving others that have sins is against Christianity???????? If they are followers of Christ, then the scriptues compel them to serve others even if they are sinners. But hey, it is up to each person to choose who they follow and how. I just hate those who use Christ falsely as a weapon to discriminate against anyone. But that is my problem.

The government of this world is not God and should not be trying to compel me to do anything that is not righteous, and to try to compel me to support an unrighteous act is not righteous.

[pogi]

I accidentally hit the rep point button instead of the quote button.  

 

Not only serving but aiding and abetting.

 

You don't need a cake to get married last I checked. 

 

Non-discrimination is not explicit support for anything or anyone.  It is blind like the rain and sun that God sends forth on the righteous and the wicked. 

[Daniel2]

The Huff Post has a piece on the subject:

Religious Freedom Gives Me The Constitutional Right To Violate Your Constitutional Rights. Right?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6598628?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Ian Reifowitz

Posted: 02/02/15 03:10 PM ET Updated: 4 hours ago

Conservatives just love the Constitution. Or at least they say they do. The thing is, they don't seem to have any idea how it works. At least that's a more charitable explanation than saying they don't care how the Constitution works and merely use it as a fig leaf while they undermine the rights it guarantees. And I'm a charitable kind of guy, so I won't say that.

When the Supreme Court recognizes that marriage equality is a constitutionally guaranteed right, one part of the battle will be over. But conservatives have already begun tofight on another front, namely how to implement (or not) that right. Republican state legislators in Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, and both Carolinas (South Carolina was first!) have this year proposed various bills that would give government officials who perform civil marriage ceremonies and/or issue marriage licenses and other related documents the ability to refuse same-sex couples if it would violate a "sincerely held religious belief."

Additionally, Oklahoma State Rep. Todd Russ proposed to take civil officials out of the marriage business altogether and force prospective couples to be married by "an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi." Not a Christian or a Jew? Out of luck, apparently, although Rep. Russ says anyone else who wants to get married can "fil[e] an affidavit of common law marriage with the court clerk." Small problem: the state of Oklahoma doesn't recognize common law marriages, although courts have recognized some on a case-by-case basis. I'm sure Hindu and atheist couples will be just fine with that.

Even if they were adopted, such laws almost certainly would be struck down as unconstitutional. Nevertheless, they are instructive because of what they say about the conservative concept of religious freedom. John J. Kallam is a Baptist minister in North Carolina. He also served for 12 years as a magistrate judge in Rockingham County, in which capacity he officiated at numerous civil marriage ceremonies. Last October he quit after he was told he could not "opt out" of performing same-sex marriages.

"I felt, and still feel, that that is stepping on my right of religious freedom," said Kallam. He brought up the matter of a Sikh soldier in the U.S. Army who successfully argued that religious freedom gave him the right to wear a turban and grow a beard, as mandated by his faith. Kallam asked why he should not have the freedom to act on the basis of his faith as well.

Let's take Kallam's argument seriously for a moment, in order to demonstrate why it is wrong to conflate these two examples as being equally deserving of legal protection under the framework of religious freedom. First, the Sikh-American soldier's turban and beard are an act of expression that affects only himself, whereas a North Carolina magistrate judge refusing to perform a marriage directly affects other people, specifically by denying them a right that, as of last October 10, they possessed as citizens of that state. The soldier's turban and beard do not violate anyone else's rights, therefore they merit protection.

Religious freedom means that Kallam has every right to believe that marriage ought to be restricted to a man and a woman, or, for all I care, three men and a baby (whatever happened to Steve Guttenberg, anyway?). But Kallam cannot act on those beliefs--especially not as an officer of the state--if doing so would deny others their constitutional rights.

And this rejection of the clear distinction between expressing one's faith and acting on it to discriminate against others is at the heart of the conservative concept of religious freedom. Last October, Gordon Klingenschmitt celebrated John Kallam for having stood up to "tyranny." Klingenschmidt, by the way, also expressed the belief that LGBT activists "want you to disobey God so that you go to hell with them," and added that the judges who declared bans against same sex marriage to be unconstitutional are "demonic judges who are imposing the devil's law upon the people."

Who is Gordon Klingenschmitt? A few weeks after making those statements on his "Pray in Jesus Name" television program, he won election and became a brand-new Republican state representative in Colorado. It's a struggle between freedom and tyranny, folks.

In addition to pushing laws that would allow government officials to discriminate in the name of religious freedom, conservatives are alsopushing laws that would allow private businesses to do the same thing, mostly in response to bakers, florists, and photographers who refused to provide services to customers putting on a same-sex marriage. According to Jim Campbell of the Alliance Defending Freedom, this is about "religious liberty." He added, "we believe the Constitution protects the right of all citizens including business owners to live in a way consistent with their faith." (Judges in Colorado, New Mexico, andWashington have already ruled against business owners in such cases. The business owner in the New Mexico case appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to intervene.)

Along lines similar to Campbell and Kallam, South Carolina Republican State Sen. Lee Bright argued that laws allowing this kind of discrimination are not only right but constitutional because "we have similar language for folks that work in health care that don't want to participate in abortions" due to their religious beliefs. At first glance, this might seem a potent argument. However, it's little more than sleight of hand. Medical professionals are not allowed to say: "I perform abortions, but only for heterosexuals." That would be discrimination, and that's exactly what florists, bakers, and county magistrates would be doing if they provided their services to some, but not others.

Here's the one I'd like to run by conservatives who talk about religious freedom in these terms: Think about someone whose religious beliefs state that women must not work outside the home. Now imagine that person having authority over hiring decisions at his job. Do his religious beliefs allow him to discriminate against a female candidate for a position? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibitsdiscrimination on the basis of both religion and sex. I'd like to see a conservative argue that religious freedom gives the man in this scenario the right to reject, out of hand, all women candidates seeking employment.

This is not about religious freedom. All Americans are guaranteed the right to their religious beliefs, the right to worship (or not) any deity they choose in the manner in which they choose. That is a bedrock principle of this country and progressives would fight tooth and nail to preserve it, should it ever be endangered. The thing is, it's not in danger, other than from conservatives themselves, from people like Bryan Fischer, who last September said that all immigrants should be forced to convert to Christianity. Fischer remainsconnected to the American Family Association, an organization closelyallied to the Republican National Committee.

It's real simple. Conservatives think religious freedom gives them the right to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs. They're wrong, because, to paraphrase Zechariah Chafee, their right to practice their religion ends where my nose begins.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

The Huff Post has a piece on the subject:

 

We could turn the title around so it reads: "Anti-discrimination law gives me the right to violate your First Amendment rights. Right?

[Daniel2]

We could turn the title around so it reads: "Anti-discrimination law gives me the right to violate your First Amendment rights. Right?

Nice drive-by a mere 7 minutes after I posted it.

Did you even make it past the title before the knee-jerk sneer?

How about a substantive response to the body of what was said?

Edited February 3, 2015 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

Nice drive-by a mere 7 minutes after I posted it.

Did you even make it past the title before the knee-jerk sneer?

How about a substantive response to the body of what was said?

I thought I'd deal with the title first before getting into the body of the text.

 

I may or may not have a comment later.

 

And for future reference: I don't do drive-bys. I thought my comment was a concise way of pointing out that this issue cannot be reduced to sound bites or bumper-sticker slogans -- which is one of the things Elders Oaks and Christofferson have been saying in recent days.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

I thought I'd deal with the title first before getting into the body of the text.

I may or may not have a comment later.

And for future reference: I don't do drive-bys. I thought my comment was a concise way of pointing out that this issue cannot be reduced to sound bites or bumper-sticker slogans -- which is one of the things Elders Oaks and Christofferson have been saying in recent days.

I posted an entire article--neither a bumpersticker nor a soundbite--which you reduced to a mere title, posted a mocking single sentance rebuttal less than 7 minutes later, and ignored the rest. You may deny it, but that, my friend, is a perfect example of a non-substantive, drive-by response. And ironically, in so doing, you reduced your response to this issue (and the discussion of the article I posted) to the very bumpersticker/soundbite that you claim to decry. Disappointing.

Here's just one discussion point raised on the article:

Think about someone whose religious beliefs state that women must not work outside the home. Now imagine that person having authority over hiring decisions at his job. Do his religious beliefs allow him to discriminate against a female candidate for a position? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of both religion and sex. I'd like to see a conservative argue that religious freedom gives the man in this scenario the right to reject, out of hand, all women candidates seeking employment.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Daniel2