USU78 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 So basically you want to bring back "separate but equal"? "Separate but equal" has to do with allocation of government resources (schools, teachers, teaching supplies, & the like per Plessy v Ferguson, but see Brown v Board of Ed.). It has nothing to do with the freedom of religion, freedom of association, or the contracts clause. The state lawfully enjoined sacrifice of swine on the 2nd Temple's altar, before an image of Epiphanes in his guise as Zeus-on-earth, not because it was necessary or wise, but because it was useful to humiliate a vanquished population by desecrating what is sacred. Making me raise the pig, provide feed for the pig, cause impregnation of the sows by Select Sires of Syria, chop the wood for the altar, carry the wood to the altar, light the fire for the holocaust, carry the pig to the altar, kill the pig, dress the pig, present the pig's carcase to the gathered congregants, or suffer the indignity of being splattered with the blood of the pig . . . is an affront to me. Don't go lying and saying each or any of the above steps in and of itself is unoffensive: each is a step in preparation for or consummation of the ritual meal of Zeus/Epiphanes forced upon the prostrate Jews. I ain't sending my Select Sires of Syria hog to Jerusalem . . . and I ain't bakin' nobody no cake. 1
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 "Separate but equal" has to do with allocation of government resources (schools, teachers, teaching supplies, & the like per Plessy v Ferguson, but see Brown v Board of Ed.). It has nothing to do with the freedom of religion, freedom of association, or the contracts clause. The state lawfully enjoined sacrifice of swine on the 2nd Temple's altar, before an image of Epiphanes in his guise as Zeus-on-earth, not because it was necessary or wise, but because it was useful to humiliate a vanquished population by desecrating what is sacred. Making me raise the pig, provide feed for the pig, cause impregnation of the sows by Select Sires of Syria, chop the wood for the altar, carry the wood to the altar, light the fire for the holocaust, carry the pig to the altar, kill the pig, dress the pig, present the pig's carcase to the gathered congregants, or suffer the indignity of being splattered with the blood of the pig . . . is an affront to me. Don't go lying and saying each or any of the above steps in and of itself is unoffensive: each is a step in preparation for or consummation of the ritual meal of Zeus/Epiphanes forced upon the prostrate Jews. I ain't sending my Select Sires of Syria hog to Jerusalem . . . and I ain't bakin' nobody no cake."Separate but equal" was officially about government being required to provide equal services to both race and failing abysmally but something similar was used to justify denying black people access to a business. The argument was that as long as anyone was willing to provide the service it was okay to refuse it. To continue our ubiquitous example it is like saying as long as a third-rate bakery run by someone who cannot cook is willing to bake a cake.Unless you are arguing that providing an inoffensive good or service is akin to spilling blood to placate mighty Cthulhu in an LDS temple I do not understand your point. If you. Are arguing that then I suggest seeking help. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
USU78 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Except when we don't. 2
USU78 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 "Separate but equal" was officially about government being required to provide equal services to both race and failing abysmally but something similar was used to justify denying black people access to a business. The argument was that as long as anyone was willing to provide the service it was okay to refuse it. To continue our ubiquitous example it is like saying as long as a third-rate bakery run by someone who cannot cook is willing to bake a cake.Unless you are arguing that providing an inoffensive good or service is akin to spilling blood to placate mighty Cthulhu in an LDS temple I do not understand your point. If you. Are arguing that then I suggest seeking help. Making me participate in an offensive and blasphemous horror like a homosexual "marriage" is the functional equivalent of making me eat the sacrifice or suffer my body to be sprinkled with its blood as was done during Epiphanes' desecration of the 2nd Temple. It's not that hard. 2
Rob Osborn Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) In a discussion with the Salt Lake Tribune, Elder Oaks did not want to discuss the hypothetical of allowing religious freedom to extend to discrimination against other religious people. The specific hypothetical was a Evangelical resturant owner refusing service to LDS Missionaries.Additionally, a bill (HB322) recently proposed in the Utah, makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person due to that persons religious beliefs.For our consideration:Religion is a choice.Religion is a choice that people often change.Religion is a choice that many religions actively seek to change in other people.Religion is a choice to believe in things which is are not see and are virtually unprovable.This begs two questions:Why should a religious persons individual choice in life be entitled to protection from discrimination?Why should a non-religious personnal choice not be afforded the same protection as a religious choice?Lets ask the question a little different-Why do we pass laws against public nudity?Its obvious that laws are passed based on a peoples beliefs of morals. Those morals are often directly tied to ones religious beliefs. Of course we could make it legal for men and women to go out in public in the total nude but its obvious the problems it would create. Edited February 17, 2015 by Rob Osborn
toon Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) It seems to me that the "social check" on this behavior is powerful. That is, even if people would love not to serve Mormons, it would be economically disadvantageous not to, so most who don't want to will do it, anyway. In this modern climate, those who refuse to bake a cake, take wedding pictures, etc. for gay marriages are seen as "jerks" by most people, so there is an economic incentive to do it, anyway. I think that is generally true, but to some extent, may depend on the size and diversity of the population. In a small town there may not be alternatives. Assuming there was still some social check, where a potential competitor might see an opportunity, it's not a guarantee, there are barriers to entry, and the time that it takes to get a competitor up and running could still result in some classes not being afforded reasonable access to the goods or services in question. In larger communities, there may still be enclaves where competition and services are not reasonably available (think the so-called food deserts). There may also be non-diverse communities where the discrimination is acceptable or, at best, not considered enough of stigma to discourage it. I would imagine that in a small town largely populated by people with conservative religious values, a baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for the sole gay couple in town might get quite a bit of community support. And some communities may be sufficiently large and diverse that a business practicing invidious discrimination can carve out a niche for itself. At least in those situations, the class being discriminated against is likely to have reasonable alternatives. Los Angeles is large enough that a bakery that refuses to bake cakes for gay might increase their customer base by taking that stance. But the harm to particular gay and lesbian couples would be minimized by the numerous other bakeries that would gladly take their business. Edited February 17, 2015 by toon
toon Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 One thing that I struggle with when considering religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws is that in many instances, those laws impose a real cost on doing business. One way to quantify those costs is to look at the differences in premiums for EPLI policies that cover certain types of discrimination allegations and those that do not. And there are costs associated with developing policies and procedures, forms, training, record keeping, etc. to ensure and prove compliance. Why should someone get a competitive advantage over other businesses just because they happen to hold a religious belief that exempts them from having to incur the costs associated with the anti-discrimination law?
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Making me participate in an offensive and blasphemous horror like a homosexual "marriage" is the functional equivalent of making me eat the sacrifice or suffer my body to be sprinkled with its blood as was done during Epiphanes' desecration of the 2nd Temple. It's not that hard.No it isn't. Get help.
USU78 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) No it isn't. Get help. That isn't helpful. And if you cannot or don't want to understand how another individual can view this compulsory participation in an obscene ritual as offensive, I won't be able to help you. Edited February 17, 2015 by USU78 3
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 That isn't helpful. And if you cannot or don't want to understand how another individual can view this compulsory participation in an obscene ritual as offensive, I won't be able to help you.It is usually an awkward affair where people get drunk with family and friends and flowers are thrown around and people make promises.What is so obscene about it? Well, other then the sodomy that night.
ERayR Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Not sure why you came up that godwin example. Perhaps because it fits. 1
Pahoran Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 In a discussion with the Salt Lake Tribune, Elder Oaks did not want to discuss the hypothetical of allowing religious freedom to extend to discrimination against other religious people. The specific hypothetical was a Evangelical resturant owner refusing service to LDS Missionaries. Additionally, a bill (HB322) recently proposed in the Utah, makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person due to that persons religious beliefs. For our consideration: Religion is a choice.Religion is a choice that people often change.Religion is a choice that many religions actively seek to change in other people.Religion is a choice to believe in things which is are not see and are virtually unprovable. This begs two questions:Actually it doesn't "beg" any questions, although it may raise one, or two, or some other number. Why should a religious persons individual choice in life be entitled to protection from discrimination? Why should a non-religious personnal choice not be afforded the same protection as a religious choice?Your questions actually tell us rather a lot about the questioner.Religious allegiances and practices are indeed a matter of choice. But religious convictions, ultimately, are not.That you don't understand this, rather strongly suggests that having real convictions is something outside of your experience.Freedom of religion -- defined as the freedom to practice one's religion without fear of reprisals -- is an essential cornerstone of a free society.Which is to say, it is relevant to liberty, but not to libertines.Regards,Pahoran
tonie Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 Perhaps because it fits. It does not fit at all. It demonstrate an propensity manufacture an offense. Perhaps, you could explain how prohibiting Government from discriminating against Mormons, but not forbidding private individuals from discriminating against Mormons, leads to freight cars full of Mormons being hauled to death camps.
tonie Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Pahoran, if you are going to be your usual self - deliberately insulting, passing unrighteous judgement on others, red-herring, straw-men - then I would ask that you no longer participate in this thread. If however, you are capable of discussion without resorting to insults, passing judgment on others, red-herrings, straw-man, AND you are willing to have a discussion without resorting to those things, then you are welcome to continue to discuss the topic. Edited February 18, 2015 by tonie
tonie Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 The United State Constitution protects individuals from Government actions. There is good reason to prohibit Governments from engaging in discriminatory conduct. But why should a individual be prohibited from discriminating against Mormons? Why shouldn't a business owner, who is opposed to the teachings of the LDS Church, be allowed to refuse services to Mormons?
Storm Rider Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 The United State Constitution protects individuals from Government actions. There is good reason to prohibit Governments from engaging in discriminatory conduct. But why should a individual be prohibited from discriminating against Mormons? Why shouldn't a business owner, who is opposed to the teachings of the LDS Church, be allowed to refuse services to Mormons? When did it stop. People still will not vote for a presidential candidate if he is Mormon - should they be forced to vote for a Mormon? If you think this discrimination stops at voting you are sadly mistaken. The point is not that Mormons should appeal to the government to force everyone to tow a moral line or standard; the point is everyone discriminates every day - almost constantly - against others and no one is demanding laws to prevent all discrimination, why is that? Why does one group get special rights and the vast majority that feels the sting of discrimination are ignored? If someone does want to serve a Mormon or is rude in their manner they serve me, guess what? I don't frequent their establishment. I go across the street and buy from someone who appreciates my business. I am against forcing everyone to love Mormons or any other group. If you don't want to serve people then fine. If you can do it and accept the consequences then as far as I am concerned knock yourself out. I reject special rights except for those who cannot help themselves or when a significant injustice results. Forcing people to meet a standard du jour is seldom wise and seldom results in a better society or a more tolerant people. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Markets are not magic. Edited February 18, 2015 by thesometimesaint
tonie Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 The point is not that Mormons should appeal to the government to force everyone to tow a moral line or standard;... And yet, a recent proposed bill in Utah specifically prohibits discrimination based on a persons religion. Why does one group get special rights and the vast majority that feels the sting of discrimination are ignored? Histrionic drivel. What group gets special rights? And what "special rights" do the group get? If you are referring too sexual orientation non-discrimination laws, perhaps you do not realize the laws are nuetral as to oreintation. .
ERayR Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Markets are not magic. No but if allowed to function they are efficient and effective.
thesometimesaint Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 No but if allowed to function they are efficient and effective. Unfortunately the goal of markets is not efficiency or effectiveness. The goal of markets is to make money.
thesometimesaint Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Lets ask the question a little different-Why do we pass laws against public nudity?Its obvious that laws are passed based on a peoples beliefs of morals. Those morals are often directly tied to ones religious beliefs. Of course we could make it legal for men and women to go out in public in the total nude but its obvious the problems it would create. What if my deeply held religious belief says I can walk around town totally nude. Why should I be prosecuted for my deeply held religious belief that injures no one?
JLHPROF Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 What if my deeply held religious belief says I can walk around town totally nude. Why should I be prosecuted for my deeply held religious belief that injures no one? And yet, you would be prosecuted... Does that mean the law violates the constitution? What about the anti-bigamy laws? If they're consenting adults it injures no one.
Tacenda Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I think this LDS doctor's article, just about settles it!! http://greenteahp.com/Green-Tea-HP-Marriage.aspx?ID=www Quote from the article: "My church has already started the compromise process. Good for it. Where it holds its ground, ultimately, is anyone's guess, but this much is certain, they will use the democratic process to let its feelings be heard.Democracy and religion in America can be complicated and messy. The process we have chosen to be governed by is loud and filled with many, many divergent views. I'm glad it's taking place this way. We're all learning about how decisions are arrived at in America.We're becoming more than an inch deep in understanding how democracy and religion work with and up against one another.What is the fundamental principle that drives all this?I'm pretty certain that one's individual human rights trumps all else.An organization's rights are not more fundamental than one's individual rights. Group rights are not more fundamental than one's civil rights. One's religious views do not trump another's personal freedom to pursue to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.Sometimes these distinctions can be subtle and nuanced, nevertheless, they are not insurmountable. So let the debate begin anew this year. Let men and women of good will come together to make laws and interpret those laws in each and every case brought before them."
Pahoran Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Pahoran, if you are going to be your usual self - deliberately insulting, passing unrighteous judgement on others, red-herring, straw-men - then I would ask that you no longer participate in this thread.Because, of course, there's nothing remotely judgemental or insulting about that diatribe, is there?That's all right, Tonie. I know you're just being your usual self.Regards,Pahoran Poster has been removed from thread.
Recommended Posts