Any Word On The 10:00 Am Press Conference?

[Pahoran]

Strawman argument.

Those are all examples of people who would be forced to carry and sell something different than what they already routinely carry in stock and sell to the general public.

Gay couples asking for wedding cakes or dresses or flowers or photographs are asking for the same goods and services that such businesses already sell to the general public.

 

More to the point, they are asking for bespoke items or services in direct support of an event that violates the provider's conscience.

Do you understand what a conscience is?

Or, being triumphantly unrepentant, do you suppose consciences just don't matter?

 

I have yet to read any Biblical or LDS scripture saying that Christ taught that his followers shouldn't sell their products to sinners of ANY persuasion--so how can such be "against their religion"?!

Speaking of straw man arguments, there's a perfect example.

 

Ironically, no one seems to be seriously advocating to repeal anti-discrimination laws allowing business owners to refuse business to minorities because of differences of race, religion, gender, marital/divorce/shaking-up-in-sin, convicted felon, or other social statuses---the objection is only about providing services to gays and lebians, or abortions.

It's not at all ironic.

As you perfectly well know, neither Elder Oks nor anyone else is objecting to "providing services to gays and lebians" [sic].

The objection is about being forced to actively support a particular type of immoral event.

It's not a question of "who," as in sexually confused people; it's a question of "what," as in "what kind of event is this."

No-one ever accused the baker of refusing to provide a birthday cake to a "gay" person.

And why would he?

You see, to believing Christians, including but not limited to Latter-day Saints, there's nothing inherently immoral about a birthday celebration, regardless of the kinds of sins committed by the celebrant.

However, a "same sex marriage" is inherently immoral.

And so is coercing someone into actively supporting it.

 

So the accusation that he was refusing to provide services to "gays" is clearly false.

 

So will you stop making that accusation from now on?

 

Even the abortion example is absurd once you start thinking about it... Is there a Christian doctor or an LDS doctor or some Doctor who routinely performed regular abortions but became mortified when he found out that the abortions he was being forced to perform an abortion that violated his religion?!

 

That's not even coherent, Daniel.

It's absurd to imagine a Christian doctor not knowing what an abortion is before he ever performed his first one.

 

Let's repeat that... its just "doing business with gays and lesbians" and "killing or aborting fetuses." Kinda tells you what Elder Oaks REALLY thinks about gays, eh?

 

No.

It does not.

Because, as has been exhaustively demonstrated, it is NOT about "doing business with gays and lesbians."

But will you and your team ever give up on that lie?

We should live so long!

Regards,

Pahoran

[smac97]

Elder Oaks and Elder Christofferson have some thoughts about reactions to the press conference: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=33288212

Some highlights:

 

SALT LAKE CITY — LDS leaders knew they wouldn't satisfy everyone when they held a news conference Tuesday to call for fairness for both LGBT people and religious people.

So criticism from both ends of the spectrum didn't surprise Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But people who prefer all-or-nothing solutions on either side are avoiding the hard work of balancing LGBT and religious rights, they said Thursday in a visit with the Deseret News.

Elder Oaks and Elder Christofferson said LDS Church leaders will be disappointed if their proposal for laws that protect LGBT people from discrimination while safeguarding religious rights doesn't influence the national debate.

While they expressed gratitude for people on both sides who responded favorably, they said the criticism is a sign they got it right, and that their position is needed.

...

The harshest criticism from LGBT rights advocates, like that published by New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, said the church was seeking legal permission to discriminate against gays.

"When I heard that I can tell you my reaction," Elder Oaks said. "I thought, well that illustrates how much we need to have people educated about the principles we are teaching of fairness and balance, because that's a very unbalanced statement.

"I would be ashamed to make a comparable statement saying that nondiscrimination is just trying to wipe out religious freedom," he added. "That would be the equivalent. I'd be ashamed to make that kind of a statement, and I'm sorry that a responsible voice in the New York Times made it. I'm hopeful that he'll see that's not our motivation and that's not the intended effect of what we're doing."

Both church leaders said such criticism is rooted in a belief that God does not exist or that rejects the idea of religious conscience.

"People who do not believe in God have a very hard time seeing the merit of the free exercise of religion," Elder Oaks said, "and they often make fun of it. They downgrade it."

"Religious conscience is real," Elder Christofferson said, "and though some may or may not have it doesn't detract or take away from the fact that it's a very critical part of many peoples' lives.

"In general, the idea of saying 'this is just a license to discriminate' or 'you're seeking a license to discriminate' is a way of avoiding the hard work of finding a way to balance competing values that are both critically important. Frankly, what we're saying is, we gotta do the hard work. We can't just throw out a slogan and get away with that. It's not good enough."

...

Some exceptions

The senior LDS leaders provided additional examples of religious freedoms they say should be protected in nondiscrimination legislation.

"I believe that there's some misunderstanding and even mischaracterization sometimes when we talk about exemptions for religious freedom," Elder Christofferson said. "We're not talking about denial of service and that sort of thing as a standard. There may be an exception here or there to protect conscience, but by and large that's not the issue.

"These two values — nondiscrimination and religious freedom — for the most part don't compete, but there are areas where they do run up against each other. That's the minority of the circumstances, and that's what we have to sort out, that's what we have to reach a balance in."

Elder Oaks restated the church's position that nondiscrimination laws and ordinances should protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation, with some exceptions for religious conscience.

"We think there is a very real question about whether there should be an absolute nondiscrimination (provision) in housing that would not let a widow, say, who rents out a room in her home, make some individual choices on the basis of her conscience, so if you have nondiscrimination as a value that overrides everything else, that's not good."

He said such "gradations" will be difficult for lawmakers to draw.

"But I hope they will be drawn and you won't get an absolute 'no discrimination' law or (one that is) an absolute, 'religion is an excuse for everything.'"

Don't expect church leaders to comment on specific bills in coming months. That's impractical for leaders of a worldwide church, they said, though sometimes "very specific circumstances" will lead them to "oppose this or promote that."

Read the whole thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

More to the point, they are asking for bespoke items or services in direct support of an event that violates the provider's conscience.

Do you understand what a conscience is?

Or, being triumphantly unrepentant, do you suppose consciences just don't matter?

 

Speaking of straw man arguments, there's a perfect example.

 

It's not at all ironic.

As you perfectly well know, neither Elder Oks nor anyone else is objecting to "providing services to gays and lebians" [sic].

The objection is about being forced to actively support a particular type of immoral event.

It's not a question of "who," as in sexually confused people; it's a question of "what," as in "what kind of event is this."

No-one ever accused the baker of refusing to provide a birthday cake to a "gay" person.

And why would he?

You see, to believing Christians, including but not limited to Latter-day Saints, there's nothing inherently immoral about a birthday celebration, regardless of the kinds of sins committed by the celebrant.

However, a "same sex marriage" is inherently immoral.

And so is coercing someone into actively supporting it.

 

So the accusation that he was refusing to provide services to "gays" is clearly false.

 

So will you stop making that accusation from now on?

 

 

That's not even coherent, Daniel.

It's absurd to imagine a Christian doctor not knowing what an abortion is before he ever performed his first one.

 

 

No.

It does not.

Because, as has been exhaustively demonstrated, it is NOT about "doing business with gays and lesbians."

But will you and your team ever give up on that lie?

We should live so long!

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm curious about the scope and breadth of the line of reasoning on display in this thread.

Would a gay owner of a bakery be entitled to refuse to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church with a "GODS HATE F**GS" message on the icing?

I'm just trying to figure out the rules regarding one's conscience are.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mystery Meat]

I'm curious about the scope and breadth of the line of reasoning on display in this thread.

Would a gay owner of a bakery be entitled to refuse to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church with a "GODS HATE F**GS" message on the icing?

I'm just trying to figure out the rules regarding one's conscience are.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Common sense says yes. Whatever some on this board are using says no.

[Duncan]

Bake the blooming cake already, don't go into business if you don't want customers buying your product. I think though it gets stickier with stuff like end of life decisions and the Dr. doesn't agree with it-no doctor should be forced to end the life of someone. I don't know American law at all except what I learned on TV's Night Court and Law and Order so I can't speak to that or this constitution flub dubbery but here in Canada no one has sought to force the Church to marry gay couples

[Duncan]

I'm curious about the scope and breadth of the line of reasoning on display in this thread.

Would a gay owner of a bakery be entitled to refuse to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church with a "GODS HATE F**GS" message on the icing?

I'm just trying to figure out the rules regarding one's conscience are.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

put the words on it and instead of covering it with icing put toothpaste or mayonaisse on it, they get their cake and have minty fresh breath!

[Daniel2]

I'm curious about the scope and breadth of the line of reasoning on display in this thread.

Would a gay owner of a bakery be entitled to refuse to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church with a "GODS HATE F**GS" message on the icing?

I'm just trying to figure out the rules regarding one's conscience are.

Thanks,

-Smac

Expecting a bakery to bake the SAME cake for a gay couple that said bakery bakes for any given heterosexual couples is different than demanding that a bakery decorate a cake with a new, specific, targeted message that any given customer demands, but which is beyond the services of what the bakery typically provides.

Bakers aren't required to write whatever a customer may demand that they write (hate speech, vulgar or indecent words, etc)... but anti-discrimination laws require them to provide the SAME product to all of their customers, without discrimination. That is very different than what you're suggesting, and remains legally and internally consistent.

[DBMormon]

ughhhhhhh  

[Duncan]

Expecting a bakery to bake the SAME cake for a gay couple that said bakery bakes for any given heterosexual couples is different than demanding that a bakery decorate a cake with a new, specific, targeted message that any given customer demands, but which is beyond the services of what the bakery typically provides.

Bakers aren't required to write whatever a customer may demand that they write (hate speech, vulgar or indecent words, etc)... but anti-discrimination laws require them to provide the SAME product to all of their customers, without discrimination. That is very different than what you're suggesting, and remains legally and internally consistent.

 

 

apparently their are 'Adult' bakeries or provide adult content for cakes but I don't know what kind of laws are around that stuff or how common they are

[smac97]

Bake the blooming cake already, don't go into business if you don't want customers buying your product.

Is that a realistic response? Do homosexuals want to be coerced, by the force of law, into providing a product that contravenes their consciences?

Could a homosexual owner of a t-shirt company turn down a request for 1000 shirts saying "I support traditional marriage!"? Or would you just tell him/her "Just make the blooming t-shirts already, don't go into business if you don't want customers buying your product."?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

Is that a realistic response? Do homosexuals want to be coerced, by the force of law, into providing a product that contravenes their consciences?

Could a homosexual owner of a t-shirt company turn down a request for 1000 shirts saying "I support traditional marriage!"? Or would you just tell him/her "Just make the blooming t-shirts already, don't go into business if you don't want customers buying your product."?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

if they don't feel comfortable doing it then they can get someone else who is or they can quit and find other employment

[carbon dioxide]

Expecting a bakery to bake the SAME cake for a gay couple that said bakery bakes for any given heterosexual couples is different than demanding that a bakery decorate a cake with a new, specific, targeted message that any given customer demands, but which is beyond the services of what the bakery typically provides.

Bakers aren't required to write whatever a customer may demand that they write (hate speech, vulgar or indecent words, etc)... but anti-discrimination laws require them to provide the SAME product to all of their customers, without discrimination. That is very different than what you're suggesting, and remains legally and internally consistent.

A baker can simply sell the exact same cake to all customers and refuse to decorate or write anything on the cake that points to a normal wedding or a gay wedding.  The baker can tell the customer they have to do their own decorating of the cake.  The real problem is with wedding photographers and they should be given special protection as they are not just being asked to provide a service but to be involved and witness the wedding.  Nobody should be forced to attend a gay wedding if it is against their religious conscience.  A baker on the other hand does have to leave their shop to provide a cake.

Edited January 30, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[tonie]

Is that a realistic response? Do homosexuals want to be coerced, by the force of law, into providing a product that contravenes their consciences?

Could a homosexual owner of a t-shirt company turn down a request for 1000 shirts saying "I support traditional marriage!"? Or would you just tell him/her "Just make the blooming t-shirts already, don't go into business if you don't want customers buying your product."?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Considering the glaring fact that your analogy does not suggest the refusal was based on a discriminating against a protected status, thus refusal to print the t-shirt (most printing company, websites, etc, have as terms of service the exclusion of offensive messages), does not violate the law.

 

Now, had you made your example to be a Mormon says "I am a Mormon will you print T-shirts for me" and the shop owner says "No, I do not cater to Mormons, get out of my shop."; then you would have had a point, because religion is a protected class.

[california boy]

So, its your idea (much of which we agree on anyway with being inclusive to others) versus Elder Oaks?

You have it wrong on the most important part. Its not that we are going or wanting to discriminate towards everyone who is gay and everything they want of do. Did you even hear Elder Oaks and the statements released by the Church?

 

Yes I did hear Elder Oaks.  And I was with him all the way until he advocated that we should use religion to justify discrimination.  I am more enticed to follow the Saviors approach.  Religion means serving others being charitable and reaching out to all, even sinners.  I just don't feel good about using religion to justify discrimination.  It just feels wrong and counter to the teachings of Christ. How about you?  Do you think religion should be used to justify discrimination?  Or do you believe we should serve all of God's children even if they are sinners.

 

What option did Elder Oaks talk about.  Should a baker bake a cake for a gay couple?  Should a baker break the anti discrimination laws and not bake a cake for a gay couple?  Or should a baker try and repeal the anti-discrimination laws so that he won't be forced to by law to bake a cake for a gay couple.  Which one of these options do you think Elder Oaks taught when he brought up the baker story.  

[california boy]

Based on his comments, no he did not. He is more interested in vilifying.

 

I haven't condemned or vilified anything Elder Oaks said.  I only have stated that I choose to follow a different path.  I choose to not discriminate against anyone.  I choose to serve all, even the sinner.  I choose to follow the example of Christ.  I hope you too will choose to not use religion as an excuse to discriminate.  Are you with me?  Will you stand against discrimination?

[california boy]

Claiming homosexuality is not a violation of God's word is NO different to claiming adultery is not a sin.

No one is claiming that homosexuality is not a sin.  I, in fact have called the gay couple wishing to marry sinners.  I call myself a sinner.    If you can claim that you have no sins, well then good for you.  If not, then we are all sinners here.  We are all beggars.  

[california boy]

Is that a realistic response? Do homosexuals want to be coerced, by the force of law, into providing a product that contravenes their consciences?

Could a homosexual owner of a t-shirt company turn down a request for 1000 shirts saying "I support traditional marriage!"? Or would you just tell him/her "Just make the blooming t-shirts already, don't go into business if you don't want customers buying your product."?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I would hope that any homosexual store owner would not break the anti-discrimination laws of this country.  I would have no problem making t shirts saying I support traditional marriage.  Because I do.  I support heterosexual couples marrying just as much as I support gay couples from marrying.  

 

Even if I disagree with some message I was asked to print, I would still not discriminate against any customer.  Just because someone wants me to print say "I support Communism" does not make me a communist.  Is all it means is that I obey the laws of this country and service all who ask me to provide a service.

[Pahoran]

Considering the glaring fact that your analogy does not suggest the refusal was based on a discriminating against a protected status, thus refusal to print the t-shirt (most printing company, websites, etc, have as terms of service the exclusion of offensive messages), does not violate the law.

 

Now, had you made your example to be a Mormon says "I am a Mormon will you print T-shirts for me" and the shop owner says "No, I do not cater to Mormons, get out of my shop."; then you would have had a point, because religion is a protected class.

 

So you think "I support traditional marriage" is "offensive," do you?

 

Haaamazing!

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[california boy]

Elder Oaks and Elder Christofferson have some thoughts about reactions to the press conference: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=33288212

Some highlights:

 

Read the whole thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

I read the link you posted three times.  Thanks for providing the link.   I have to say, I am a bit confused about what is being said.  Is Elder Oaks saying that there is a right to discriminate based on religious beliefs or not?  It seems he is saying yes, and hinting at no.  What do you think Elder Oaks is proposing.  Does he want to change existing anti discrimination laws?  Or does he want to repeal them and allow store owners to discriminate if they think their religion thinks something is a sin.  Love to have your read on what is being said.

[Daniel2]

Is that a realistic response? Do homosexuals want to be coerced, by the force of law, into providing a product that contravenes their consciences?

Could a homosexual owner of a t-shirt company turn down a request for 1000 shirts saying "I support traditional marriage!"? Or would you just tell him/her "Just make the blooming t-shirts already, don't go into business if you don't want customers buying your product."?

Thanks,

-Smac

Here is an ACTUAL (non-hypothetical) " response" to the very example you're suggesting:

Denver baker sued for refusing to write anti-gay slogans on cake

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0122/Denver-baker-sued-for-refusing-to-write-anti-gay-slogans-on-cake

By Cristina Maza, Staff writer / January 22, 2015

Ivan Moreno/AP

Do free speech protections still apply if the words are written in frosting?

Two years after a judge determined that a Lakewood, Colo., bakery had discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake, another Colorado bakery is now facing accusations of religious discrimination – this time for refusing to make a cake with an anti-gay message.

When Bill Jack arrived at the Azucar bakery in Denver in March 2014 and ordered two Bible-shaped cakes, Marjorie Silva said she was happy to oblige. But when she saw the messages that Mr. Jack wanted written on the cake, she quickly decided not to go through with it.

How much do you know about gay rights in America? Take the quiz!

According to Ms. Silva, Jack pulled out a piece of paper with the phrase “God hates gays” and anti-gay passages he said were from the Bible. Silva also said that Jack wanted her to draw two men holding hands with an “X” crossing them out.

"After I read it, I was like 'No way.' " Silva told USA Today. " ‘We're not doing this. This is just very discriminatory and hateful.’ ”

Instead, Silva said she told Jack that she would make a cake with a blank Bible page so that he could draw the messages himself. She even claims she offered him frosting and a pastry bag to do so.

“I told him, ‘I’ll make you a cake any flavor and shape that you like and then I’ll give you the icing and you can write the message yourself,’” Silva told the Daily New

In a statement to 9NEWS.com, a Colorado state news site, Jack said that he believed that the bakery had discriminated against him based on his creed.

He is a founder of Worldview Academy, which is a "non-denominational organization dedicated to helping Christians think and live in accord with a Biblical worldview," according to the organization's website.

Jack has filed a complaint with the Civil Rights division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies. The bakery is now under investigation for religious discrimination, and if the agency feels discriminatory acts were committed, the case could move forward to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. A decision on the case will not be made for several months.

But Nancy Leong, a University of Denver law professor, said that she does not believe that Silva violated any laws.

"This is not a situation where a business owner denied service to somebody," Ms. Leong told USA Today. "She offered to accommodate him to the extent that she could. In fact, requiring her to write that message would infringe on her own free speech rights.”

A bakery might seem like an unlikely focus of an anti-discrimination suit. But as bans on gay marriage have fallen in dozens of states since the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, purveyors of cakes in several Western states have become swept up in the same-sex marriage debate.

Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status, or sexual orientation.

The implications of this law became apparent in 2012 when David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited the Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a wedding cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Bakery owner Jack Phillips informed the couple that due to his religious beliefs it was the store’s policy to deny service to customers who ordered baked goods to celebrate the weddings of same-sex couples. The judge ruled that Mr. Phillips had violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.

“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” Amanda Goad, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project, stated on the ACLU of Colorado's website.

For its part, a prominent Christian group that lobbies for traditional marriage has said it supports Silva.

"This is a free speech issue, and we support freedom of speech. It's also a religious or conscience issue — the government should not force people to violate their core beliefs," Jeff Johnston, issues analyst with the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, told The Christian Post. "Just as a Christian baker should not be required to create a cake for a same-sex ceremony, this baker should not be required to create a cake with a message that goes against her conscience."

Now it remains to be seen how the state of Colorado will rule on a claim of religious discrimination by a bakery.

Meanwhile, Silva says she believes it is unfair that she is being accused of discrimination.

“I just want to make cake for happy people." Silva told Fox CT. "I’m Christian. I support Christians. We make a lot of Christian cakes. But this just wasn’t right.”

The responses here are entirely consistent with the rule of law regarding both anti-discrimination laws and freedom of speech laws. Even "Focus on the Family," a very pro-traditional-marriage lobbying group, agrees.

This baker was willing to sell the SAME cake that she would sell to any other customer (even in the shape of a Bible!) including the frostingin a pastry bag so the customer could write their own messages, without being forced to write hateful messages that violated both her freedom of speech and her religious conscience.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

In our Politically Correct world, if I were a cake baker, I would say, "I'll bake all the cakes you want for any occasion you want, but if you want a message on your cake, you're going to have to buy those little candy letters and put it on yourself!"  (Of course, if that were a change in policy that forced me to fire my wonderful cake decorator, I'd feel really bad about that ...  If I were just going into business, I'd make that my policy from the outset.)

[Kenngo1969]

Well SSM is relatively new and evolving, in polygamy they have several partners as well, they're open marriages, for instance.

I hope that eventually most, if not all gay marriages will be monogamous, in a perfect world. I guess I'm an obnoxious moralist when it comes to fidelity. And a believer in someone not suffering with inequality.

Somewhere I read someone ask the question, why did God make individuals have these tendencies, he's not an inept God is he? Not in those words exactly. And now I'm sure you'll compare it to people born with disabilities

NEWS FLASH!  Polygamy, unlike the "open" part of the term "open marriage," isn't just about sex!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Thanks for playin'!

[Mystery Meat]

I haven't condemned or vilified anything Elder Oaks said.  I only have stated that I choose to follow a different path.  I choose to not discriminate against anyone.  I choose to serve all, even the sinner.  I choose to follow the example of Christ.  I hope you too will choose to not use religion as an excuse to discriminate.  Are you with me?  Will you stand against discrimination?

 

 I see you are still pushing this same false dichotomy, despite the fact that multiple posters have pointed out multiple times that there are more than two options here.

[Mystery Meat]

No one is claiming that homosexuality is not a sin.  I, in fact have called the gay couple wishing to marry sinners.  I call myself a sinner.    If you can claim that you have no sins, well then good for you.  If not, then we are all sinners here.  We are all beggars.  

 

You have never claimed that on this board? Wow. You must be a different CB than has been on here before.

 

[Tacenda]

NEWS FLASH! Polygamy, unlike the "open" part of the term "open marriage," isn't just about sex!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for playin'!

I'm not playin'! How do you know EVERY gay marrage is like that? Just because there might be several like it, we throw them all away? Such black and white thinking there Ken. What about the polygamists, there are some men that have that in mind, I've listened to and read about, enough that have lived it, to know that truth. And I'm not talking about the Kody Brown family, and the majority like them!