Any Word On The 10:00 Am Press Conference?

[Kenngo1969]

I have no doubt she is referring to homosexuals.  Her husband was homosexual and died of aids.

OK.  Thinking back, come to think of it, I actually do remember that my sexual identity was one of my chief concerns as a three-to-twelve year old.

[thesometimesaint]

The issues are not a matter of constitutional law, but statutory law.

 

No one I know thinks the US constitution mandates service to anyone.

 

I wish people would not invoke the constitution every time without actually reading what it says.

 

The 14th Amendment disagrees with that claim. Certain Defacto and Dejure forms of discrimination have been determined illegal according to the US constitution by the US Congress in Civil Rights  legislation, and upheld by the USSC as unconstitutional discrimination.

 

A good example, if you will is, say I own a grocery store and I don't want to carry green beans. Say for whatever reason I don't like green beans. I have every right to discriminate against green beans. I can even tell you to your face why I don't like green beans, I don't have to carry green beans and there is no law that says I must carry green beans  What I can't legally do is if I do carry green beans is refuse to sell them to you because of your race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation.

 

If you really want to get into an argument about what the US constitution actually says, and how it is legally interpreted please present your best argument.

 

Mormons should be the last people in the US to claim the right to discriminate on the basis of religion.

 

BTW I really do like green beans.

Edited January 29, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Buzzard]

I think what makes this whole thing tricky and tender to the touch, and full of misunderstandings and hurt feelings and suspicion is that religious conservatives and gays/SSA/LGBT, have both a history that's not real pleasant, a demand to be considered 100% the same vs. a doctrine considered to be of divine origin that certain behaviors are immoral, and the fact that this dispute is not one size fits all. 

As a principle, being against all discrimination sounds great.  But when you get down to cases and individuals, it gets wobbly.

I'll use a couple of the examples Elder Oaks used.  A local pharmacy owner, not the manager of a large chain, does not stock the morning after pill.  Customer brings in two scrips, he fills one, tells the customer that they don't carry this other product, but Walgreens across the street does. He didn't refuse service to the person, since he filled the second scrip for them.  But is he liable for not carrying a certain product or product due to personal moral concerns?

The second would be the doctor.  Works at a clinic open to the public that provides OB/GYN services. Sees a patient several times for routine checkups and services.  One day she tells him that she and her wife want a child, and she wants to be inseminated.  The doctor has performed artificial insemination on other hetero couples before, but tells this patient that for that procedure, he will need to refer her to one of his partners at the clinic, since he has a personal belief that gays should not have children. He hasn't discriminated against serving this patient in the past, but does not want to perform that procedure for a lesbian-any lesbian. Since he offered to have another doctor perform the procedure, the patient cannot say that her access to care has been impinged, but is the first doctor guilty of discrimination and subject to penalties?  I don't know how simple the answer is. These days, the answer might depend on whether the lesbian knows a good lawyer who likes these kind of cases. 

And these are just two examples that Elder Oaks used.  If we sat around a virtual campfire and brainstormed, how many more could we come up with?  Getting to the answers would take compromise and goodwill, and I didn't hear a lot of either in the response from gay advocates the last few days.  I heard more suspicion and the sentiment of "You mistreated us for years, now you want to play nice.  That's not the way it works".

Are the two sides doomed to perpetual conflict on these issues, liberally lubricated with litigation?

[Kenngo1969]

Knowing Carol Lynn Pearson  I would not be the least bit surprised if she had gay people in mind when she wrote that song.    I walk His path.  I will not discriminate against a single person.  We are all sinners.  We are all beggars.  We are called to serve everyone.

Hmmm ... OK.  Usually, I don't attempt to read people's minds no matter how well I might think I know them, but, to each, his own.  I don't know if Ms. Pearson wrote the song, after which the Primary organization received her permission to include it in the organization's music materials, or if the Primary specifically commissioned her to write it.  If the former, then it's certainly possible that one factor that motivated her to compose the song is her concern that children might mistreat gays.  Young children are fairly guileless.  I don't know that it would occur to (m)any of them to mistreat someone on the basis of his or her sexual identity If the latter, I highly doubt that the Primary's general leadership would have explicitly instructed her to keep such a concern in mind when composing it.   

Christ did not provide any exceptions to his teachings of caring and serving everyone no matter what their sins or who they were.

 

I don't recall making that argument in my previous post (or anywhere else, for that matter).  If you can point out to me where I did so, I'll be happy to retract it.

 

I follow his teachings.

 

OK.  I don't think I said anything in my previous post that is inconsistent with His teachings.  If you believe I did, we'll simply have to agree to disagree about that.

[Danzo]

Mounting a campaign to take away marriage rights for homosexual couples.

 

Amicus curiae briefs filed at the state and federal level to against marriage rights and housing/employment non-discrimination.

 

Since when is being involved in public decision making and court proceedings the equivalent of "taking away rights" especially when such rights are not firmly established (the US supreme court is just now taking it up)?

 

Under your definition, every elected official, every police officer, every voter, is guilty of taking away rights on every issue the face, unless they shut up and get out of the way.

 

Why do you wish to silence everyone?  

 

Or are you of the opinion that participation in government is only for people who agree with you? 

[ERayR]

OK.  Thinking back, come to think of it, I actually do remember that my sexual identity was one of my chief concerns as a three-to-twelve year old.

 

Okay I did not realize it was written when she was a child.  Trying to multitask too many tasks.

[Tacenda]

DJBrown, in answer to your question about what the church has done to impede gay rights...it is just that they are fighting SSM or the gays the right to marry politically and with it's members, and the undertones that people take from that, IMO are thinking gays are evil for acting their homosexuality out.  These are my are my biggest issues.  I think gays want to marry because it will sanctify the relationship and help keep them monogamist.  This is the same feeling heterosexuals have of being faithful to their spouse.  I don't think being faithful to one's spouse has ever been as strong as it is right now (in my lifetime) and hope it to continue to be so. 

 

Won't allowing the homosexuals the ability to keep the trend going, only help?  For so long they haven't had that ability, and maybe it enabled some of them to act sexually promiscuous.  Sometimes I think of Pres. Kennedy's affairs, how the press didn't even touch it unlike they did with Pres. Clinton.  I think that more and more, despite seeing crud on t.v and movies, I think there is a trend, to me at least, that more want to live a monogamist life within marriage.  Even before the 50's, in our early church, there were male leaders that didn't think it was possible, and to keep from being unfaithful, they thought polygamy was part of the answer.  But society is better now, yes I said better!  I think men and women believe it can be done.  Although I remember a scene or two in movies where men thought that it would be too hard to just have one woman sexually in their lives.  But think that now gays want a pact of marriage that will provide that faithful system.  All of what I've said is more in keeping with a "perfect world" of course!      

Edited January 29, 2015 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

PFS.  http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2108746-155/we-all-can-be-more-civil

OK. Thanks.

 

I did not attend the news conference, but I understand that reporters were allowed to have brief, informal one-on-one interviews with the principals immediately after the formal news conference. It might have been in such a setting that Elder Oaks made those comments, in which case I think it would be difficult-to-impossible to find a published word-for-word transcript, much less a video or audio recording.

 

And as I've pointed out before, with such one-on-one exchanges, a reader is not altogether privy to context and nuance, so it can be difficult on occasion to ascertain true intent or meaning.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Since when is being involved in public decision making and court proceedings the equivalent of "taking away rights" especially when such rights are not firmly established (the US supreme court is just now taking it up)?

 

Under your definition, every elected official, every police officer, every voter, is guilty of taking away rights on every issue the face, unless they shut up and get out of the way.

 

Why do you wish to silence everyone?  

 

Or are you of the opinion that participation in government is only for people who agree with you? 

 

No.  Please take a closer look at what I actually wrote...

 

You'll note that I said they "mounted a campaign" and filed briefs.  I did not say that they, specifically, took away rights.

[Danzo]

The 14th Amendment disagrees with that claim. Certain Defacto and Dejure forms of discrimination have been determined illegal according to the US constitution by the US Congress in Civil Rights  legislation, and upheld by the USSC as unconstitutional discrimination.

 

BTW I really do like green beans.

 

 

The 14th Amendment disagrees with that claim. Certain Defacto and Dejure forms of discrimination have been determined illegal according to the US constitution by the US Congress in Civil Rights  legislation, and upheld by the USSC as unconstitutional discrimination.

 

A good example, if you will is, say I own a grocery store and I don't want to carry green beans. Say for whatever reason I don't like green beans. I have every right to discriminate against green beans. I can even tell you to your face why I don't like green beans, I don't have to carry green beans and there is no law that says I must carry green beans  What I can't legally do is if I do carry green beans is refuse to sell them to you because of your race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation.

 

If you really want to get into an argument about what the US constitution actually says, and how it is legally interpreted please present your best argument.

 

Mormons should be the last people in the US to claim the right to discriminate on the basis of religion.

 

BTW I really do like green beans.

 

Maybe you should study the difference between statutory law and constitution law before making absurd statements like this.

 

There is no constitutional requirement for civil rights statues.  They can be passed or repealed at will by congress. The details are constantly modified by legislatures and courts

 

This a call for reference for any court decision that says that the 14th amendment Compels the creation of laws that compel people to offer services that violate their conscience. 

[rockpond]

OK. Thanks.

 

I did not attend the news conference, but I understand that reporters were allowed to have brief, informal one-on-one interviews with the principals immediately after the formal news conference. It might haver been in such a setting that Elder Oaks made those comments, in which case I think it would be difficult-to-impossible to find a published word-for-word transcript, much less a video or audio recording.

 

And as I've pointed out before, with such one-on-one exchanges, a reader is not altogether privy to context and nuance, so it can be difficult on occasion to ascertain true intent or meaning.

 

Agreed.  Hopefully since PFS's quote seems to be getting legs, Elder Oaks will see fit to publicly clarify his intent and meaning.

[Danzo]

No.  Please take a closer look at what I actually wrote...

 

You'll note that I said they "mounted a campaign" and filed briefs.  I did not say that they, specifically, took away rights.

 

So you think it is OK to have an opinion on what rights are granted, and to whom.

 

You think it is OK to express that opinion by voting and encouraging others to vote that way, as  well use the courts.

 

Or do you want people who disagree with you to just Shut Up and keep them to  themselves.

[rockpond]

So you think it is OK to have an opinion on what rights are granted, and to whom.

 

You think it is OK to express that opinion by voting and encouraging others to vote that way, as  well use the courts.

 

Or do you want people who disagree with you to just Shut Up and keep them to  themselves.

 

It is definitely okay to have an opinion on rights and to express that opinion through voting, campaigning, and the courts.

[Kenngo1969]

Okay I did not realize it was written when she was a child.  Trying to multitask too many tasks.

It wasn't (at least as far as I know ), but it's used as a Primary song; hence, my three-to-twelve-year-old reference.

[thesometimesaint]

So you think it is OK to have an opinion on what rights are granted, and to whom.

 

You think it is OK to express that opinion by voting and encouraging others to vote that way, as  well use the courts.

 

Or do you want people who disagree with you to just Shut Up and keep them to  themselves.

 

I actually want both sides to present their best arguments to both the ordinary citizenry and the courts. So far the vast majority of both ordinary citizens and courts have decided that SSM is a legal non-issue and is best left up to the individual citizens. The USSC is by June of this year is to decide if it is a federally insured right or a state prerogative. 

Edited January 29, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Scott Lloyd]

Agreed.  Hopefully since PFS's quote seems to be getting legs, Elder Oaks will see fit to publicly clarify his intent and meaning.

Where is it getting legs other than here and on maybe one or two critics' boards or blogs?

[DJBrown]

Mounting a campaign to take away marriage rights for homosexual couples.

 

Amicus curiae briefs filed at the state and federal level to against marriage rights and housing/employment non-discrimination.

 

Those "rights" didn't exist when the church helped to organize the defense of traditional marriage.  It was not legal for gay couples to marry.  But the church campaigned to take those "rights" away?  And even if we take your assertion as true for arguments sake, what did the church actually do that took those rights away?  It publicized its opinion and position in a legal and appropriate way.

[Ahab]

I'd like to see the cake cases appealed all the way up to the SCOTUS, because that is the type of issue that I think is the worst type of affront to personal freedom. The fact that SSM is now legal shouldn't mean every business owner is now obligated to support it by not having discriminating factors for who they will serve.

Which so-called "wise" guy came up with the idea that someone who is willing to serve something to some people must necessarily serve that same something to all other people?

That is the guy that has gotten us into this mess.

[Danzo]

I actually want both sides to present their best arguments to both the ordinary citizenry and the courts. So far the vast majority of both ordinary citizens and courts have decided that SSM is a legal non-issue and is best left up to the individual citizens. The USSC is by June of this year is to decide if it is a federally insured right or a state prerogative. 

 

once the issue is decided, do we need to have a trial for the guys who's opinions didn't win?

[Ahab]

once the issue is decided, do we need to have a trial for the guys who's opinions didn't win?

Losers do and should have the right to appeal all the way up to the top, and God actually wants us to go through the proper channels. In America the highest secular court is the SCOTUS, but if the loser still wants to appeal their decision they can and should still appeal to the court that is above that secular court where God is the judge.

The word is, he will be ruling here "soon".

[rockpond]

Where is it getting legs other than here and on maybe one or two critics' boards or blogs?

 

Social media.

[rockpond]

Those "rights" didn't exist when the church helped to organize the defense of traditional marriage.  It was not legal for gay couples to marry.

 

Yes, in CA it was legal for gay couples to marry when the church successfully campaigned for Prop 8.

 

But the church campaigned to take those "rights" away?  And even if we take your assertion as true for arguments sake, what did the church actually do that took those rights away?  It publicized its opinion and position in a legal and appropriate way.

 

Again, I did not say that the church took the rights away.  I said that it campaigned to take those rights away.   I didn't say it wasn't legal.  It was legal.

 

I said that given what they had to say in the press conference yesterday, I would expect them to show some remorse for past actions and statements against non-discrimination ordinances for homosexuals and against religious freedom with respect to marriage.

[california boy]

You are missing the point. I would also do all of those things, but I think people who don't want to should have that right.

Perhaps the point is to teach them correct principles Teach them to serve all of God's children whether they are sinners or not.  Teach them to be chairtable and giving even when others are doing something we think is a sin.  If the church won't teach those principles and instead goes on record defending bad behavior, then I will take a stand.  I will declare to all the world that we need to be more kind, less judgemental and give of ourselves to others no matter who they are or what sins they are committing.  Will you stand with me in not discriminating against sinners?  Or will you stand with Elder Oaks who is on a campaign to encourage discriminating against those religion thinks is sinning.  We are all beggers.  We are all sinners.  Leave the judgement of other people's sins to God.

[DJBrown]

DJBrown, in answer to your question about what the church has done to impede gay rights...it is just that they are fighting SSM or the gays the right to marry politically and with it's members, and the undertones that people take from that, IMO are thinking gays are evil for acting their homosexuality out.  These are my are my biggest issues.  I think gays want to marry because it will sanctify the relationship and help keep them monogamist.  This is the same feeling heterosexuals have of being faithful to their spouse.  I don't think being faithful to one's spouse has ever been as strong as it is right now (in my lifetime) and hope it to continue to be so. 

 

Won't allowing the homosexuals the ability to keep the trend going, only help?  For so long they haven't had that ability, and maybe it enabled some of them to act sexually promiscuous.  Sometimes I think of Pres. Kennedy's affairs, how the press didn't even touch it unlike they did with Pres. Clinton.  I think that more and more, despite seeing crud on t.v and movies, I think there is a trend, to me at least, that more want to live a monogamist life within marriage.  Even before the 50's, in our early church, there were male leaders that didn't think it was possible, and to keep from being unfaithful, they thought polygamy was part of the answer.  But society is better now, yes I said better!  I think men and women believe it can be done.  Although I remember a scene or two in movies where men thought that it would be too hard to just have one woman sexually in their lives.  But think that now gays want a pact of marriage that will provide that faithful system.  All of what I've said is more in keeping with a "perfect world" of course!      

 

Psst.  The majority of gay marriage are open marriages.  

 

That is the dirty secret.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

[Buzzard]

Will you stand with me in not discriminating against sinners?  Or will you stand with Elder Oaks who is on a campaign to encourage discriminating against those religion thinks is sinning.  We are all beggers.  We are all sinners.  Leave the judgement of other people's sins to God.

Things get a little dicey not standing with the apostles.  Did you read my little ditty about how the principle of non-discrimination sounds wonderful, but real life can be a bit messier?