Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) But the Union doesn't have much choice. They are under contractual obligation to protect members because members pay dues. If they don't step in, they are shirking their duties to the officer. But he's Mormon. Union is made up of those southern baptists. So that's OK. JK! I don't know much about labor unions, but I am somewhat acquainted with politics and the propensity of people to rationalize. In the Missouri and Illinois periods of Church history, mob oppression against Mormons was justified on the grounds that it reflected popular opinion. Vox populi is vox Dei (the voice of the people is the voice of God) was the expression that was used, as I recall. Besides, I think this thing has already moved too far along for that. Coustos has already found employment with another law enforcement agency. I doubt he would want to go back, as he deemed himself as "untouchable" after all this went down. Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
sethpayne Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 It's a new day, sethpayne. Gay-rights activists are feeling their oats and, in large measure, have gotten what they want in an astoundingly short period of time. That's why we have to be on guard against the the tyranny of political correctness. Scott, my friend, I will stand with you 100% against fascistic political correctness. I hate it and I really hate how everyone feels entitled to not having their feelings hurt. Sometimes things just need to be said. And everyone should be free to say them. But I think one difference between our views is that I see this officer's action as a threat to *my religious and political freedom* whereas you see his suspension as an attack on your *religious and political freedom.* In other words, we both seek to protect the same thing but we each perceive the threat differently. I see it as a threat because in our secular society no person in public authority should get to pick and choose when they live up to their duties. It would be absurd for me to argue that this officer put others at risk etc.... However, I will argue that the public cannot allow this precedent to be set. Next week it may be the muslims. Or the Saints. Or the Tea Party. Or Occupy Wall Street. I want to ensure that ALL of these disparate groups are free to exercise their rights. I think you want the same thing. But whereas I see it as a threat, you see his suspension as the threat. And I think I understand why. I just hold a different view. 2
tonie Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Raising the question -- and even pressing the point to a degree -- does not equate to refusing the assignment. He refused, plain and simple. He could not have later agreed without first refusing. He refused.
sethpayne Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) I don't know much about labor unions, but I am somewhat acquainted with politics and the propensity of people to rationalize. In the Missouri and Illinois periods of Church history, mob oppression against Mormons was justified on the grounds that it reflected popular opinion. Vox populi is vox Dei (the voice of the people is the voice of God) was the expression that was used, as I recall. Scott -- I'd have to do some searching but didn't you complain when the courts overturned Utah's SSM ban? Something about judicial tyranny overturning the will of the people? As Missouri, Illinois, and SSM in Utah show, the minority often need the protection from those who serve the public. That's the whole point of the US Const. Balance the preference of the majority with the rights of the minority. PS -- FWIW, a few years ago I was flying back to SLC from the Bay Area just after the weekend Pride parade. I got into a conversation with a lesbian couple headed back home. When they learned I was LDS they said "Oh, the Mormons don't give us any problems. They are very nice and just let us be. But the _____, those guys are the real jerks." (The word "jerks" has been substituted for another pejorative.) Edited March 2, 2015 by sethpayne
tonie Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Moutsos: I recently read about a court case where a florist in Washington didn’t want to be a part of a gay wedding. Rueters: "Florist Barronelle Stutzman ... maintained her Christian beliefs prevented her from selling the flowers" Was the florist asked "to be a part of a gay wedding"; is it a "gross mischaracterzation" to suggest she was? Edited March 2, 2015 by tonie
tonie Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 More information to consider in reference to Moutsos characterization of the florist from Washington. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT Of THE STATE OF WASHINGTON "There was no discussion between the parties about ... whether Stutzman [Florist] was being asked to attend the wedding."
stemelbow Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 He refused, plain and simple. He could not have later agreed without first refusing. He refused. Can you point out where we learn that he refused? He tells it like he asked to change responsibilities. No indication of refusing. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 This thing is attracting quite a bit of national attention. More than just a local issue, it is becoming a test case for the tension between providing safeguards for LGBT people and ensuring the perpetuation of religious liberty. Here, noted conservative columnist Ron Dreher weighs in: In Salt Lake City, police officer Eric Moutsos lost his job because he declined to march in a gay pride parade. Note well: he did not refuse to provide police security for the parade; he declined to march in it. Also, What Moutsos is learning — what all traditional Christians will soon learn — is that there is no accommodation to be made. You are the Enemy, and must be crushed. You will be forced to advocate for things that violate your conscience, and if you refuse, it doesn’t matter how far you are willing to go to be accommodating: you will be branded a hater, and forced out of your job.
tonie Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) This thing is attracting quite a bit of national attention. More than just a local issue, it is becoming a test case for the tension between providing safeguards for LGBT people and ensuring the perpetuation of religious liberty.Here, noted conservative columnist Ron Dreher weighs in:In Salt Lake City, police officer Eric Moutsos lost his job because he declined to march in a gay pride parade. Note well: he did not refuse to provide police security for the parade; he declined to march in it.Scott why do you post such propgandist drivel from Dreher? He cant even get a basic fact right. At least, in the first sentences, he lets the INFORMED reader know that he is not reliableAre you now claiming Moutsos did not resign?Are you now claiming that Moutsos was ordered to march in the parade? Why would you post Drehers false statement about the events? Propagandist drivel does nothing but destroy credibilty; to include yours. Edited March 2, 2015 by tonie
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Here's a podcast interview with Eric Moutsos. I haven't had time to listen to the whole thing yet, but I'm finding him interesting, eloquent and personable. He grew up a member of the Church but less active, until age 19 when, after a backyard boxing match with a schoolmate, the other young man the next day brought him a copy of the Book of Mormon and said, "I felt impressed to bring you this." After applying the promise in Moroni, he felt a spiritual confirmation that God was telling him this was the path to follow. Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Scott why do you post such propgandist drivel from Dreher? He cant even get a basic fact right. At least, in the first sentences, he lets the INFORMED reader know that he is not reliableAre you now claiming Moutsos did not resign?Are you now claiming that Moutsos was ordered to march in the parade?Why would you post Drehers false statement about the events? Propagandist drivel does nothing but destroy credibilty; to include yours.It said Moutsos lost his job. That is in effect what happened, as he felt compelled to resign after being suspended and humiliated in public. As for "marching" in the parade, I think Dreher was speaking figuratively there to convey that he was required to be part of the entertainment as opposed to providing security or crowd control. Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
KevinG Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Scott why do you post such propgandist drivel from Dreher? He cant even get a basic fact right. At least, in the first sentences, he lets the INFORMED reader know that he is not reliable Ad Hominem much? I've never heard the guy, and frankly outside the Zion curtain this story has no legs... but you really undermine your position when your response is to slander someone's sources. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQd3mOQUVtU Edited March 2, 2015 by KevinG
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Ad Hominem much? I've never heard the guy, and frankly outside the Zion curtain this story has no legs... but you really undermine your position when your response is to slander someone's sources. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQd3mOQUVtUI don't agree it has no legs. A Google search yields hits in national sources such as the Huffington Post, L. A. Times, American Conservative, ABC News, the Associated Press. That's a good thing, because it brings public attention to the threat to religious freedom. Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
tonie Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Ad Hominem much? I've never heard the guy, and frankly outside the Zion curtain this story has no legs... but you really undermine your position when your response is to slander someone's sources. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQd3mOQUVtU I don't think you understand the word phrase you used. Scott's source, Dreher, made a false statement. The false statement can not be even be given the benefit of personal interpretation. Dreher statement is false, and anyone who took the time to INFORM themself of the issue would know that Drehers position is false. Scott has taken issue, in this thread, with "characterization" or to be more specific, Scott has accused others of "mischaracterization". Dreher's statement goes beyond mischaracterization. Dreher's statement is false. But if Scott wants to post the false statements of others, he is free to do so. Scott, however, is not free from the reprocusions of posting the false statements of others. Edited March 2, 2015 by tonie
tonie Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 As for "marching" in the parade, I think Dreher was speaking figuratively there to convey that he was required to be part of the entertainment as opposed to providing security or crowd control. And others here, did not resort to mischaracterize or false statements, they just posted "figurative" statements.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 And others here, did not resort to mischaracterize or false statements, they just posted "figurative" statements.Dreher's piece excerpts the Deseret News article at length, including the explanation of the choreographed motorcycle maneuvers. If the writer includes that quote in his own piece, the obvious conclusion is he is indeed informed and used the term "march" as an attention-getting device to mean that he was required to be part of the entertainment as opposed to just providing public safety service. And Officer Moustos did lose his job, your quibbling over terminology notwithstanding. 1
tonie Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) I don't agree it has no legs. A Google search yields hits in national sources such as the Huffington Post, L. A. Times, American Conservative, ABC News, the Associated Press. That's a good thing, because it brings public attention to the threat to religious freedom. I agree in part and disagree in part. Several newspapers outside the "Mormon Corridor" reported the events last June. I do not agree that this is about "religious freedom".The issue, is more about selective adherance to laws. (Interesting tid-bit, the Washington ruling against the florist that Moutsos mischaracterized, quoted Reynolds - the polygamy case.) Religious Freedom does not permitt racial discrimination, gender discrimination, or discrimination against other protected classes; there are a few exceptions, but Moutsos actions do not fall within those exceptions. Edited March 2, 2015 by tonie
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Scott, I agree with everything you've said.Thanks, sheilauk. That means a great deal to me. Seriously.
tonie Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Dreher's piece excerpts the Deseret News article at length, including the explanation of the choreographed motorcycle maneuvers. If the writer includes that quote in his own piece, the obvious conclusion is he is indeed informed and used the term "march" as an attention-getting device to mean that he was required to be part of the entertainment as opposed to just providing public safety service. And Officer Moustos did lose his job, your quibbling over terminology notwithstanding. Disagreeing with a false quote you provide, is now "quibbling over terminology"? So in labeling others posts as "mischaracterizations, you really meant "attention getting device." Edited March 2, 2015 by tonie
california boy Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 It said Moutsos lost his job. That is in effect what happened, as he felt compelled to resign after being suspended and humiliated in public. As for "marching" in the parade, I think Dreher was speaking figuratively there to convey that he was required to be part of the entertainment as opposed to providing security or crowd control.Unbelieveable. You really aren't looking for truth are you. 2
stemelbow Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Can you point out where we learn that he refused?He tells it like he asked to change responsibilities. No indication of refusing.Hey tonie. Not sure you ever saw my call for reference here. You say he refused to do it. He says the opposite. What is your source?Thanks
stemelbow Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Can you point out where we learn that he refused?He tells it like he asked to change responsibilities. No indication of refusing.Hey tonie. Not sure you ever saw my call for reference here. You say he refused to do it. He says the opposite. What is your source?Thanks
tonie Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Hey tonie. Not sure you ever saw my call for reference here. You say he refused to do it. He says the opposite. What is your source?Thanks Your request is asking for the obvious. The issue arised out of Moutsos refusal of the assignment and after the refusal was denied, he agreed to the assignment. Read the various articles and/or listen to the podcast Scott linked too - I would suggest starting about about 23 minutes.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Your request is asking for the obvious. The issue arised out of Moutsos refusal of the assignment and after the refusal was denied, he agreed to the assignment. Read the various articles and/or listen to the podcast Scott linked too - I would suggest starting about about 23 minutes.Arranging an assignment swap with a co-worker and then asking management to OK it is not a refusal. It's a request. 4
Recommended Posts