pogi Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 But I asked you to cite an instance where, in your words, someone stated "they opposed ALL anti-discrimination laws" (emphasis yours). In response, you gave me a quote from Ahab referring to providing services. It said nothing about laws against employment discrimination, which, by definition "ALL anti-discrimination laws" would include. Thus, your citation was not responsive to what I asked for. Forgive me Scott Loyd, I am a sinner. Now I am asking you to consider "the point".
ERayR Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Marriage is essentially a religious rite recognized by the state.. Not really. It is a licensed governmental ceremony. That is why the appeal to the law for recognition and states authorizing SSM. The only question is whether it is a states right or a federal. Edited January 28, 2015 by ERayR
Scott Lloyd Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Forgive me Scott Loyd, I am a sinner. Now I am asking you to consider "the point".I would like you to consider my point about the qualitative difference between discrimination in employment vs. discrimination in the providing of non-essential services. I think the analogy I drew has merit. Being opposed to "all" forms of discrimination is just as extreme as upholding "all" forms of discrimination. Edited January 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
pogi Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Its important that we have the legal right to lawfully discriminate. Surely you are not stating this in the absolute sense. Are you saying this in response to the Church's position? In case you haven't all noticed, the Church is in favor of (not opposed to) new (that means more than what already exists) anti-discrimination laws. Edited January 28, 2015 by pogi
Ahab Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 What legal measures then would be put in place to secure #2?The government making anti-discrimination laws could make other laws to require the payment of enough funds from its customers/citizens to provide for enough government housing units and government jobs for anyone of any persuasion, for one thing...funds that although they are required as payments from its citizens/customers are not implying that the payment constitutes approval of the government's use of those funds for that purpose. Or government could enact laws to provide payments to private enterprises as incentives to offer housing or jobs to anybody of any persuasion...incentives other than making it illegal for a private party to refuse housing, jobs, or other things to particular types of people.And there are probably some other good options. The main thing I am against is making it illegal to refuse to serve or provide ptoducts for certain people, while instead relying on the charity of others. Supporting charitable giving while not making it illegal to refuse to give charitably.
Rob Osborn Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Surely you are not stating this as an absolute statement. Are you saying this in response to the Church's position? In case you haven't all noticed, the Church is in favor of (not opposed to) new (that means more than what already exists) anti-discrimination laws.Humm....lets see. The church brought up several instances of lawful discrimination (the Catholic pharmacist who refuses to fill morning after pill prescription, the physician who refuses to do artificial insemination for lesbian couple, etc) and defended that position as a right that should be protected.
ERayR Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Surely you are not stating this as an absolute statement. Are you saying this in response to the Church's position? In case you haven't all noticed, the Church is in favor of (not opposed to) new (that means more than what already exists) anti-discrimination laws. Then it is okay to pass laws against non-approved thought? Just asking.
thesometimesaint Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Not really. It is a licensed governmental ceremony. That is why the appeal to the law for recognition and states authorizing SSM. The only question is whether it is a states right or a federal. It is a religious ceremony. We get our marriage laws from the ancient Romans, by way of English Common Law. We get the ceremony from the ancient Hebrews. I agree it is a question of if it is a federal right or a state right. I see no legal way around the Supremacy Clause and/or the 14th Amendment to US constitution. We'll know either way by June of this year. Edited January 28, 2015 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 The government making anti-discrimination laws could make other laws to require the payment of enough funds from its customers/citizens to provide for enough government housing units and government jobs for anyone of any persuasion, for one thing...funds that although they are required as payments from its citizens/customers are not implying that the payment constitutes approval of the government's use of those funds for that purpose.Or government could enact laws to provide payments to private enterprises as incentives to offer housing or jobs to anybody of any persuasion...incentives other than making it illegal for a private party to refuse housing, jobs, or other things to particular types of people.And there are probably some other good options.The main thing I am against is making it illegal to refuse to serve or provide ptoducts for certain people, while instead relying on the charity of others. Supporting charitable giving while not making it illegal to refuse to give charitably. IOW Separate But Equal. That didn't work out all that well.
pogi Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Humm....lets see. The church brought up several instances of lawful discrimination (the Catholic pharmacist who refuses to fill morning after pill prescription, the physician who refuses to do artificial insemination for lesbian couple, etc) and defended that position as a right that should be protected. I just wanted to clarify, I couldn't tell if you were absolutely opposed to all non-discrimination laws like Ahab is but pretends not to be. I think we all (with the exception of Ahab) can agree that both the right to discriminate in certain case, and the right to not be discriminated against in certain cases, should be protected. We just can't agree on where to draw the line. This is the conundrum of the whole thing that I keep bringing up. To be pro anti-discrimination for any reason might restrict the religious freedoms of another. To be pro religious freedom in all cases, will put others at risk of unfair discrimination. Edited January 28, 2015 by pogi
Ahab Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 IOW Separate But Equal. That didn't work out all that well.It wasn't done right, and it should be remembered that we are not equal in all things.As a point of context we should think of how we're going to be segregated into different sub-societies by God with those who are greater and have more to give still trying to help those who need help with something.We should do what Jesus would and will do, don't you think? Think about it.
ERayR Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 It is a religious ceremony. We get our marriage laws from the ancient Romans, by way of English Common Law. We get the ceremony from the ancient Hebrews. I agree it is a question of if it is a federal right or a state right. I see no legal way around the Supremacy Clause and/or the 14th Amendment to US constitution. We'll know either way by June of this year. Irregardless of where the ceremony came from it was preempted by government a long time ago.
pogi Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Then it is okay to pass laws against non-approved thought? Just asking. I don't know what you mean. Perhaps I was misunderstood.
thesometimesaint Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Irregardless of where the ceremony came from it was preempted by government a long time ago. True. In this country we are subject to the laws of the government. As a government we can't recognize any religious ceremony as legally binding. It's that old First Amendment thing. Nor can the government prohibit the free exercise thereof(among consent adults). If I want a religious ceremony, say marriage, the government can't stop me, but it doesn't have to legally recognize it either. As it didn't and doesn't with polygamy. Personally I think the government overstepped. and oversteps it authority in prosecuting polygamists for practicing polygamy among consenting adults. But that doesn't mean I want to have more wives than the one I have right now.
Nofear Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Who needs the Superbowl when there is the entertainment of threads like this?
Ahab Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 In this country we are subject to the laws of the government. As a government we can't recognize any religious ceremony as legally binding. It's that old First Amendment thing. Nor can the government prohibit the free exercise thereof(among consent adults). If I want a religious ceremony, say marriage, the government can't stop me, but it doesn't have to legally recognize it either. As it didn't and doesn't with polygamy. Personally I think the government overstepped. and oversteps it authority in prosecuting polygamists for practicing polygamy among consenting adults. But that doesn't mean I want to have more wives than the one I have right now. Our Lord's kingdom works pretty much on the same principles. Just because some religous group or government entity thinks something should be recognized as authoritative doesn't mean God considers it so in his kingdom. We have to play by his rules to have things binding in his kingdom, and wishful thinking just doesn't cut it. 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 I just wanted to clarify, I couldn't tell if you were absolutely opposed to all non-discrimination laws like Ahab is but pretends not to be. I think we all (with the exception of Ahab) can agree that both the right to discriminate in certain case, and the right to not be discriminated against in certain cases, should be protected. We just can't agree on where to draw the line. This is the conundrum of the whole thing that I keep bringing up. To be pro anti-discrimination for any reason might restrict the religious freedoms of another. To be pro religious freedom in all cases, will put others at risk of unfair discrimination.In an ever increasing immoral society in which we do live in, that line gets pushed around and as more and more fall into immorality the line gets pushed further and further into violations of freedoms of the moral. Immorality is not a right. Thats the real issue.
Brian 2.0 Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 The government making anti-discrimination laws could make other laws to require the payment of enough funds from its customers/citizens to provide for enough government housing units and government jobs for anyone of any persuasion, for one thing...funds that although they are required as payments from its citizens/customers are not implying that the payment constitutes approval of the government's use of those funds for that purpose.Or government could enact laws to provide payments to private enterprises as incentives to offer housing or jobs to anybody of any persuasion...incentives other than making it illegal for a private party to refuse housing, jobs, or other things to particular types of people.And there are probably some other good options.The main thing I am against is making it illegal to refuse to serve or provide ptoducts for certain people, while instead relying on the charity of others. Supporting charitable giving while not making it illegal to refuse to give charitably. So you believe it should be legal if Apple decided to not sell the iPhone to gay, blacks, or women. It may be bad business for them to do it, but they should be allowed to make that decision in the selling of their iPhones in the US. Correct? Gays, Blacks, and women will just have to find another smartphone, because obviously no amount of government funds could produce an iPhone, it being a protected property. I for one am thankful we live in a country with laws that do NOT allow this, rather than allow it. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 So you believe it should be legal if Apple decided to not sell the iPhone to gay, blacks, or women. It may be bad business for them to do it, but they should be allowed to make that decision in the selling of their iPhones in the US. Correct? Gays, Blacks, and women will just have to find another smartphone, because obviously no amount of government funds could produce an iPhone, it being a protected property. I for one am thankful we live in a country with laws that do NOT allow this, rather than allow it.If it would be "bad business" for them, how long do you think it would continue, with or without government intervention?
Brian 2.0 Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 If it would be "bad business" for them, how long do you think it would continue, with or without government intervention? Heads of companies have knowing done things not ideal to the bottom line for religious reason. I understand my scenario would put Apple out of business, or at least it's CEO and the discriminatory policy removed, without any government intervention. But that's beside my point. My question is if my hypothetical situation should even be legal?
pogi Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) In an ever increasing immoral society in which we do live in, that line gets pushed around and as more and more fall into immorality the line gets pushed further and further into violations of freedoms of the moral. Immorality is not a right. Thats the real issue. Is the Church wrong for supporting gay rights? What about the religious freedoms of those who cannot conscionably hire a gay person, or rent a home knowing that immoral acts will be performed in it? Edited January 28, 2015 by pogi
Scott Lloyd Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Heads of companies have knowing done things not ideal to the bottom line for religious reason. I understand my scenario would put Apple out of business, or at least it's CEO and the discriminatory policy removed, without any government intervention. But that's beside my point. My question is if my hypothetical situation should even be legal?My point is you can uglify or horribalize the issue with all manner of scenarios, but if they are not likely, how relevant are they to the discussion?
Calm Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Big businesses would tend to do stuff more PR related, privately owned and/or small companies dependent on a local community could discriminate without monetary cost if supported by the local community....we have seen that case for years, it is why people resorted to appealing to the federal government after all, because local opinion supported bigotry. Edited January 28, 2015 by calmoriah 3
Scott Lloyd Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Is the Church wrong for supporting gay rights? What about the religious freedoms of those who cannot conscionably hire a gay person, or rent a home knowing that immoral acts will be performed in it?I don't see it as a matter of the Church supporting "gay rights" so much as support for basic human rights to such things as employment, housing, etc.
thesometimesaint Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Our Lord's kingdom works pretty much on the same principles. Just because some religous group or government entity thinks something should be recognized as authoritative doesn't mean God considers it so in his kingdom. We have to play by his rules to have things binding in his kingdom, and wishful thinking just doesn't cut it. God can recognize or not recognize anything he wants. The LDS believe God recognizes only our ceremonies. The problems arise when we mortals inflict harm on others because God told us to. The US isn't based on what God says. The US doesn't have Divine Right of Kings/Popes/Ministers of Faith/or Prophets. The US is based on the consent of the governed. You know that old "We The People" thing.
Recommended Posts