Any Word On The 10:00 Am Press Conference?

[Danzo]

Wow. Here's the text of the link above:

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.

 

Not the first PR nightmare the church has faced.

Probably won't be the last.

[Ahab]

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.

Let me correct you while speaking in even plainer (is that a word?) English.

I am in favor of all people being charitable with each other at all times and in all places, but for those who voluntarily choose sometimes to not be charitable with someone, I would ask that at least you not kill them unless maybe they are very, very, very evil.

Got that this time, brother pogi? I sure hope so.

[pogi]

Let me correct you while speaking in even plainer (is that a word?) English.

I am in favor of all people being charitable with each other at all times and in all places, but for those who voluntarily choose sometimes to not be charitable with someone, I would ask that at least you not kill them unless maybe they are very, very, very evil.

Got that this time, brother pogi? I sure hope so.

 

I got it the first time when you said this:

 

it should not be illegal to refuse to serve or provide services to anyone for any reason.

 

 

Yet, the church said this today:

 

Today, state legislatures across the nation are being asked to strengthen laws related to LGBT issues in the interest of ensuring fair access to housing and employment. The leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is on record as favoring such measures. Nondiscrimination legislation protects gays against inequity in employment, housing and places of public accommodation like restaurants and hotels.

 

Are you in favor Ahab, of an apartment complex having the right to voluntarily refuse to rent to a gay person? A restaurant refusing service because someone is gay? Or do you stand by what you said, that "it should not be illegal to provide services to anyone for any reason"?

Edited January 28, 2015 by pogi

[DJBrown]

Nope. The PotF was issued precisely because Hawaii and Alaska were considering adopting SSM. At the same time the PotF was drafted the church began organizing efforts to oppose state measures to recognize gay marriage - measures that were used in Hawaii, California, and other states with significant LDS presence.

 

 

CFR.  You know this exactly how?  The first case in Alaska was decided in 1998.  The first decision in Hawaii that sided with SSM was decided in 1996.

 

The proposition in Hawaii that kept marriage between man and woman was passed in 1998.  In California, the first similar proposition passed in 2000.  Why do you say the church began organizing this in 1995?

 

Bottom line- in the minds of the vast majority of people in 1995 when the Proclamation was published, almost nobody thought SSM was even close.  The Proclamation was most certainly prophetic.  You may say there were clear indications at the time.  But most people thought SSM was unthinkable at that time.  The oldest surveys asking about SSM date to 1996.  The first time SSM was granted in modern times was in 2001 in the Netherlands.

[DJBrown]

I got it the first time when you said this:

 

 

Yet, the church said this today:

 

 

Are you in favor Ahab, of an apartment complex having the right to voluntarily refuse to rent to a gay person? A restaurant refusing service because someone is gay? Or do you stand by what you said, that "it should not be illegal to provide services to anyone for any reason"?

 

The statement today from the church advocated rights for housing and employment.  It did not argue that people should be forced to provide services to LGBT outside housing and employment.  I think you are reading into their statement things that are not there.

[pogi]

The statement today from the church advocated rights for housing and employment.  It did not argue that people should be forced to provide services to LGBT outside housing and employment.  I think you are reading into their statement things that are not there.

 

I am only reporting as Deseret News reported it:

 

Nondiscrimination legislation protects gays against inequity in employment, housing and places of public accommodation like restaurants and hotels.

Most of American society recognizes that "such basic human rights as securing a job or a place to live should not depend on a person's sexual orientation," said Sister Neill F. Marriott, second counselor in the church's Young Women General Presidency.

Edited January 28, 2015 by pogi

[strappinglad]

Is there anyone that all the posters here could agree it would be OK to discriminate against? Is there a numerical tipping point at which the state is required to bring the force of law down upon any person who chooses to discriminate based on a personal belief?

There are many more fat people in the US than there are blacks or Jews or homosexuals. Could a cake maker legally discriminate against a fat person when it came to baking a Black-forest cake for them, even siting that it was for their own good for health reasons? One could argue that being fat was a genetic result and that the fat person was unable to change their DNA and hence should be a non-discriminatable(sic) group.

Restaurants are allowed to discriminate against smokers. Trucking companies are allowed to discriminate against alcoholics. I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

(My apologies to the weight challenged here who may resent my example)

[mormonnewb]

I'm having trouble understanding the Church's statement.  On the one hand, Sister Marriott says:

 

"Ultimately, most of society recognized that such treatment was simply wrong, and that such basic human rights as securing a job or a place to live should not depend on a person's sexual orientation."

 

On the other hand,  Elder Oaks said:

 

"Since 1791 the guarantees of religious freedom embodied in the First Amendment have assured all citizens that they may hold whatever religious views they want, and that they are free to express and act on those beliefs so long as such actions do not endanger public health or safety."

 

These statements seem in direct contradiction (or at least, overlapping contradiction).  Sister Marriott's statement would imply that the Church would support legislation that outlawed employment or housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."  Yet, Elder Oaks wants to make sure that citizens should be free to ACT on their religious beliefs.  But what if those religious beliefs require a landlord to refuse renting an apartment to a gay couple (who will be doing "ungodly" things in said apartment)?  Should the state require the landlord to rent the apartment to the gay person and violate the landlord's religious freedom?  Elder Oaks seems to say, "No!"

 

But in that case, what protections is Sister Marriott really offering to gays and lesbians?  They can be free from discrimination so long as it is not discrimination based upon a religious belief?  Are there ANY other bases for discrimination against gays and lesbians?  To my knowledge, the atheists aren't the ones refusing to bake cakes, dispense medicine, etc. to gay people.  It is the religious folk.  And if this form of discrimination is allowed, then the Church isn't offering any REAL protections to gays and lesbians.

 

Interestingly, I think there was a middle ground that the Church could have taken that would have preserved ITS religious freedoms and still provided protections for gays and lesbians.  It seems to me that the Church could have asked for religious freedom for religious INSTITUTIONS.  In that way, the CHURCH would still be free to only allow straight couples to marry in its temples.  Likewise, BYU could still discriminate in housing through its honor code.  And the same would be true for any other church that holds similar doctrinal views.

 

This is currently how the religious freedom is granted to churches with regards to race and gender discrimination.  The Catholic Church is free to exclude women from being priests.  However, individual Catholics are not allowed to deny women promotions in their businesses just because they believe that the Bible would prevent women from being in positions of leadership.  The same applies to race.  Churches are free to restrict, say, blue people, from holding certain ecclesiastic positions.  However, individual members of that Church may not engaged in workplace discrimination in their private businesses.

 

In my view, this is the position that the Church should have taken in this regard.  As an institution, it should be able to set WHATEVER rules it feels conform to the will of HF.  However, individual members need not be allowed to use their religious beliefs to avoid the law as it applies to secular matters.  Certainly, the Church isn't arguing that members of Bob Jones' church should be able to discriminate against blacks in their private housing and employment arrangements.  So why are gays and lesbians being offered less protection?

[pogi]

Is there anyone that all the posters here could agree it would be OK to discriminate against? Is there a numerical tipping point at which the state is required to bring the force of law down upon any person who chooses to discriminate based on a personal belief?

There are many more fat people in the US than there are blacks or Jews or homosexuals. Could a cake maker legally discriminate against a fat person when it came to baking a Black-forest cake for them, even siting that it was for their own good for health reasons? One could argue that being fat was a genetic result and that the fat person was unable to change their DNA and hence should be a non-discriminatable(sic) group.

Restaurants are allowed to discriminate against smokers. Trucking companies are allowed to discriminate against alcoholics. I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

(My apologies to the weight challenged here who may resent my example)

 

I hope that we could all agree with discriminating against underage people in regards to driving, voting, porn, smoking, and drinking. etc. 

 

I also hope that we could all agree with discriminating against your examples of people who are public health risks such as smokers in restaurants and alcoholics working for trucking companies.  

 

I can't think of any others that we would all agree on.

[mormonnewb]

Is there anyone that all the posters here could agree it would be OK to discriminate against? Is there a numerical tipping point at which the state is required to bring the force of law down upon any person who chooses to discriminate based on a personal belief?

There are many more fat people in the US than there are blacks or Jews or homosexuals. Could a cake maker legally discriminate against a fat person when it came to baking a Black-forest cake for them, even siting that it was for their own good for health reasons? One could argue that being fat was a genetic result and that the fat person was unable to change their DNA and hence should be a non-discriminatable(sic) group.

Restaurants are allowed to discriminate against smokers. Trucking companies are allowed to discriminate against alcoholics. I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

(My apologies to the weight challenged here who may resent my example)

 

I think you're asking a different question (although a quite interesting one).  In its statement, the Church seems to cede the question as to whether gays should be protected from discrimination.  Sister Marriott said quite firmly, "such basic human rights as securing a job or a place to live should NOT depend on a person's sexual orientation."

 

Of course, I think that Elder Oaks ripped any meaning out of her declaration with his concerns about "religious freedom," but on paper, the Church has ceded the first point.

[ERayR]

I hope that we could all agree with discriminating against underage people in regards to driving, voting, porn, smoking, and drinking. etc. 

 

I also hope that we could all agree with discriminating against your examples of people who are public health risks such as smokers in restaurants and alcoholics working for trucking companies.  

 

I can't think of any others that we would all agree on.

 

I would add murders, rapist, child molesters and other nefarious law breakers.

[Avatar4321]

Exactly. All I need to see is a sign to tell me that a business won't provide services to someone like me. I would then just do my business with somebody else who would serve me.

I already know that it is an honor to have somebody willing to serve me, so there would be no good reason for me to get angry at someone who was not willing to serve me. Or to take them to court for refusing to serve me. Or to act like I am entitled to their services.

especially since we fought a civil war and passed a constitutional amendment to prevent people from being forces to serve another person.

[california boy]

I'm having trouble understanding the Church's statement.  On the one hand, Sister Marriott says:

 

"Ultimately, most of society recognized that such treatment was simply wrong, and that such basic human rights as securing a job or a place to live should not depend on a person's sexual orientation."

 

On the other hand,  Elder Oaks said:

 

"Since 1791 the guarantees of religious freedom embodied in the First Amendment have assured all citizens that they may hold whatever religious views they want, and that they are free to express and act on those beliefs so long as such actions do not endanger public health or safety."

 

These statements seem in direct contradiction (or at least, overlapping contradiction).  Sister Marriott's statement would imply that the Church would support legislation that outlawed employment or housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."  Yet, Elder Oaks wants to make sure that citizens should be free to ACT on their religious beliefs.  But what if those religious beliefs require a landlord to refuse renting an apartment to a gay couple (who will be doing "ungodly" things in said apartment)?  Should the state require the landlord to rent the apartment to the gay person and violate the landlord's religious freedom?  Elder Oaks seems to say, "No!"

 

But in that case, what protections is Sister Marriott really offering to gays and lesbians?  They can be free from discrimination so long as it is not discrimination based upon a religious belief?  Are there ANY other bases for discrimination against gays and lesbians?  To my knowledge, the atheists aren't the ones refusing to bake cakes, dispense medicine, etc. to gay people.  It is the religious folk.  And if this form of discrimination is allowed, then the Church isn't offering any REAL protections to gays and lesbians.

 

Interestingly, I think there was a middle ground that the Church could have taken that would have preserved ITS religious freedoms and still provided protections for gays and lesbians.  It seems to me that the Church could have asked for religious freedom for religious INSTITUTIONS.  In that way, the CHURCH would still be free to only allow straight couples to marry in its temples.  Likewise, BYU could still discriminate in housing through its honor code.  And the same would be true for any other church that holds similar doctrinal views.

 

This is currently how the religious freedom is granted to churches with regards to race and gender discrimination.  The Catholic Church is free to exclude women from being priests.  However, individual Catholics are not allowed to deny women promotions in their businesses just because they believe that the Bible would prevent women from being in positions of leadership.  The same applies to race.  Churches are free to restrict, say, blue people, from holding certain ecclesiastic positions.  However, individual members of that Church may not engaged in workplace discrimination in their private businesses.

 

In my view, this is the position that the Church should have taken in this regard.  As an institution, it should be able to set WHATEVER rules it feels conform to the will of HF.  However, individual members need not be allowed to use their religious beliefs to avoid the law as it applies to secular matters.  Certainly, the Church isn't arguing that members of Bob Jones' church should be able to discriminate against blacks in their private housing and employment arrangements.  So why are gays and lesbians being offered less protection?

 

 

Great comment.  I also wish the church would have taken this stance.  It would have made the church a champion for equal protection and an advocate against discrimination.  Something the church would have greatly benefited from.  Unfortunately President Oaks took that message and virtually trashed it by standing up and declaring that religion can be used as an excuse to discriminate against anyone for any reason including housing and employment.  It completely nullifies the fair housing and employment laws the church just got through saying they support.  A landlord can simply say, I don't rent to gays.  They are living in sin and I don't approve of that.

[Pahoran]

And the quote function is still not working for me.
 
Pogi wrote:
 

That's a fair point. My question is however, if we as a church want nothing more than religious freedom, are we not doing a disservice to the cause by voicing political opposition to the religious freedoms of others to practice according to the dictates of their own conscience? It seems like we only want religious freedom when it applies to us. Would it not be a stronger stance for the cause of religious freedom to publicly voice our disapproval of a practice while supporting the religious rights of others?

But Pogi, no such thing ever happened.

The (heh heh) "religious" groups that supported same sex "marriage" had, at all times, complete "religious" liberty to perform whatever ceremonies they pleased, and to call them whatever they liked.

Demanding government recognition of same sex "marriage" -- and utilising the coercive power of the state to enforce that recognition throughout the wider community -- has nothing to do with religious freedom.

It is oppression, and nothing else.

Regards,
Pahoran

[mormonnewb]

And the quote function is still not working for me.

Pogi wrote:

But Pogi, no such thing ever happened.

The (heh heh) "religious" groups that supported same sex "marriage" had, at all times, complete "religious" liberty to perform whatever ceremonies they pleased, and to call them whatever they liked.

Demanding government recognition of same sex "marriage" -- and utilising the coercive power of the state to enforce that recognition throughout the wider community -- has nothing to do with religious freedom.

It is oppression, and nothing else.

Regards,

Pahoran

It is oppression to give other people what YOU have? So if I give MY son the same kind of red bike that you bought for your son, I have "oppressed" you? I would see your point if we took your marriage to give it to someone else, but I really don't see the oppression in allowing other people the benefits you enjoy (and without taking them from you). Edited January 28, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Pahoran]

Pogi wrote:
 

I have to say, I am really surprised at some of the responses. I did not expect to see such opposition to anti-discrimination laws in 2015. Do we remember the Jews, the blacks, and women in history? Do we really want to go back there? What happens when Mormons are viewed with the same disgust as Jews and blacks were viewed? I am sure you will be singing a different song.

You are comparing apples and turnips, Pogi.

Sometimes I think same sex "marriage" advocates must have IQ's approaching room temperature.

Approaching it from below, that is.

In degrees Celsius.

Such analogies are flawed, in much the same way as 5 x 3 = 8 is flawed.

Those making a principled stand for the sanctity of authentic marriage are NOT suggesting that they want to deny "gays" the right to buy bread, visit the doctor, drink from the drinking fountain or ride in the bus.

Those making a principled stand for the sanctity of authentic marriage are suggesting that they have the right to avoid supporting certain types of events.

The baker who got handbag-flailed almost out of business had already offered to sell the "gay" couple any item in the shop. He simply wanted to not make a bespoke item for a particular event.

That ought to have been his right.

No reasonable person can deny that that was his right.

But "SSM" agitators can.

Regards,
Pahoran
 

[Pahoran]

Mormonnewb wrote:
 

It is oppression to give other people what YOU have? So if I give MY son the same kind of red bike that you bought for your son, I have "oppressed" you? I would see your point if we took your marriage to give it to someone else, but I really don't see the oppression in allowing other people the benefits you enjoy (and without taking them from you).

And another "genius" analogy.

You really don't understand what it's like to have actual religious principles based upon actual convictions, do you, Newb?

If some "gay" guys want to celebrate their current relationship with a big party, I don't have a problem with that, just as long as the music isn't too loud after 11pm.

If, in the course of their party, one of them decides to parade around in a faux wedding gown, I don't have a problem with that, either.

Just as long as I'm not going to be coerced into actively supporting it in some way.

Is that clear?

Regards,
Pahoran

[mormonnewb]

Mormonnewb wrote:

And another "genius" analogy.

You really don't understand what it's like to have actual religious principles based upon actual convictions, do you, Newb?

If some "gay" guys want to celebrate their current relationship with a big party, I don't have a problem with that, just as long as the music isn't too loud after 11pm.

If, in the course of their party, one of them decides to parade around in a faux wedding gown, I don't have a problem with that, either.

Just as long as I'm not going to be coerced into actively supporting it in some way.

Is that clear?

Regards,

Pahoran

Given that all of your religious "convictions" are given to you by the Church (and you will cry "tears of joy" upon OD3), I'm very pleased with the "grounding" of MY principles.

As for being asked to "support" SSM, how many gay cakes have you been asked to bake? All you HAVE to do is treat gay people the way you treat everyone else (which I'd guess is poorly, given the way you have belittled the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with the opinion given to you by the Brethren).

NOTE: I really intended to turn over a new leaf and be genteel in my discussion of this hot button issue, but that tact only earned unwarranted suppositions about my IQ. Perhaps, NOW that Pahoran realizes that this tactic will not end well for him, we can discuss THE ISSUE (free from references to room temperature and metric conversion techniques).

[strappinglad]

Can I as an individual hold religious beliefs contrary to the religious institution I am a member of? Surely the posts on this board for many threads display that I can. Is it possible that Elder Oaks is speaking as a representative of the Institutional Church and it's doctrines when he speaks of religious freedom and its need to be upheld ? Would he personally defend a church member who discriminated against a black person or a disabled person or a gay person because the discriminator cited religious beliefs as a reason for said discrimination? I hear the screeching sound of a can opener.

[Pahoran]

Mormonnewb exclaimed, with shock and horror:
 

Yet, Elder Oaks wants to make sure that citizens should be free to ACT on their religious beliefs.

Shocking, isn't it?

Do you immoralists, or any of you, really think there could be such a thing as religious liberty without the freedom to act on religious beliefs?

Do you think that the right to hold some unpopular opinions just as long as we keep them to ourselves is all the religious liberty we could ever need?

You really don't have any experience whatsoever of holding actual religious convictions, do you?

Regards,
Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Daniel wrote:
 

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.

I think it's time for certain parties to "come out" and admit something we all know already.

When the local "gay" squad, led by Daniel, use terms like "peaceful coexistence," it really comes down to this: If we accede to every single one of their demands, including but not limited to the demand that we actively support their "same sex marriages" (which may mean actually attending them in some instances) then they will magnanimously refrain from suing us into financial oblivion.

No doubt they expect us to be grateful for their forbearance.

Yes, they say that if anyone tried to force a church to perform a same-sex "marriage" they'd side with that church against the "gays" trying to coerce them.

But then again, they used to say that "gay marriage" would never impinge upon the rights or freedoms of anyone else.

And not long before that, when civil unions were the thin end of the wedge and "gay marriage" wasn't even on the horizon, they -- or at least, the "Gay Team" in general -- used to say that "gay marriage" was a ridiculous straw man and a "slippery slope" argument that nobody could possibly take seriously.

But look where we are now!

Let's remember: What did the local "gay" squad do as soon as the church in New Jersey didn't want a "same sex wedding" reception to be held on its property?

They sided with the "gays."

And what did they do as soon as the baker didn't want to bake a cake for a "same sex wedding?"

They sided with the "gays."

What was their view when the photographer didn't want to be forced to personally attend and support a "same sex wedding?"

They sided with the "gays."

Every single time, without fail, that someone has tried to take a principled, faith-based stand for the sanctity of authentic marriage, the "gay" squad has sided with the "gays."

And why wouldn't they? That's their team, after all.

So when -- not if, but when -- some "gay couple" decide that they just have to be "married" in the church of their choice, and try to find some way to coerce that church into adopting the dhimmi posture -- and I can see the arguments for "public accommodation" and taxpayer "subsidy" already being marshalled -- why on earth should we expect them to break the long-time habit?

Regards,
Pahoran

[Ahab]

Are you in favor Ahab, of an apartment complex having the right to voluntarily refuse to rent to a gay person? A restaurant refusing service because someone is gay? Or do you stand by what you said, that "it should not be illegal to provide services to anyone for any reason"?

It seems to me that you don't understand how I, and other people too, can be in favor of more than one thing at the same time.

1. Yes I am in favor of an apartment manager having the "right" to voluntarily refuse to rent an apartment to a gay person.

2. Yes I am also in favor of asking an apartment manager to rent an apartment to a gay person even if the apartment manager has the right to refuse to rent an apartment to a gay person.

3. Yes I am in favor of removing any laws which would make it illegal for an apartment manager to refuse to rent an apartment to a gay person.

4. Yes I am in favor of supporting a law that allows a gay person to rent an apartment from an apartment manager, even if the apartment manager despises homosexual activity, as long as the apartment manager is voluntarily choosing to rent an apartment to that gay person rather than being required by law to rent out the apartment to a gay person despite his objections. Laws can be written to allow for that, don't cha know.

And yes I still stand by everything I have said.

[Pahoran]

Mormonnewb wrote:

 

Given that all of your religious "convictions" are given to you by the Church

At least I have them.
 

(and you will cry "tears of joy" upon OD3),

What "OD3" do you anticipate? Do tell.

The terminally clueless, entirely self-centred and utterly immoral sometimes imagine, in some filthy "gay" dystopia, that the Church will eventually accept "same sex marriage" as a religious sacrament. Is that what you had in mind?

 

Because it's never going to happen.  Just so you know.
 

I'm very pleased with the "grounding" of MY principles

Principles?

What principles?
 

As for being asked to "support" SSM, how many gay cakes have you been asked to bake? All you HAVE to do is treat gay people the way you treat everyone else

So I shouldn't care if others are being oppressed as long as it's not being done to me; is that what passes for a "principle" in your mind, is it?

Regards,
Pahoran

[Rob Osborn]

The Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest LGBT organization, responds to the church's press conference:

So, the government forcing a private physician who believes in pro-life to abort a fetus from a mother who wishes not to have the child is the right thing to do eh? Thats not religious freedom.

[Stone holm]

I'm having trouble understanding the Church's statement.  On the one hand, Sister Marriott says:

 

"Ultimately, most of society recognized that such treatment was simply wrong, and that such basic human rights as securing a job or a place to live should not depend on a person's sexual orientation."

 

On the other hand,  Elder Oaks said:

 

"Since 1791 the guarantees of religious freedom embodied in the First Amendment have assured all citizens that they may hold whatever religious views they want, and that they are free to express and act on those beliefs so long as such actions do not endanger public health or safety."

 

These statements seem in direct contradiction (or at least, overlapping contradiction).  Sister Marriott's statement would imply that the Church would support legislation that outlawed employment or housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."  Yet, Elder Oaks wants to make sure that citizens should be free to ACT on their religious beliefs.  But what if those religious beliefs require a landlord to refuse renting an apartment to a gay couple (who will be doing "ungodly" things in said apartment)?  Should the state require the landlord to rent the apartment to the gay person and violate the landlord's religious freedom?  Elder Oaks seems to say, "No!"

 

But in that case, what protections is Sister Marriott really offering to gays and lesbians?  They can be free from discrimination so long as it is not discrimination based upon a religious belief?  Are there ANY other bases for discrimination against gays and lesbians?  To my knowledge, the atheists aren't the ones refusing to bake cakes, dispense medicine, etc. to gay people.  It is the religious folk.  And if this form of discrimination is allowed, then the Church isn't offering any REAL protections to gays and lesbians.

 

Interestingly, I think there was a middle ground that the Church could have taken that would have preserved ITS religious freedoms and still provided protections for gays and lesbians.  It seems to me that the Church could have asked for religious freedom for religious INSTITUTIONS.  In that way, the CHURCH would still be free to only allow straight couples to marry in its temples.  Likewise, BYU could still discriminate in housing through its honor code.  And the same would be true for any other church that holds similar doctrinal views.

 

This is currently how the religious freedom is granted to churches with regards to race and gender discrimination.  The Catholic Church is free to exclude women from being priests.  However, individual Catholics are not allowed to deny women promotions in their businesses just because they believe that the Bible would prevent women from being in positions of leadership.  The same applies to race.  Churches are free to restrict, say, blue people, from holding certain ecclesiastic positions.  However, individual members of that Church may not engaged in workplace discrimination in their private businesses.

 

In my view, this is the position that the Church should have taken in this regard.  As an institution, it should be able to set WHATEVER rules it feels conform to the will of HF.  However, individual members need not be allowed to use their religious beliefs to avoid the law as it applies to secular matters.  Certainly, the Church isn't arguing that members of Bob Jones' church should be able to discriminate against blacks in their private housing and employment arrangements.  So why are gays and lesbians being offered less protection?

Elder Oaks was just doubling down on his, "We're the victims here." Argument.