How Credible Are Assurances Of Non-Compulsory Homosexual Weddings By Lds Priesthood?

[tonie]

Neither do you see any problem with employing the functional equivalent of the Vth Army Nuclear Strike Force to compel others to bake you a cake against their will.

 

You simply don't see.

 

Because you lack values.

 

You seek only your own aggrandizement.

I reported this post, hopefully the moderators will see and take action against your judgmental post, though I suspect I will be the one banned from thread.

The irony of your insulting judgment is that you seek nothing but your own aggrandizement. You choose to ignore the exemption in place in regarding religions/churches regarding public accommodation laws. And because the exemption for Priesthood holders exist in the regarding same sex marriages, there is no rational basis for claiming the sky is falling. The fact that the exemption is enshrined in the law makes your premise nothing more than fearmongering.

[tonie]

It still seems that after repeated request, NO ONE has provided examples of government forcing religions to perform marriages. Will anyone demonstrate why the current handwringing about the Priesthood and ssm is rational or even based in some precedent.

As for the Hitching Post it has not been determined whether or not the religious exemption applies; if it does apply case closed infavor of the Hitching post, if it does not apply, then there is no concern regarding LDS Priesthood, because the Hitching Post is a business bound to follow the law.

[MorningStar]

Do the pastors at the Hitching Post consider it a religious ordinance?  Who gets to decide if they are a religion or not?  There are many paid ministers in this country.  If they were looking only to make money, then they wouldn't object to performing same sex marriages, would they? 

[california boy]

Does that include the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

 

We aren't arguing that people shouldn't follow the law, we are arguing what those laws should say.  An open debate, hopefully based on trust and mutual respect.  But the question here was can we trust the assurances that we won't be compelled to do something that does not jive with our beliefs?  You should be just as worried that someone could strip you of your first amendment rights.

 

As a good Latter-day Saint can you tell me what the basis is of compelling someone to follow a law?  Does this sound familiar?

 

"Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor."

I am completely in agreement with you.  I want those same laws that protect me to also protect any citizen.  Is all I am stating is the civil rights laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against ANYONE are the ones that USU and Scott keep bringing up that they are against.  I am just pointing out that those laws have existed since the 60/s and if they don't like antidiscrimination laws, then that is what has to change.  It has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has to do with discriminating against ANYONE.  And that is exactly what  the courts are enforcing.  

[california boy]

Bob the question wasn't "has it happened".  The question is can we trust assurances that no effort will be made (or even successfully made) to compel the LDS to accommodate homosexual marriage.  Given the trends in recent legal decisions and ordinances that undermine what were once considered inalienable rights to liberty and free speech, I'm not sure anyone can say that with confidence.

 

Already in my short experience with gay marriage and homosexuality and the Boy Scouts, assurances that "this is as far as this will go" have been shown as lies.  Not by all homosexuals, but by a determined few who agitate and demand their way is the only way, and that any diversity in thought is 

 

DISCRIMINATION

DISCRIMINATION

DISCRIMINATION

 

The Boy Scouts should be a clear assurance that PRIVATE organizations can discriminate all they want.  Like churches, private organizations are not businesses.  The Supreme Court ruled in FAVOR of the Boy Scouts and allowed them to continue to discriminate all they wanted to.

 

It was public pressure that caused BSA to change their policy.  Is it possible that public pressure will be exerted on the church?  Absolutely.  It is probably expected.  But that is a far different issue than stripping religion from the protection provided them in the constitution.  I hope you see the difference.

[Scott Lloyd]

I reported this post, hopefully the moderators will see and take action against your judgmental post, though I suspect I will be the one banned from thread.

 

Oh, the spectacle of someone judgmentally passing judgment on someone else for being too judgmental! 

 

The irony of your insulting judgment is that you seek nothing but your own aggrandizement. You choose to ignore the exemption in place in regarding religions/churches regarding public accommodation laws. And because the exemption for Priesthood holders exist in the regarding same sex marriages, there is no rational basis for claiming the sky is falling. The fact that the exemption is enshrined in the law makes your premise nothing more than fearmongering.

 

The radical redefinition of marriage we have witnessed in the last couple of years belies the notion that something can be immutably "enshrined in the law."

Edited October 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I am completely in agreement with you.  I want those same laws that protect me to also protect any citizen.  Is all I am stating is the civil rights laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against ANYONE are the ones that USU and Scott keep bringing up that they are against.

A gross and repeated misrepresentation.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

It was public pressure that caused BSA to change their policy.  Is it possible that public pressure will be exerted on the church?  Absolutely.  It is probably expected. 

And is, in fact, what you are hoping for, I daresay, helped along where necessary by legal coercion, your lip-service to Constitutional protections notwithstanding.

[california boy]

A gross and repeated misrepresentation.

could you explain why?

[Scott Lloyd]

could you explain why?

Because I've not called for the repeal of 1960s civil rights legislation and your repetitive accusation that I have is weird.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

And is, in fact, what you are hoping for, I daresay, helped along where necessary by legal coercion, your lip-service to Constitutional protections notwithstanding.

Actually you are completely wrong.  I do not delight in the church being thought of as an antigay church.  And I do not delight in this opinion only increasing over time.  But I have no control over public opinion or church policy.  I am just acknowledging that public opinion will probably continue to be strongly against the church on this issue.  I think it is a point that you would agree is likely.

 

I have always stated, that I defend the right of the Mormon Church as well as every other religion to remain free to marry who they want.  The government has no right under our constitution to compel any religion to marry anyone including gay couples.  And I do not want any religion to be so compelled.  That same Constitution that protects religion also protects me as a citizen to be treated equally under the law.  I am not willing to throw out either part of the Constitution.  Are you?

[california boy]

Because I've not called for the repeal of 1960s civil rights legislation and your repetitive accusation that I have is weird.

Well then if you have not called for the repeal of 1960's civil rights legislation then you can't really have a problem when BUSINESSES are forced to comply with those laws.  So what is the issue??

[Tacenda]

I personally think the Church should give the nicest, best, customer service to any gay couple that wants to rent their public accommodations. There is a huge difference between supporting someone in celebrating their beliefs, and compromising on our own.

I see it like helping to build a Hindu Temple, or rebuild a Baptist church after a disaster. We don't have to agree on everything to be good servants and love one another.

I knew there was a reason I liked you. But still don't believe in businesses to be forced to sell or serve everybody. But there again, I revert to blacks and civil rights...

[KevinG]

California boy is not going to believe this but I personally don't believe sexual orientation is a justifiable reason to deny a one access to public services. However it is also not a good reason to compel services either.

I've been denied jobs because of my Mormonism (made obvious on my resume by BYU and volunteer activities), but I didnt feel it was worth contesting for the privilege of working for bigots, and I wouldn't sue for money. So there I am in all my contradictory libertarian leaning glory.

Edited October 22, 2014 by KevinG

[Analytics]

Because I've not called for the repeal of 1960s civil rights legislation and your repetitive accusation that I have is weird.

 

I'm honestly confused by your position then. To clarify, what do you think the legal (and moral) difference is between the following?

 

1- A business owner refuses to bake a wedding cake for a black couple.

 

2- A business owner refuses to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

 

Both business owners cite individual liberty and their sincere religious convictions for their discrimination.

 

If you are in favor of 1960-era civil rights, you would support the government sending in its tanks to force the first guy to bake the cake for the black guys, his personal freedom and religious convictions be damned.

[california boy]

California boy is not going to believe this but I personally don't believe sexual orientation is a justifiable reason to deny a one access to public services. However it is also not a good reason to compel services either.

I've been denied jobs because of my Mormonism (made obvious on my resume by BYU and volunteer activities), but I didn't feel it was worth contesting for the privilege of working for bigots, and I wouldn't sue for money. So there I am in all my contradictory libertarian leaning glory.

 

My thinking is the same.  I personally have been discriminated against because I am gay, but I never felt compelled to sue anyone over it.  I don't need that kind of negative energy in my life.  But that doesn't mean that others do not have the right to have access to laws that protect such discrimination.  As long as those federal laws exist, then there are those who will not tolerate discrimination and have every right to sue under those laws.  

 

I actually feel the same way about gay marriage.  Me and my boyfriend are not married nor have any plans to marry even though we live in a state where it is legal.  Mostly for me it is because the church wouldn't recognize it anyway, so there is no compelling reason to marry him.  But that does not mean that I don't think gay Americans are not entitled to the equal protection guaranteed to them by the constitution.  

[mfbukowski]

Show me where it says that...It is called a SEALING CEREMONY

Uh, maybe you have never heard the words of the ceremony?

[mfbukowski]

You seem to know a lot about this place. 

Why would you care? Sounds homophobic to me.

[mfbukowski]

Except that under our doctrine, it is, in fact, a marriage

.

In fact it SAYS it is.

[mfbukowski]

Not unless and until we are forced to.

 

It is incumbent upon us as citizens of a free republic to resist such coercion.

Absolutely!

This is indeed what has culturally separated us from Europeans. They knuckle under, we don't.

[mfbukowski]

 

The closest we've come to it is in California. Under the Unruh Act a landlord cannot deny rental housing on religious scruples to a couple living in sin, nor a doctor deny fertility services to a homosexual couple if he's the only one in his practice who does that, but I think Hobby Lobby has essentially triumphed over this bad law.

A doctor who can help a gay couple overcome fertility problems would be talented indeed.

[Daniel2]

Here’s the thing, folks….

The entire Idaho story is fabricated and false spin designed to engender exactly the kind of hysteria that it has been doing, among conservatives.

 

And here's the substantive proof:

 

[New Quote]

_________________________________________________________________

 

Caught ya: Far-right's latest marriage 'victim' edited website to make more solid legal case

 

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2014/10/caught-ya-far-rights-latest-marriage-victim-edited-website-to-make-more-solid-legal-case.html

 

by Jeremy Hooper

 

Back in May, I wrote about a place called The Hitching Post, a Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, business that marries couples for profit. At the time, I opined about how the ordained minister who owns the business has every right to not perform same-sex marriages, if he so chooses. However, if he is going to make that choice, then he is going to lose that right to run a for-profit, "all comers welcome" business that says it marries opposite-sex couples in civil ceremonies, regardless of faith.

 

And in May, when that business owner, Donald Knapp, first started going to the press with this vow, that's exactly what his business claimed to do. These are the screen caps I used in my initial post:

 

[images will not transfer to MD&D; for actual screen cap image, please visit the link to see the screen caps]
[SOURCE]

 

But get this. In the wake of marriage equality coming to Idaho, the Alliance Defending Freedom is attempting to turn Mr. Knapp and his business into the latest "victims" of the marriage equality push. The ADF is championing a lawsuit against the city of Coeur d'Alene, and to make the case, all involved are claiming that the business is made up of "ordained ministers" who are being told "to act contrary to their faith." They are making it sound like this is an instance of a pastor being forced to perform a religious ceremony in a church, which is a fear they would love to play up as a reality. Several other conservative groups and outlets have run with that spin.

 

Now here's where it gets interesting. In order to make this case of supposed religious persecution, someone has gone into the very website that I used as basis for my spring commentary and changed the text so that all the mentions of civil weddings no longer appear. Here is how the very same screens that I showed you above look today:

 

[image will not transfer to MD&D; for actual screen cap image, please visit the link to see the screen cap]
 

 

"Ordained ministers" who perform a "traditional, religious ceremony"? And only "for couples who desire a traditional wedding ceremony"? This is revisionist history of the highest order! Now that this business needs to make a case for "religious persecution," they are pretending like they didn't operate in the way that they totally used to operate. They are pretending like civil ceremonies and ceremonies outside of their own deeply held faith were never on the table so that they can make it seem like they have always been convicted in and committed to one specific kind of religious wedding. They have up and changed the rules that they themselves had laid out (i.e. no church, no faith, no problem) so that they can now make the case that they and their far-right spinmeisters are itching to make (i.e. only church, always church; we're the victims).

 

And I caught ya.

 

*UPDATE: The revisionist history is recent, too. According to Google Cache, the "civil wedding" option was still very much intact on October 9:

[image will not transfer to MD&D; for actual screen cap image, please visit the link to see the screen cap]

 

[Google Cache]

 

[End of Article]

_________________________________________________________________________

 

And further proof showing that the story is contrived and false:

 

[New Quote]

__________________________________________________________________________

 

Legal hitch at Hitching Post

http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_129c54cc-3dda-5868-8278-838cde92e17e.html

Posted: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:00 am | Updated: 12:39 am, Tue Oct 21, 2014.

Legal hitch at Hitching Post MAUREEN DOLAN/mdolan@cdapress.com | 47 comments

City officials in Coeur d'Alene say they have not received any formal complaints that the Hitching Post wedding chapel has violated the city's anti-discrimination ordinance by refusing to solemnize same-sex marriages.

A lawsuit filed in federal court Friday on behalf of Don and Lynn Knapp, ordained ministers and owners of the Hitching Post, claims the couple's constitutional rights to religious freedom are being violated by the city, through the city's anti-discrimination ordinance, because it compels them to officiate over gay marriages.

The law, adopted in 2013, prohibits sexual orientation and gender identity to be used as a basis for discrimination in housing, employment and other public accommodations.

News of the lawsuit sparked national headlines over the weekend, primarily from conservative media, claiming that the city is threatening to arrest the Knapps.

"We have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind," said city spokesman Keith Erickson.

But if a complaint is received, Erickson said it would be handled the way all such complaints are.

"The city will look into it and take whatever action is necessary," he said.

In response to the lawsuit, the city released a copy of a letter City Attorney Mike Gridley sent Monday to David A. Cortman, senior legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona-based, conservative Christian "legal ministry." The ADF is representing the Knapps in their lawsuit.

In the letter, Gridley confirmed the details of a telephone conversation he says he had Monday with Cortman.

Gridley wrote that his office has responded in the past to questions from the Knapps about their business - registered as a for-profit limited liability company with the Idaho Secretary of State's office. He admitted that the Knapps were told by his office that if a complaint was filed against them for refusing to provide service to gay individuals seeking to marry, they would likely be in violation of the city's ordinance, based on their corporate status.

Violation of the anti-discrimination law is a misdemeanor with a fine as steep as $1,000, and as long as six months in jail.

Gridley also noted that on Oct. 6, the Knapps filed an LLC operating agreement with the state indicating that the Hitching Post is a "religious organization." He told the Knapps' attorney in the letter that if the Knapps are "truly operating a not-for-profit religious corporation" they would be specifically exempted from the city ordinance.

"Their lawsuit was something of a surprise because we have had cordial conversations with them in the past and they have never disclosed that they have recently become a religious corporation," Gridley wrote.

Gridley wrote that the city will not prosecute legitimate nonprofit religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies or other exempt organizations or anyone else as a result of their lawful exercise of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion.

 

In addition to exempting those groups, Gridley wrote that the anti-discrimination ordinance states that it "shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion."

When contacted by The Press for comment, Don Knapp said the Hitching Post is not operating as a not-for-profit religious corporation. He also said he does not know ADF Attorney David Cortman.

[End of Article]

__________________________________________________________________________

Folks…. This issue is a total non-issue, legally.

Religions and ministers have NEVER BEEN FORCED TO MARRY ANYONE against their will----and they NEVER WILL BE.

 

Ministers have never been forced to marry members not of their Faith.

Ministers have never been forced to marry interracial marriages.

Ministers have never been forced to marry divorced individuals.

Ministers have never been forced to marry individuals of their own faith that don’t live up to the tenants of their Faith.

Ministers have never been forced to marry atheists.

Ministers have never been forced to marry a-n-y-o-n-e.

And this Idaho story is a fabrication, designed to spread fear and angst that simply will not exist.

And the above articles substantively demonstrate that is the truth.

Religious liberty and equal civil rights for LGBT couples, interracial couples, atheist couples, and mixed religion-couples CAN and DO and WILL CONTINUE to peacefully co-exist.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Daniel2

[KevinG]

I think you are correct on the hitching post. My concern and the concern expressed in the OP was, is this enough to satisfy gay rights advocates, or will there be an effort made to compel religious institutions to modify their practices in the name of fairness, or diversity?

Given current cases, politics and trajectories, I'm not assured that it won't become an issue in the near future.

...and I'm someone who would host a party for a homosexual couple if I owned a reception on hall.

[Bob Crockett]

As I thought, Daniel2.  I never agree with you and my conservative politics would not likely ever permit me to do so, but USU should retract this utter hyperbolic nonsense.  

Edited October 22, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[USU78]

A bit of fun:

 

Houston’s lesbian mayor attempted to subpoena the sermons of various conservative pastors, alleging that said sermons might contain Christian messages. Now, I have it on good authority that, these days, a sermon is often the last place to look for Biblical content (just ask Joel Osteen), but better safe than sorry. Mayor Parker was reasonably concerned that some Christians in her city were attending Christian worship services and still, by some strange coincidence, encountering Christian doctrine. Specifically, she was worried that her constituents were being exposed to Christian ideas on the subject of homosexuality, so she launched an investigation into the matter.

 

Predictably, the wingnuts threw a hissyfit. They exploded with indignation and began making feverish and fantastical claims about how “the constitution” allegedly protects freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Apparently, in the bizarro world of the American Right, mandated governmental homily inspections are suddenly considered controversial. These people obviously don’t realize that our ancestors originally settled on our shores in order to escape a government that, in their opinion, didn’t provide enough supervision over their religious activities.

 

Here:  http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/of-course-the-government-should-force-churches-to-perform-gay-weddings/

 

If it can happen in Denmark, it can happen here, and Coeur d'Alene may be only the snot from the camel's nose blown between the tent flaps, but it's one more in a coming cascade of impositions by the feverishly brutal against the faithful.

 

The Socialists in Copenhagen compel the Lutherans to perform SSMs. 

 

Does anybody honestly believe that is where they'll stop?  Just at the "official" state Church? 

 

If they intended to stop anywhere, they'd have stopped at having only those states that voted SSM into law have SSM.