Avatar4321 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 I'd agree with you if it were true that this whole thing is not seen as people trying to deny a certain group their rights. Since others have seen the Church as attempting to deny people rights, I'd expect some backlash. It's too bad, but that's the price to pay.the truth is the first casualty when we are worried about how others see us rather than doing what is right
california boy Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 I am not going to say a lot on this thread. For the most part, people seem to be willing work towards repealing the anti-discrimination laws of the 60's because church leaders have signaled the membership to once again fight the civil rights of others. If the church takes a stand to push for the elimination of those anti-discrimination laws, then it will only further brand the church as being racist and anti gay. This is a no win for the church. It will not succeed and will only further alienate the church from people who believe in treating all Americans with respect and fairness. This is a very serious issue and a very serious direction for the church to take. I hope they are willing to deal with the consequences to being a major supporter of repealing the anti-discrimination laws of this country. Make no mistake, when a business starts saying to any customer "we don't serve your kind here because of our religious beliefs" then they are breaking the anti-discrimination laws. When an employer says "we don't hire immoral gays that choose to marry because of our religious beliefs, then you are breaking the anti-discrimination laws. When an apartment owner starts saying, we don't rent to gay couples that are married because of our religious beliefs, then you are breaking the anti-discrimination laws. And yes, when a baker starts saying "we don't bake cakes for gay weddings because of our religious beliefs, then you are breaking the anti-discrimination laws. It was exactly under those federal laws that those bakers lost their court case. The only way to allow that baker to discriminate is if those anti-discrimination laws are repealed. This press conference did nothing to bridge the churches relationship with the gay community and those that believe in their equality. Is all they heard was "we can discriminate against you in any way we want because of our religious beliefs." Not a particular great way to repair any kind of discourse between the two groups. I am going to make a prediction. If the church continues on this path and rallies it's members to push back against those anti discrimination laws in the name of "religious freedom" there will be a further huge backlash against the church. Mormons will start experiencing such distain that will make their involvement in Prop 8 seem mild. Taking away the anti-discrimination laws in the name of religion is a big deal. Stand back and watch if you think otherwise.
ERayR Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 They were not forced to sell personalized cakes, rather they chose to advertise and sell personalized messages on their cakes. If they refuse to sell you a cake because they disagree with your religious message, that is discrimination as they sell personalized religious messages for others. If they don't wan't to sell cakes with gay messages, they shouldn't advertise personalized cakes. Perhaps someone wants a XXX rated cake? Are they required to produce it? 1
pogi Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Do you think that by going into business personalizing wedding cakes, they gave up their right to control what they will or will not write? They are now obligated by the state to write whatever people ask them to write?Any message? I stand corrected. You are right, a baker does have the right to refuse any message but not service, based on the baker's free speech right to refuse messages. The refusal of the baker to bake a cake for the gay wedding did not include any message, it was just for the service. Edited January 27, 2015 by pogi
Kenngo1969 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) You can criticize a business for any reason. A line is crossed, when you use the power of the state to punish people for their beliefs and associations. You just expressed in two sentences what took me five. I admire your conciseness.And Danzo's a lawyer! Whodathunk? Sincerely,-Ken, Big Fan of Wy****'s Plain English for Lawyers Excuse me: Wy-Richard's Plain English for Lawyers Edited January 27, 2015 by Kenngo1969
Kenngo1969 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 20 years ago, the brethren produced the Proclamation. At the time, many people wondered why they did that. Same sex marriage was nowhere on the horizon from the perspectives of most people. 20 years later- it is almost the law of the land. My point is that the brethren are worried about losing religious freedom. It may not seem obvious to many people today that there is even a threat to religious freedom. But if the foresight of the brethren on this is anything like it was with marriage, there is probably a threat to religious freedom "over the horizon." Make sense?I'd say it's even closer than that.
JLHPROF Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 I stand corrected. You are right, a baker does have the right to refuse any message but not service, based on the baker's free speech right to refuse. The refusal of the baker to bake a cake for the gay wedding did not include any message, it was just for the service. Then where do you draw the line? I will bake you a cake. I will not write congratulations on it.
ERayR Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 I stand corrected. You are right, a baker does have the right to refuse any message but not service, based on the baker's free speech right to refuse messages. The refusal of the baker to bake a cake for the gay wedding did not include any message, it was just for the service. As I understood it, it was the message they objected to.
pogi Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Then where do you draw the line? I will bake you a cake. I will not write congratulations on it. The message written on the cake is up to the discretion of the baker if they will use their free speech rights to write it or not. They don't have to write anything, but they do have to provide the service of selling a cake.
Danzo Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 And yes, when a baker starts saying "we don't bake cakes for gay weddings because of our religious beliefs, then you are breaking the anti-discrimination laws. It was exactly under those federal laws that those bakers lost their court case. The only way to allow that baker to discriminate is if those anti-discrimination laws are repealed. I believe it was state laws they were accused of violating, not federal ones, Also, if you are referring to the Gresham, Oregon Case, The action was brought by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and the case, while I believe it is before an administrative law judge has not been brought before any court of law.
pogi Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 As I understood it, it was the message they objected to. Apparently not, I looked it up. It was found that they could use their free speech rights to refuse a message on the cake but not the service.
JLHPROF Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 The message written on the cake is up to the discretion of the baker if they will use their free speech rights to write it or not. They don't have to write anything, but they do have to provide the service of selling a cake. Still doesn't specify where the line is drawn.They offer a service. What if someone wants a swastika shaped cake? A cross? A naked woman? etc.Are they obligated to bake any cake? And if they are what about the message? Do they get to say no to "Congratulations on your wedding" because the couple is gay or do they only get to say no to "Congratulations Steve and Alan on your wedding day"? See, it's a slippery slope the second we start pretending that a private business or individual is obligated to perform ANY service they find distasteful. Either the baker has rights or they don't.I quote again "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". Or, your right to have me bake you a cake ends with my right to personal belief.
JLHPROF Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Dupl. Edited January 27, 2015 by JLHPROF
ERayR Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 I believe it was state laws they were accused of violating, not federal ones, Also, if you are referring to the Gresham, Oregon Case, The action was brought by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and the case, while I believe it is before an administrative law judge has not been brought before any court of law. One in Colorado also: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/
ALarson Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 From the NY Times: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/takingnote/2015/01/27/on-discrimination-the-mormon-church-gives-and-takes-away/?smid=tw-share&referrer=
pogi Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 See, it's a slippery slope the second we start pretending that a private business or individual is obligated to perform ANY service they find distasteful. I can't say what the line is honestly. That's what the courts are for. The slope is equally slippery going the other direction.
Danzo Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 One in Colorado also: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ Thanks for bringing that one up. I live in Oregon, so I tend to focus on the local cases. I looks like in colorado, the law was a state one and not a federal one. And this one as well was before an Administrative Law Judge, and not a full court of law.
pogi Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 One in Colorado also: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ What is it with bakers in Colorado? Here is another story about a baker in Colorado but from the opposite side of the coin. Interesting. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/baker-faces-complaint-refusing-anti-gay-message-cake-28394429
Ahab Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 It should be understood that the message of the Church is that we SUPPORT the anti-discrimination laws "as long as that includes the right to the free exercise of religion." The quoted part appeared my RSS feed from MSNBC, so that is what they are saying our Church message is. In this thread we're hearing from some members who either approve of that message or disagree with it. The comments of each member are not necessarily in agreement with the official Church position on any issue and we can see that in this thread.Personally, I support the official Church message in the same way that I support the official Church message that all of us should be charitable and loving of each other, so while I support the official Church position I can and do at the same time say that all of us have or should have the right to refuse to be charitable to someone, or at least as long as we do not kill each other.There is an ideal way that all of us should live with each other, and at the same time there is or at least there should be a bare minimum to living standards in society. And I believe a baker who despises homosexuality should have the right to refuse to bake a cake for people who live a lifestyle that he despises. Just as long as he doesn't kill them.
pogi Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 It should be understood that the message of the Church is that we SUPPORT the anti-discrimination laws "as long as that includes the right to the free exercise of religion." ...so while I support the official Church position I can and do at the same time say that all of us have or should have the right to refuse to be charitable to someone, or at least as long as we do not kill each other. Did you not say this: No, not unethical and it should not be illegal to refuse to serve or provide services to anyone for any reason. Everyone, including business owners and service providers should have the right to say "No" about what or who they will serve. How is that in support of the official position of the church on anti-discrimination laws?
california boy Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 As these lamentations about religious liberty get tossed around, it’s worth remembering that racists have used the same argument to try to perpetuate segregation. Esseks noted that even after the Civil Rights Act, the owner of the Piggie Park restaurant chain in South Carolina maintained that he could refuse to serve black people because his religion forbade the mixing of races. The courts were unimpressed. From NY Times article Your God and My Dignity Religious Liberty, Bigotry and Gays
Ahab Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Did you not say this:How is that in support of the official position of the church on anti-discrimination laws?Reading for comprehension not working for you?It is not unethical for person A to not want to serve person B who does something that person A despises, but it would be charitable of person A to voluntarily choose to serve person B even though person B is still going to do what person A despises. If person A is doing something for person B only because he is legally required to serve person B, though, it doesn't count as charity and person A is then serving person B only because the law requires it.I am in favor of all people voluntarily choosing to be charitable, at best, or at least not killing each other, as the minimum standard.
Mystery Meat Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 I have previously mentioned before that my interpretation of the Constitution suggests much of the Civil Rights Act was and is unconstitutional. That is not a popular opinion even the most "backwards" parts of the country, but it is one I stand by. To me what is going on now is evidence that the leaders of the Church were inspired to oppose it at the time as it is being used (not only on this thread, but just about everywhere else) to justify all sorts of organized discrimination against religion. I think California Boy's prediction is spot on. This will be used against the Church. Those that try to destroy the Church because of it will watch, to their horror, as the great and spacious building they have built buries them in the rubble.
Daniel2 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) From the NY Times:http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/takingnote/2015/01/27/on-discrimination-the-mormon-church-gives-and-takes-away/?smid=tw-share&referrer=Wow. Here's the text of the link above:Mormon Church Wants Freedom to DiscriminateBy ANDREW ROSENTHALJANUARY 27, 2015The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints held a rare news conference in Salt Lake City today that is drawing headlines about a supposedly new, accommodating stand on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights.The Mormon church is now willing, news accounts says, to support anti-discrimination legislation in the realms of housing and employment. In return, all the Mormons want are laws that “protect religious freedom.”We already have that. It’s called the Bill of Rights. So what is the church really after?The news conference, said D. Todd Cristofferson, one of the 12 apostles of the church, was held to raise concerns about “the increasing tensions and polarization between advocates of religious freedom on the one hand and advocates of gay rights on the other.” Another apostle, Jeffrey R. Holland, said church leaders were calling for “laws that protect faith communities and individuals” against unfair treatment.That’s fake “war on religion” speak. What they want is legal permission to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate.The Associated Press explained: “Mormon leaders still want to hire and fire workers based not only on religious beliefs, but also on behavior standards known as honor codes that require gays and lesbians to remain celibate or marry someone of the opposite sex. The church also wants legal protections for religious objectors who work in government and health care, such as a physician who refuses to perform an abortion, or provide artificial insemination for a lesbian couple.”Substitute the word “black” or “Jewish” or “Catholic” or, say, “Mormon” for LGBT in these statements, and everyone would be outraged.Or, as Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for LGBT rights, put it: “All Americans should have the right to be employed, receive housing and services in environments free of discrimination. We await the day the church embraces that fully, without any exceptions or exemptions.”The church’s “new” position looks like an outgrowth of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling, in which a 5-4 majority said the owner of a closely held business could refuse to comply with a federal law (in that case, the Affordable Care Act) on the basis of his personal religious views.Apparently the news conference today was the product of five years’ behind-the-scenes negotiations. Five years for this?The message behind the conciliatory language of this press conference may end up being a HUGE mistake.CaliforniaBoy called it... this looks like another PR nightmare for the church. Edited January 28, 2015 by Daniel2
pogi Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Reading for comprehension not working for you?It is not unethical for person A to not want to serve person B who does something that person A despises, but it would be charitable of person A to voluntarily choose to serve person B even though person B is still going to do what person A despises. If person A is doing something for person B only because he is legally required to serve person B, though, it doesn't count as charity and person A is then serving person B only because the law requires it.I am in favor of all people voluntarily choosing to be charitable, at best, or at least not killing each other, as the minimum standard. The church is in support of anti-discrimination laws as the minimum standard. You are in favor of all people "voluntarily choosing to be charitable, at best, or at least not killing each other, as the minimum standard" Let me put this in plain english for you. The church is in support of anti-discrimination laws. You are not.
Recommended Posts