Lgbt Rigts V Religious Right, The Unanswered Questions

[bluebell]

I absolutely agree with your post.  I think the church has presented a dilemma that seems to have no answer to solve.  If anyone on this board has a solution, I would LOVE to hear it.

 

The only solution I have come up with is that perhaps religion is thinking wrongly about how they serve sinners.  Perhaps they should serve all customers not because it violates their religious beliefs, but rather because OF their religious beliefs.  I am calling for religious people to follow the message of Christ as a solution to the dilemma.  

 

But hey, not everyone views the message of Christ the same way.  Clearly others think that Christ would never serve a sinner a cake.  I accept that others feel differently.  So what is the solution?  Anyone?  If the board could focus on a solution to this dilemma, then it would be a much more productive conversation.  I have presented mine.  Any other ideas?

 

I think the first thing that has to be done, before any kind of resolution can even exist on the horizon, is for people to see the real issue and not the one they make up in their heads.

 

For example, i don't think that the church is saying that it would be o.k. not to serve someone a cake because they are gay.  What they do seem to be saying is that it's o.k. for someone not to make a SSM couple a wedding cake because they disagree with SSM.

 

Christ, of course, had no issue being around sinners (thank goodness since we all are!!), but unless you can show an example where Christ participated in helping a sinner accomplish their sin or celebrate their sin, then your solution doesn't actually address the problem as some religious people understand it.

 

The message of Christ was to save us from our sins, not save us in our sins.  

[california boy]

I think the first thing that has to be done, before any kind of resolution can even exist on the horizon, is for people to see the real issue and not the one they make up in their heads.

 

For example, i don't think that the church is saying that it would be o.k. not to serve someone a cake because they are gay.  What they do seem to be saying is that it's o.k. for someone not to make a SSM couple a wedding cake because they disagree with SSM.

 

Christ, of course, had no issue being around sinners (thank goodness since we all are!!), but unless you can show an example where Christ participated in helping a sinner accomplish their sin or celebrate their sin, then your solution doesn't actually address the problem as some religious people understand it.

 

The message of Christ was to save us from our sins, not save us in our sins.  

 

The only way I can read that statement is the baker can discriminate against a gay couple because of their reilgious beliefs.  BTW, it is also the only way the courts could view the statement.  I am trying to understand this.  Tell me how it is not discrimination to not serve their customers.  Religious belief only becomes the reason to justify their discrimination.  

 

And it may be a valid reason.  But for it to become a valid reason, then the anti discrimination laws have to be struck down.  Those are the implications of allowing any kind of discrimination for whatever reason.  Because I can not think of a scenerio where a person could not discriminate against anyone and claim it was just their religious beliefs that prevented them from serving the customer.

[Buckeye]

Say, for example, the BYU women's BB team has a Cinderella season and reaches the NCAA final 4. Some of the games are on Sunday. Should the NCAA be asked to change the date of the Sunday game or should the team just forfeit the game?

 

Yes. NCAA has already said they will change the schedule. Good move.

 

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/tournament/2014/story/_/id/10690816/byu-cougars-women-final-four-mean-schedule-change

 

 

Edit to add: BYU men's and women's teams routinely make it into the tournament field of 68. For the first round of games, 1/2 of the teams play on Thur-Sat, half on Fri-Sun. The NCAA intentionally schedules BYU on a Thur-Sat schedule. Sometimes this means BYU gets bumped up a little in their tournament ranking; sometimes they get bumped down a little. This year, it probably won't matter, at least for the men's team which is not on pace to make the tournament.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Buckeye

[tonie]

I can't even think what the compromise would be.  Can you suggest a compromise that would work or ever one that would be fair?

 

It is difficult to try and understand what that compromise could be.

 

The Church supported Salt Lake City's non-discrimination ordinance, which i believe had a very short "exemption" section.

 

The Church did not support (did not take a position on) the State wide non-discrimination law for the State of Utah. This law, has a very long exemption section.

 

There is one notable difference between the SLC ordinance and Utah legislature during 2013.  For the SLC ordinance the Church statement suggested that they supported it because it did not do violence to traditional marriage.

 

By 2013, religious individuals were claiming religious right to discriminate. The Church response to Utah's bill was that religious rights should be protected. But given that the Bill had a very long section of exemptions...who knows what the Church might support.  We have two bill (maybe 3 as the Church too no position on ENDA) that might provide some guidance.

[stemelbow]

eh...the BYU football team has already played on Sunday a few times, at least the last part of games. No one on the team including coach and administration has stepped out on the field just before Midnight and sent everyone home. They just kept playing (and losing).

We make far too much a legal issue here. It doesn't hurt anything to play on Sunday. No one advocates making a habit out of it.

[Calm]

People, discrimination still exisists. It's real and it's ugly. In 2015 I still experience it on occassion locally because I'm LDS. It is not acceptable. Those of you saying it is not a problem are seriously out to lunch...probably in Utah somewhere. Discrimination exists and it it terrible. It should not be tolerated whether it is LGBT, blacks, jews, or Mormons suffering.

So laws haven't made it go away.

 

Perhaps laws aren't the answer (I really don't know) either in the long run or the short to removing racism and inappropriate discrimination.

[tonie]

We know very little about the Church position.

 

This is a position of the Church "Utah law already exempts small businesses with fewer than 15 employees from nondiscrimination laws. That threshold exemption should be maintained."

[stemelbow]

So laws haven't made it go away.

 

Perhaps laws aren't the answer (I really don't know) either in the long run or the short to removing racism and inappropriate discrimination.

Whose to say laws haven't helped minimize discrimination? Laws like the anti-discrimination law probably has.

[tonie]

I think the first thing that has to be done, before any kind of resolution can even exist on the horizon, is for people to see the real issue and not the one they make up in their heads.

 

For example, i don't think that the church is saying that it would be o.k. not to serve someone a cake because they are gay.  What they do seem to be saying is that it's o.k. for someone not to make a SSM couple a wedding cake because they disagree with SSM.

 

Christ, of course, had no issue being around sinners (thank goodness since we all are!!), but unless you can show an example where Christ participated in helping a sinner accomplish their sin or celebrate their sin, then your solution doesn't actually address the problem as some religious people understand it.

 

The message of Christ was to save us from our sins, not save us in our sins.  

 

 

How would apply the same principle to a landlord, who does not live in or near the rental properties?  What part of a landlords religious liberty is repressed by not being allowed to exclude Mormon tenants?

[HappyJackWagon]

So laws haven't made it go away.

 

Perhaps laws aren't the answer (I really don't know) either in the long run or the short to removing racism and inappropriate discrimination.

Some laws have had a tremendous impact for the good. Racism for example has diminished significantly since the civil rights legislation was passed. Just because the law doesn't eradicate the evil doesn't mean it's not a good law. In fact it is needed because the evil of discrimination hasn't gone away. Discrimination always sounds fine to the person doing the discriminating. Not so much for the person on the receiving end.

[stemelbow]

Oppose job discrimination laws protecting homosexuals,

unless such laws contain exceptions permitting

employers to exclude homosexuals from employment that

involves teaching of or other intimate association

with young people

This is what Elder Oaks recommended the Church do 30 years ago. Oppose protecting Homosexuals pertaining to employment (odd that he once characterize laws protecting homosexuals as being discrimination). Now he's flipped one hundred and eighty degrees from that, which is good--support laws which protect and do not discriminate against homosexuals.

Sometimes we all just take baby steps and in the course of 30 years we reverse course. I'll be interested to see how more of this plays out over the course of the next 30 years. I think we all may be in for some pretty big surprises. That seems to happen when we try to rely on dogma, political ideology, culture and tradition as a means of defining us. Too often, it seems, we're calling all those forces revelation though. Oops.

[bluebell]

The only way I can read that statement is the baker can discriminate against a gay couple because of their reilgious beliefs.  BTW, it is also the only way the courts could view the statement.  I am trying to understand this.  Tell me how it is not discrimination to not serve their customers.  Religious belief only becomes the reason to justify their discrimination.  

 

And it may be a valid reason.  But for it to become a valid reason, then the anti discrimination laws have to be struck down.  Those are the implications of allowing any kind of discrimination for whatever reason.  Because I can not think of a scenerio where a person could not discriminate against anyone and claim it was just their religious beliefs that prevented them from serving the customer.

 

The law allows for discrimination when other rights are deemed important.  For example, it's lawful to discriminate against smokers in certain circumstances.  Laws exist that discriminate against drinkers, drivers, off-road vehicles (ask my husband how much he likes the fact that he can't do certain things on some public lands because other issues have been deemed more important.    )

 

Are you aware that laws even exist which allow restaurants to refuse to serve children?

 

Discrimination is not evil.  Sometimes it's necessary to serve a greater good and sometimes it's allowable to protect the rights of someone else.

 

The trick (and it's a very difficult one) is to protect as many rights for as many groups as possible without forcing people to do something that violates their beliefs unless it's necessary.

 

The church is pointing out that LGBT's rights are not more important than the religious rights of others and therefore, they can't be ignored or treated as if they don't exist.  By saying that, they are not saying that LGBT don't deserved to have some rights protected as well.

Edited January 30, 2015 by bluebell

[bluebell]

How would apply the same principle to a landlord, who does not live in or near the rental properties?  What part of a landlords religious liberty is repressed by not being allowed to exclude Mormon tenants?

 

I don't know.  There are no easy answers.  

[Robert F. Smith]

 .............................................................................   

 

Elder Christofferson clarified-"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."

 

Elder Oaks also clarified-"Some conservatives and faith leaders worry the LDS Church proposal would open the door to anti-discrimination laws that could hurt religious believers.

"That's very much like taking a position that religious freedom is an absolute and there are no exceptions," Elder Oaks said, "and it should override in any and all circumstances the values of nondiscrimination. We don't believe in that extreme,....The free exercise of religion is critical to Latter-day Saints, but they recognize exceptions for things like safety and public health, he said.

"There's great danger in thinking religious freedom is abolute and overrides everything about nondiscrimination," Elder Oaks said. "And there is great danger in thinking nondiscrimination in absolute and overrides religious freedom."

 

The last paragraph seems to summarize the whole point of the news conference.

That nearly says it all, Bluebell, but there is an additional consideration which some younger participants on this board may not realize:

 

The public accommodations battles in the USA were largely fought and won over 50 years ago, and most of what we see taking place now is an attempt to settle the nuances through legislation or court rulings.  The days when hotels, hospitals, lunchcounters, and restaurants could legally refuse service to Blacks, Mexicans, Mormons, gays, or other hated groups is long gone.  Such business owners do not have a choice in such matters, regardless of their personal feelings, and can be successfully prosecuted for failure to abide by the law.  This does not of course apply to private firms or religious organizations, which are free to discriminate on nearly any basis they wish -- if they are willing to bear the bad publicity.

 

Outside the USA, of course, it is another story, and one must understand local laws, customs, and prejudices.

 

Elder Oaks, with his long experience as a professor of law and as a supreme court justice, understands these matters very well.

[bluebell]

Discrimination always sounds fine to the person doing the discriminating. Not so much for the person on the receiving end.

 

That is very true.  I once picked up a magazine which i didn't know was catered towards smokers and you should have read their opinions on all the laws which don't allow them to smoke in public places anymore.  They were completely up-in-arms about how their rights were being trampled and they were being discriminated against.

 

One even complained how she wasn't allowed to smoke in a theater but the woman next to her could try to kill her off with her strong perfume.  

[Ahab]

The simple solution, in principle, is to not coerce or intimidate someone into doing what someone else thinks should be done, and that should apply to lawmakers as well as the average citizen. If there is an exception to that rule it is only God who should intimidate someone, but none of us here should be trying to coerce or intimidate anyone else, even when we decide that something should not be legal.

I don't know if all of society is ready to implement that solution now, though, because some people seem to be fine with the idea that laws from law makers should intimidate us, especially the law makers. So they would probably need to be among the first who need to think more about their reasoning for enacting some laws.

[CV75]

The only way I can read that statement is the baker can discriminate against a gay couple because of their reilgious beliefs.  BTW, it is also the only way the courts could view the statement.  I am trying to understand this.  Tell me how it is not discrimination to not serve their customers.  Religious belief only becomes the reason to justify their discrimination.  

 

And it may be a valid reason.  But for it to become a valid reason, then the anti discrimination laws have to be struck down.  Those are the implications of allowing any kind of discrimination for whatever reason.  Because I can not think of a scenerio where a person could not discriminate against anyone and claim it was just their religious beliefs that prevented them from serving the customer.

Just for giggles:

 

Groom A: “For religious reasons, I want to celebrate my church marriage by purchasing a cake.”

 

Baker B: “For religious reasons, I do not want to celebrate his church marriage by selling him a cake.”

 

Assuming they both feel equally strong about their religious beliefs and do not want to flip a coin, Groom A’s religion cannot force the baker to comply with his beliefs any more than Baker B’s religion can force Groom A to annul his marriage. So, to keep things fair the anti-discrimination law would require Groom A to get his cake elsewhere so that no one is forcing anyone to deny their faith on religious grounds.

[Sleeper Cell]

It is difficult to try and understand what that compromise could be.

 

 

 

From your OP:

 

 

What religious belief  could a person have that would perclude them from serving food to a same-sex couple?

 

 

No wonder why you find it difficult to try and understand what the compromise could be.  . 

[Rob Osborn]

The only way I can read that statement is the baker can discriminate against a gay couple because of their reilgious beliefs.  BTW, it is also the only way the courts could view the statement.  I am trying to understand this.  Tell me how it is not discrimination to not serve their customers.  Religious belief only becomes the reason to justify their discrimination.  

 

And it may be a valid reason.  But for it to become a valid reason, then the anti discrimination laws have to be struck down.  Those are the implications of allowing any kind of discrimination for whatever reason.  Because I can not think of a scenerio where a person could not discriminate against anyone and claim it was just their religious beliefs that prevented them from serving the customer.

People like bakers in private business should have the right to lawfully discriminate based off of their own personal beliefs, whether they come from Satan, God, aliens, nothing, etc. The flip side here is that it would be unfair if they were "forced" to have to bake a cake for any reason, for any cause, for any person or group, etc, that bothered their personal beliefs and conscious.

Go back to my analogy with the Jewish wedding photographer. Would it be right if an Islamic person demanded the Jewish wedding photographer to photograph his wedding and the government made him do it or risk fines and possible lawsuits?

Now, suppose that I opened a wedding cake shop for LDS weddings where I specialized in LDS wedding cakes but I also sold other pastries in which anyone could come in and buy. Then suppose a gay couple come in and need a wedding cake for their gay wedding. I could say, "i'm sorry, I only do LDS weddings you will need someone else to bake your cake". Is that discrimination? Yes, but it is LAWFUL discrimination. The problem with making anti-discrimination laws that include wordings of sexual identity, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc, is that it open Pandora's box on where and how to draw the line because its impossible to make it an unvarying line across the board in all applications.

[Rob Osborn]

That is very true.  I once picked up a magazine which i didn't know was catered towards smokers and you should have read their opinions on all the laws which don't allow them to smoke in public places anymore.  They were completely up-in-arms about how their rights were being trampled and they were being discriminated against.

 

One even complained how she wasn't allowed to smoke in a theater but the woman next to her could try to kill her off with her strong perfume.

Not sure here but I am pretty sure that according to the Surgeon General, smelling strong perfume doesnt cause lung cancer, emphysema, or heart disease.

[The Nehor]

The simple solution, in principle, is to not coerce or intimidate someone into doing what someone else thinks should be done, and that should apply to lawmakers as well as the average citizen. If there is an exception to that rule it is only God who should intimidate someone, but none of us here should be trying to coerce or intimidate anyone else, even when we decide that something should not be legal.

I don't know if all of society is ready to implement that solution now, though, because some people seem to be fine with the idea that laws from law makers should intimidate us, especially the law makers. So they would probably need to be among the first who need to think more about their reasoning for enacting some laws.

So we should not have laws against cheating people because that would intimidate cheaters and we should leave their punishment to God? Think of the poor man running the Ponzi scheme! We should stop forcing our values onto him!

[california boy]

ok lets go through this rob.  You have a few flaws in what you present.  Hopefully you will see the problems.

People like bakers in private business should have the right to lawfully discriminate based off of their own personal beliefs, whether they come from Satan, God, aliens, nothing, etc. The flip side here is that it would be unfair if they were "forced" to have to bake a cake for any reason, for any cause, for any person or group, etc, that bothered their personal beliefs and conscious.
 

Right now, private business does not have the legal right to discriminate based on any beliief.  It is part of the agreement to hold a business license.  It is what they agreed to do as a condition of that license.  So to be able to do what you suggest, the anti-discrimination laws must be appealed.  I have stated this repeatedly.  If you feel the bake should have the right to discriminate, then work to change the law.  You might succeed.  Perhaps there is no legal basis for the government to force a business to not discriminate.

 

Go back to my analogy with the Jewish wedding photographer. Would it be right if an Islamic person demanded the Jewish wedding photographer to photograph his wedding and the government made him do it or risk fines and possible lawsuits?

Now, suppose that I opened a wedding cake shop for LDS weddings where I specialized in LDS wedding cakes but I also sold other pastries in which anyone could come in and buy. Then suppose a gay couple come in and need a wedding cake for their gay wedding. I could say, "i'm sorry, I only do LDS weddings you will need someone else to bake your cake". Is that discrimination? Yes, but it is LAWFUL discrimination. The problem with making anti-discrimination laws that include wordings of sexual identity, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc, is that it open Pandora's box on where and how to draw the line because its impossible to make it an unvarying line across the board in all applications.

 

The answer to your question is no, the Jewish wedding photographer does not have the right to discriminate against the Islamic person.  Unless you can show a legal ruling that says otherwise.  Currently the courts have all said, businesses can not discriminate against the customers they service if they are open to the public.

 

The same answer is true for the LDS baker.  That is how the law is currently written.  If you are reading the law differently, then you wil have to explain how the law allows for discrimination. Currently it does not.

 

 

As I have stated in another thread, perhaps the photographer should not offer to do weddings.  There are plenty of professional photographers who don't shoot weddings.   Sure it might cost him business.  But doesn't every business that makes a moral choice to not do something loose income?  The store that decides to stay closed on Sunday?  The store that decides not to carry alcohol?  The store that decides to not sell porn?  The baker that decides not to bake wedding cakes?  All of those choices are perfectly legal and are allowed under the conditions of their business license.  It seems like a simple solution.  Sometimes standing up for your religious beliefs comes with a price.

[california boy]

I might add just in case anyone might think otherwise.  I don't believe changing the anti discrimination laws to allow religious beliefs as a reason to discriminate will would be legal either.  I think the Supreme Court would rule that is still discrimination.  The only way to accomplish what you wish to do is to completely eliminate the anti discrimination laws.

Edited January 30, 2015 by california boy

[KevinG]

On a side note if I want cake I go to a baker.  If I want Mormonism I go to my Ward (or of course this discussion board).

 

I wonder if an LDS baker can refuse to make a Coca-Cola cake based on their belief in the word of wisdom?

 

On the flip side I wonder if a Jewish Deli can be forced to make pork cubans, since they are in the business of selling sandwiches to the public?

 

Oh the webs we weave when we wonder.

[Rob Osborn]

ok lets go through this rob.  You have a few flaws in what you present.  Hopefully you will see the problems.

Right now, private business does not have the legal right to discriminate based on any beliief.  It is part of the agreement to hold a business license.  It is what they agreed to do as a condition of that license.  So to be able to do what you suggest, the anti-discrimination laws must be appealed.  I have stated this repeatedly.  If you feel the bake should have the right to discriminate, then work to change the law.  You might succeed.  Perhaps there is no legal basis for the government to force a business to not discriminate.

 

The answer to your question is no, the Jewish wedding photographer does not have the right to discriminate against the Islamic person.  Unless you can show a legal ruling that says otherwise.  Currently the courts have all said, businesses can not discriminate against the customers they service if they are open to the public.

 

The same answer is true for the LDS baker.  That is how the law is currently written.  If you are reading the law differently, then you wil have to explain how the law allows for discrimination. Currently it does not.

 

 

As I have stated in another thread, perhaps the photographer should not offer to do weddings.  There are plenty of professional photographers who don't shoot weddings.   Sure it might cost him business.  But doesn't every business that makes a moral choice to not do something loose income?  The store that decides to stay closed on Sunday?  The store that decides not to carry alcohol?  The store that decides to not sell porn?  The baker that decides not to bake wedding cakes?  All of those choices are perfectly legal and are allowed under the conditions of their business license.  It seems like a simple solution.  Sometimes standing up for your religious beliefs comes with a price.

You simply do not understand the laws of the land.