mfbukowski Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Remember those shaking the fences and seeking to rush the gates of the LA Temple. That is what haunts me. That, unless someone can reasonably disabuse me of it, is my fear.It was scary indeed and I will never forget it. I was having visions of the death of Joseph Smith. 2
mfbukowski Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) I would love to tell you that this is conspiracy theorist, paranoia, stuff. If my homosexual acquaintances are the representatives of their identity group, than we have nothing to worry about. (We have our libertarian-ism in common).Yeah, well these folks don't have that. Libertarians are by nature live-and-let-live folks. If you had seen it you would think differently.http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-weho-protest-pg-photogallery.html http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/Protestors_Signal_Battle_over_Same_Sex_Marriage_Not_Over.html Edited October 21, 2014 by mfbukowski
Bob Crockett Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) A political subdivision of a constituent state has already threatened criminal action up in Couer d'Alene. Perhaps you missed it.Perhaps; perhaps not. Is that the best you can do? That some low level official is merely talking about doing it? Keep in mind that we've had decades of abortion, centuries of fornication. Any indication in any of that that US ministers are compelled to marry foeticidants, fornicators, etc. against their religious scruples? Why doesn't the Hobby Lobby case cover this for for-profit companies? Although I sit on the fence on the gay marriage issue, but I've contributed many thousands of dollars to the Prop 8 campaign, have participated in a very public debate witha former law partner over the issue (http://www.mormonsformarriageequality.org/a-commentary-on-the-document-six-consequences-if-proposition-8-fails/), have been a lone voice at Sunstone against gay marriage (https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/152-04-13.pdf), and have lectured at UCLA law against gay marriage, I am dismayed at the unfounded fear-mongering by the anti-gay brigade. Edited October 21, 2014 by Bob Crockett 4
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Yeah, well these folks don't have that. Libertarians are by nature live-and-let-live folks. If you had seen it you would think differently.What bothers me, if the opinion polls cited in the OP by USU are an indication, is the alarmingly large segment of our citizenry who apparently have no respect or regard for the liberty enshrined in the First Amendment. 3
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Perhaps; perhaps not. Is that the best you can do? That some low level official is merely talking about doing it? Keep in mind that we've had decades of abortion, centuries of fornication. Any indication in any of that that US ministers are compelled to marry foeticidants, fornicators, etc. against their religious scruples? Why doesn't the Hobby Lobby case cover this for for-profit companies? Wow. By that logic white supremacists are nothing to worry about because they have no governmental authority and they are all talk. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Perhaps; perhaps not. Is that the best you can do? That some low level official is merely talking about doing it? Keep in mind that we've had decades of abortion, centuries of fornication. Any indication in any of that that US ministers are compelled to marry foeticidants, fornicators, etc. against their religious scruples? Why doesn't the Hobby Lobby case cover this for for-profit companies? Do we wait until bad legislation is enacted before we start to have concerns, or do we endeavor to halt it beforehand? 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Correct me if I am wrong, but the Coeur d'Alene case involves two ministers who run a for-profit business performing weddings for the general public. I don't know how the Bishops do it in your neck of the woods, but that sounds like a pretty big difference to me.Hey, there used to be a pretty big distinction between what was marriage and what isn't. You used to have to have a male and female to be considered a marriage. Now, it is much more than that. You could have people with two woohoo's or two ding dongs and that is now a marriage. I mean, that to me is a pretty big difference there. Edited October 21, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 You could have people with two woohoo's or two ding dongs and that is now a marriage. Possum Pride!
california boy Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Yeah . . . like we've always been able to trust such distinctions in the past. As used to be the quip concerning the SCOTUS' predeliction to find the tiniest of waterways navigable and, therefore, subject to the feds' jurisdiction: "How big must the body of water be to be navigable? Deep enough to float a Supreme Court opinion. Same holds true for the definition of "commerce": it's whatever they want it to be to do what they want to the people they want to do it to. You are acting as if discrimination laws are a new thing. They have been around since the 60's, There were plenty of for profit businesses that were sued for not accommodating blacks. What do you expect to happen? Do you really think that those laws only apply to part of America? Or do the discrimination laws apply to all minorities. Of course any minority has the right to sue any for profit business that will not serve them. What do you think the laws that were passed were intended to do?? The only way to stop these lawsuits is to roll back time, strike down the accommodation laws and be glad you live in a country where you can discriminate against any minority you want. Now that is such a more Christian way of life don't you think?? USU, since you are so good at whipping up the masses into supporting discrimination, why don't you do something constructive and work to tear down those discrimination laws. That seems to be your real beef. And those laws are real. They are being enforced as we speak even in Idaho. And they will continue to be enforced even with businesses owned by the church on temple square. There are no exemptions on for profit businesses. The civil right laws apply to every business, not just the ones you like. You obviously think America was a better place when a business could discriminate. Go for it. DISCRIMINATE!!!DISCRIMINATE!!DISCRIMINATE!!! Yet in all of those lawsuits, not a single case where a church was forced to marry anyone. Humm. Just what is the difference here? I wonder????? 1
california boy Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Hey, there used to be a pretty big distinction between what was marriage and what isn't. You used to have to have a male and female to be considered a marriage. Now, it is much more than that. You could have people with two woohoo's or two ding dongs and that is now a marriage. I mean, that to me is a pretty big difference there. You used to be able to discriminate against Blacks. You used to be able to legally kill Mormons. You used to be able to own slaves. You used to be able to beat children. I tell you, the world is falling apart before our eyes. Now even gays are allowed their civil rights.
california boy Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Do we wait until bad legislation is enacted before we start to have concerns, or do we endeavor to halt it beforehand?"Bad legislation" was passed in the 60's. It is these non discrimination laws that you are going to have to attack if you want to discriminate as a business. So go for it. Join USU on this holy cursade. DISCRIMINATE!!!DISCRIMINATE!!!DISCRIMINATE!!!
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Yet in all of those lawsuits, not a single case where a church was forced to marry anyone. Humm. Just what is the difference here? I wonder????? So far no one has tested it. But it is a much more plausible thing now than it was 5, 10, 15 years ago. At what point does your right to have marriage, require me to provide services for those marriages? I cannot walk into a Catholic church and demand their sacraments, even if they use their chapel as a bingo parlor on Tuesday nights. That is what the Idaho case brings to the table. Ultimately it does test the extent and limits of the 1st amendment establishment clause and freedom of exercise clause. What if I demanded the right to use The Bolt (a gay bar) in Sacramento for meetings of the Westboro Baptists because they are a public accommodation? This is not a simple case of screaming discrimination and getting your way. The very rights you seek to remove from others because they might be abused, could be taken from you just as easily. Edited October 21, 2014 by KevinG 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) You are acting as if discrimination laws are a new thing. They have been around since the 60's, There were plenty of for profit businesses that were sued for not accommodating blacks. What do you expect to happen? Do you really think that those laws only apply to part of America? Or do the discrimination laws apply to all minorities. Of course any minority has the right to sue any for profit business that will not serve them. What do you think the laws that were passed were intended to do?? The only way to stop these lawsuits is to roll back time, strike down the accommodation laws and be glad you live in a country where you can discriminate against any minority you want. Now that is such a more Christian way of life don't you think?? USU, since you are so good at whipping up the masses into supporting discrimination, why don't you do something constructive and work to tear down those discrimination laws. That seems to be your real beef. And those laws are real. They are being enforced as we speak even in Idaho. And they will continue to be enforced even with businesses owned by the church on temple square. There are no exemptions on for profit businesses. The civil right laws apply to every business, not just the ones you like. You obviously think America was a better place when a business could discriminate. Go for it. DISCRIMINATE!!!DISCRIMINATE!!DISCRIMINATE!!! Yet in all of those lawsuits, not a single case where a church was forced to marry anyone. Humm. Just what is the difference here? I wonder?????A very active and noisy gay-rights lobby. And a sympathetic populous that is becoming increasingly and alarmingly ignorant of First Amendment freedoms. Edited October 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
mfbukowski Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) What bothers me, if the opinion polls cited in the OP by USU are an indication, is the alarmingly large segment of our citizenry who apparently have no respect or regard for the liberty enshrined in the First Amendment.The LA temple is on Santa Monica Blvd, just a few miles (2 or 3) west of West Hollywood which is probably Los Angeles' largest and most militant gay neighborhood, which has now become its own city. West Hollywood, colloquially referred to as WeHo, is a city in Los Angeles County, California, United States..... Residents of West Hollywood vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party. They also regularly pass ordinances geared toward reducing perceived discrimination and protecting the public health and dignity of all living things. West Hollywood is nationally known as a front-runner in social justice legislation.[citation needed]In 1985, West Hollywood was the first city to create a same-gender domestic partnership registration for its residents, as well as to offer same-gender domestic partner benefits for city employees. West Hollywood's comprehensive Domestic Partnership Ordinance[22] allows those couples that are prohibited from marrying (same-sex) and those who can marry but choose not to (heterosexual), to register their union with the city. These unions are treated on an equal basis with legal marriages with respect to city-level benefits and services. In California as a whole, same-sex couples may enter domestic partnerships which offer them all of the state rights of marriage.[23]In 1993 the West Hollywood City Council voted for West Hollywood to become the first official pro-choice city in America.[24]Legislation prohibiting discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation is widely recognized as the toughest in the nation. The city is also one of 92 jurisdictions in the country where it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity or expression.[25]City legislation also bans the sale of handguns, prohibits smoking in public places, and restricts the city from doing business directly or indirectly (via vendors) with any country known to violate human rights. Also, the city is one of 19 in California that has banned the use of gas-powered leaf blowers.[26]The city designed a law that pets are to be called "companions," and their owners "guardians" and was the first city in the country to outlaw the de-clawing of cats.[27]In 2011, West Hollywood became the first city in the United States to ban the sale of clothing with real animal fur; the ban was due to come into effect September 21, 2013. 60% of businesses oppose the ban.[28]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Hollywood,_California Edited October 21, 2014 by mfbukowski
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) "Bad legislation" was passed in the 60's. It is these non discrimination laws that you are going to have to attack if you want to discriminate as a business. So go for it. Join USU on this holy cursade. DISCRIMINATE!!!DISCRIMINATE!!!DISCRIMINATE!!!What KevinG said above. For your convenience, here it is again. At what point does your right to have marriage, require me to provide services for those marriages? I cannot walk into a Catholic church and demand their sacraments, even if they use their chapel as a bingo parlor on Tuesday nights. That is what the Idaho case brings to the table. Edited October 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
mfbukowski Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 "Bad legislation" was passed in the 60's. It is these non discrimination laws that you are going to have to attack if you want to discriminate as a business. So go for it. Join USU on this holy cursade. DISCRIMINATE!!!DISCRIMINATE!!!DISCRIMINATE!!!Keep on shouting! Where are the signs?
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 DISCRIMINATE!!!DISCRIMINATE!!!DISCRIMINATE!!! Brings this to mind...
california boy Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 So far no one has tested it. But it is a much more plausible thing now than it was 5, 10, 15 years ago. What has changed in the last 5, 10, or 15 years that makes forcing churches to marry more pausable???
california boy Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 A very active and noisy gay-rights lobby. And a sympathetic populous that is becoming increasingly and alarmingly ignorant of First Amendment freedoms.Well so far that active and noisy gay-rights lobby has only done one thing, demaned their civil rights. You act as if this is something that they are not allowed or entitled to do. What do you really expect? Do you think that just because they are gay they shouldn't have their civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States????
mfbukowski Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 What has changed in the last 5, 10, or 15 years that makes forcing churches to marry more pausable???Seriously?
california boy Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Keep on shouting! Where are the signs?You will have to ask Scott and USU. They are the ones leading the charge. They are the ones that think civil rights legislation should be scrapped. I personally am proud to live in a country that does not allow the discrimination that was prevelant in our past history. I have no desire to change such laws.
california boy Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Seriously?yes seriously. What laws or amendments to the constitution have changed.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) You will have to ask Scott and USU. They are the ones leading the charge. They are the ones that think civil rights legislation should be scrapped. I personally am proud to live in a country that does not allow the discrimination that was prevelant in our past history. I have no desire to change such laws. You are babbling. USU hasn't said such a thing, and I know I haven't. Or are you suggesting that past civil rights legislation now forces people of faith to perform a ceremony they oppose as a matter of conscience? As far as "leading the charge," all I've done here is sought to preserve an environment where people could express a certain point of view without being shouted down, as happened on the prior thread. And speaking of shouting down, it now appears you are attempting that again (including the use of mockery expressed in capital letters). It won't work. Edited October 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
USU78 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 The incident related in Genesis 19 bears some disturbing parallels to what you recall here. Bring them out to us, that we may know them.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Kelo vs. The City of New London - eminent domain overriding and essentially eliminating private ownership of property.The Obama administrations contraception mandate (Hobby Lobby case)A trend towards more restrictive policies regarding religious freedon (Pew Research) (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/contraception-mandate-obama-administration-fails-to-protect-religious-freedom)Atheist groups getting the Navy to remove privately donated Bibles from lodges For starters... It isn't adding up very well for the "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." portion of the first amendment. 3
Recommended Posts