USU78 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 We don't have to wait for anything. Hobby Lobby provides that for-profit businesses may use religious scruples to deny services. Plus, I am waiting for USU to give me an example of where a US Minister has ever been compelled to marry somebody he didn't want to marry: homosexuals, fornicators, murderers, abortionists, atheists, child molesters, people living in sin; anti-Mormons, feminists, Mexicans, Muslims and blacks, etc and etc.. Any example? I'll take one. If he's gonna engage in fear mongering perhaps one successful example will help. 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. The First Amendment trumps all that; trumps bad legislation; trumps good legislation. Wait away, Bob. It's a bad idea for you and me to interact.
will227457 Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 If we ARE forced to perform them, the solution of course is easy- get out of the wedding business and stay in the sealing business. The couple gets married civilly first, then goes to the temple and gets sealed- a purely spiritual ordinance, like sealing dead couples. Problem solved. It's been done in Europe like that for years. I am not too concerned about it. We're going to - you know where-- in a handbasket rapidly. We can fight it as long as we can, but at some point we have to come up with alternatives to survive. That's one.This is clearly the solution, in other countries marriage ceremonies must be performed by the state. Everything else is ceremonial. An LDS bishop/temple sealer is authorized by the state to perform marriages. If the state mandates that those authorized have to perform same sex marriages then the LDS church will get out of the marriage business plain and simple. We enjoy religious freedom, and we take it for granted that out LDS leaders get to perform a binding secular contract. We will still enjoy our freedoms
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) This is clearly the solution, in other countries marriage ceremonies must be performed by the state. Everything else is ceremonial. An LDS bishop/temple sealer is authorized by the state to perform marriages. If the state mandates that those authorized have to perform same sex marriages then the LDS church will get out of the marriage business plain and simple. We enjoy religious freedom, and we take it for granted that out LDS leaders get to perform a binding secular contract. We will still enjoy our freedomsBut don't so much as suggest that such freedoms must be protected by the people and that efforts to infringe upon those freedoms must be monitored and opposed, or you will be shouted down as engaging in "fear mongering." Or so it seems. Edited October 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
USU78 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 We enjoy religious freedom, and we take it for granted that out LDS leaders get to perform a binding secular contract. We will still enjoy our freedoms I wasn't with you . . . then I was . . . then I was definitely not with you. The hatred endemic in those who would compel you to bake cakes and rent out chapels and perform ceremonies against your will will never rest until . . . Heaven knows when. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 We don't have to wait for anything. Hobby Lobby provides that for-profit businesses may use religious scruples to deny services. ... The First Amendment trumps all that; trumps bad legislation; trumps good legislation. {Deleted, as no interaction between Bob and myself ever came to any good} Then I will repeat what you said, as I have no qualms about interacting with him. His assurances that there is nothing to be concerned about are eminently underwhelming. 4
will227457 Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 But don't so much as suggest that such freedoms must be protected by the people and that efforts to infringe upon those freedoms must be monitored and opposed, or you will be shouted down as engaging in "fear mongering." Or so it seems.which freedoms would those be? the state passing law for the minority? This has happened in the past and will happen in the future. We believe in a division of church and state then so be it...divide it, because right now it is not.
will227457 Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I wasn't with you . . . then I was . . . then I was definitely not with you. The hatred endemic in those who would compel you to bake cakes and rent out chapels and perform ceremonies against your will will never rest until . . . Heaven knows when.If our leaders cannot perform legal marriages they cannot be compelled to marry anyone, if we do not rent our chapels or sell cakes we cannot be compelled to do so. Seems pretty simple to me
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 which freedoms would those be? the state passing law for the minority? This has happened in the past and will happen in the future. We believe in a division of church and state then so be it...divide it, because right now it is not. I'm all for getting government out of the marriage business. Then we can all separately enjoy our own sacraments in the way we prefer, without having to cater to outside groups, or use our certificates and records to prove eligibility for government services. Give the services to individuals and municipalities without regard to demographics or beliefs. I've advocated this for years.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 If our leaders cannot perform legal marriages they cannot be compelled to marry anyone, if we do not rent our chapels or sell cakes we cannot be compelled to do so. Seems pretty simple to me That is where the line is now. The original question was can we rely on assurances that the line will not creep further into private speech and property rights? 2
USU78 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 If our leaders cannot perform legal marriages they cannot be compelled to marry anyone, if we do not rent our chapels or sell cakes we cannot be compelled to do so. Seems pretty simple to me Your thinking stops short of the Temple steps, doesn't it? The hatred goes deep . . . right to the Holy of Holies. 2
toon Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 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? Since The Bolt (presumably) is not in the business of renting out it's space for private functions, then I don't see how Westboro Baptists would have a claim. At the same time, The Bolt would likely violate state law if it refused service to a group of Westboro members who came in simply for a drink and otherwise avoided any disruptive behavior. If The Bolt was in the business of renting out space for private functions, then it would have a hard time denying service to Westboro on religious reasons. That doesn't mean there wouldn't be other legitimate reasons to deny them service.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) If our leaders cannot perform legal marriages they cannot be compelled to marry anyone, if we do not rent our chapels or sell cakes we cannot be compelled to do so. Seems pretty simple to meA reasonable arrangement is what we have now, where the state recognizes religious marriage ceremonies as being legally binding without requiring individual religious groups to perform ceremonies that do not conform to their faith. What is being forced upon us is a change in that arrangement whereby religious groups will undergo such coercion. That's not OK, and it amounts to an instance of governmental tyranny driven by pressure groups. Edited October 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 2
toon Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I still think requiring The Bolt gay bar in Sacramento to accommodate a party for the Westboro Baptists would be a hoot! You seem to know a lot about this place.
will227457 Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Your thinking stops short of the Temple steps, doesn't it? The hatred goes deep . . . right to the Holy of Holies.a religious sealing ceremony is performed with no legal binding.......we need to not make this a marriage, but the ceremony that it is. In other countries you must be legally married before you are allowed to be "sealed" in the temple. This is the model we need to adopt.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 a religious sealing ceremony is performed with no legal binding.......we need to not make this a marriage, but the ceremony that it is. Except that under our doctrine, it is, in fact, a marriage. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 a religious sealing ceremony is performed with no legal binding.......we need to not make this a marriage, but the ceremony that it is. In other countries you must be legally married before you are allowed to be "sealed" in the temple. This is the model we need to adopt.Not unless and until we are forced to. It is incumbent upon us as citizens of a free republic to resist such coercion. 2
will227457 Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 A reasonable arrangement is what we have now, where the state recognizes religious marriage ceremonies as being legally binding with requiring individual religious groups to perform ceremonies that do not conform to their faith. What is being forced upon us is a change in that arrangement whereby religious groups will undergo such coercion. That's not OK, and it amounts to an instance of governmental tyranny driven by pressure groups.I am saying that we need to get out of the marriage performing duties that our leaders perform. Let the states deal with that mess and we can be as inclusive or exclusive as we want to be.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I am saying that we need to get out of the marriage performing duties that our leaders perform. Let the states deal with that mess and we can be as inclusive or exclusive as we want to be.Our leaders perform marriages. It would be a denial of our doctrine to say they do not. A temple ceremony sealing a man and woman together as husband and wife is in fact a marriage.
will227457 Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Except that under our doctrine, it is, in fact, a marriage.Show me where it says that...It is called a SEALING CEREMONY
USU78 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 a religious sealing ceremony is performed with no legal binding.......we need to not make this a marriage, but the ceremony that it is. In other countries you must be legally married before you are allowed to be "sealed" in the temple. This is the model we need to adopt. So sorry, but you entirely miss the point of this thread and the fear of government impositions that is entirely reasonable, given history and the terrible constitutional jurisprudence that Larry Tribe and the Warren Court imposed upon us. Fact is, there is no precedent for the proposition that a religion's free exercise rights will ever trump an individual's attack, regardless how that attack is packaged.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Show me where it says that...It is called a SEALING CEREMONYOh, we could start with Doctrine and Covenants 132, I suppose. But in fact, the concept of it being a marriage between a man and a woman pervades our doctrine, including "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." Go to lds.org and do a search on the term "marriage." The very concept of marriage (inside or outside of the temple) has been and is a determiner of whether or not one adheres to the law of chastity. Marriage is a concept of vital importance to the gospel, and it is for that very reason, I believe, that the Church has resisted so vigorously the legal redefinition of marriage and why, even now, it refuses to accept that redefinition, if the statements in general conference are any indication. And now, at this late stage, to surrender the very concept and definition of marriage to those who would radically redefine it -- or ultimately define it out of existence -- is to deny a divine concept, which is a very grave matter. But USU is right: You are missing the point of this thread. Please don't derail. Edited October 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
toon Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Hobby Lobby provides that for-profit businesses may use religious scruples to deny services. Hobby Lobby held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protected the right of a closely held for-profit corporation's use of religious scruples to deny service under some circumstances, notwithstanding federal law to the contrary. However, Hobby Lobby did not state non-discrimition laws. Given that the Supreme Court has previously ruled the the RFRA did not apply to state law, presumably a state's nondisrcimination law might still be applicable, depending on whether the state in question has passed legislation similar to the RFRA. 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. Hobby Lobby applies only to federal law. It does not apply to the Unruh Act. Hobby Lobby is narrowly limited to the RFRA, which as noted above, does not apply to state laws. It had nothing to do with the First Amendment. Edited October 21, 2014 by toon
MorningStar Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 How does it differ from a minister who also offers to marry people for a fee? These people still consider their chapel to be a ministry. 4
Sleeper Cell Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 This is clearly the solution, in other countries marriage ceremonies must be performed by the state. Everything else is ceremonial. An LDS bishop/temple sealer is authorized by the state to perform marriages. If the state mandates that those authorized have to perform same sex marriages then the LDS church will get out of the marriage business plain and simple. We enjoy religious freedom, and we take it for granted that out LDS leaders get to perform a binding secular contract. We will still enjoy our freedoms In other words, you are OK with the government granting rights and privileges to “doctrinally correct” churches and withholding them from churches that aren’t. Yes, we will still enjoy our freedoms. Unless, of course, we remember that religious freedom used to include “no law respecting the establishment of religion.” And this in the name of “anti-discrimination.” 3
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 You seem to know a lot about this place. Most of my expertise is due to Google. I'm not an expert but I play one on the interwebz!
Recommended Posts