Lds Officer Says He Resigned Due To Religious Discrimination

[bluebell]

I missed sunstones post. He's saying pretty much what I am, it seems. Thanks for quoting.

I just got Bluebell telling me he has plenty of friends that are gay and he has no problems with 95% of their lives. Somehow he thinks it'll be perceived by someone that he approves of 100% of their lives if he drives his police officer motorcycle in a parade. Well that doesnt' make much sense if you consider not one person, I've ever seen, would say he/she supports any other person's life 100%. I don't know any who would say 95%, to tell the truth.

 

I think it was the part of the 5% that made the difference.  

 

If you had a friend and you agreed with 95% of his lifestyle, but not the 5 percent where he thought it was great to eat cats, is it unreasonable for you to not want to be involved with any activity which was a celebration of cat cuisine?

 

I have a sister who had a baby out of wedlock.  I myself was born out of wedlock.  I have nothing but love for people who find themselves in that circumstance (and i know a lot of people who do and our friendship is never questioned).

 

But if someone wanted me to participate in a parade that celebrated sex outside of marriage or having babies outside of marriage i wouldn't do it unless i was forced.

 

Does that explain why it can make sense for someone to make a stand in a disagreement that may only involve 5% of someone's life?  

[stemelbow]

Whether or not to engage in homosexual behavior is a choice.

I guess that depends on what you mean by homosexual behavior. Are you saying he doesn't approve that gay men can dress like women, because that's homosexual behavior? Not sure that works for grounds from the bosses perspective, though. "I won't drive my motorcycle in the parade because some men dress like women, and I know I won't be dressed in such a way, but I drive my bike in it, I'll be sending to someone in the world that I think it's okay for a man to dress like a woman."

uh not really.

 

Do you support them as sinners, or do you support them as human beings who have the capacity to overcome and rise above their sinful behavior if they so choose?

I don't even get this question. They are sinners. And they are human. I support them.

[bluebell]

Being gay is not a choice. He knows that, apparently, since he has good gay friends. Does he think supporting his gay friends means he thinks all they do is not sinful? I personally think all my friends sin, but that doesn't stop me from celebrating who they are.

 

Being gay isn't a choice, but living a gay lifestyle is.  The parade celebrates the gay lifestyle, among other things.  Think of something that you truly feel is detrimental to one of your friends-that is TRULY going to hurt them.

 

Would you celebrate them being able to do it?

 

I can see why you would disagree with the officer's choice, but i admit that i'm having real trouble understanding how you can't think of anything you wouldn't be o.k. celebrating with a friend.

[tonie]

Then keep your paws off my business. I'm relaying what I know from direct experience and knowledge.

I have no interest in your games.

Didnt realize redherring was on the menu. I requested that you support your claims. you have failed to do so. Your limited experience does not cover the practices and protocals of EVERY police Department.

No actual "good" police chief would ...

Would a true Scottsman serve haggis with redherring?

We are not talking about SLCPD's ceremonial practices, which is all motocycle cops in front of a parade are, for show, period.

You are and have definately stated to know what SLCPD practices are. Your blanket affirmations do not verify your claims.

You still have yet to respond appropriately to the CFRs

Edited February 27, 2015 by tonie

[Scott Lloyd]

Daniel Peterson weighed in on this matter a couple of days ago with this blog post.

 

It’s one thing for a police officer to be asked to protect a parade or a demonstration.  That I entirely understand and endorse, and an officer shouldn’t be permitted to pick and choose which assignments to protect legal public events he or she will be willing to accept.  Officer Moutsos fully agrees; he has, in fact, protected homosexuality-related events in the past, and was willing to do traffic control and the like for this event, as well.

 

But Officer Moutsos was, effectively, being asked to participate in the parade, to be part of the day’s celebration and entertainment — and, if that’s accurate, it seems to me flagrantly inappropriate.  As it would have been inappropriate had he been required to perform similar maneuvers during a hypothetical 2012 parade for Candidate Mitt Romney or in connection with some uniquely Mormon event.

 

I agree.

 

And beyond that, I will say that compelling someone against his will to perform entertainment in a parade or celebration he objects to seems eerily reminiscent of the antebellum era when a slave, without any say in the matter, might be called into the big house from the field to do a song and dance for the master and missus and their visiting guests.

 

The police chief is acting the martinet here. And as he continues to double down on his actions, he ought to be subject to censure.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't even get this question. They are sinners. And they are human. I support them.

Obviously, since you failed to answer it responsively. What do you mean when you say you "support" them? That you approve of their wrongdoing and will uphold them in it?

[stemelbow]

I think it was the part of the 5% that made the difference.  

 

If you had a friend and you agreed with 95% of his lifestyle, but not the 5 percent where he thought it was great to eat cats, is it unreasonable for you to not want to be involved with any activity which was a celebration of cat cuisine?

It's a hypothetical I don't quite get. I don't know 95% of anyone's lifestyle. I might think I have a pretty good idea of what people are doing each day, but nothing near 95%. Most of what people are is sitting right in their head. Sorry, your hypothetical doesn't really seem answerable to me.

 

I have a sister who had a baby out of wedlock.  I myself was born out of wedlock.  I have nothing but love for people who find themselves in that circumstance (and i know a lot of people who do and our friendship is never questioned).

 

But if someone wanted me to participate in a parade that celebrated sex outside of marriage or having babies outside of marriage i wouldn't do it unless i was forced.

 

Does that explain why it can make sense for someone to make a stand in a disagreement that may only involve 5% of someone's life?

So you view the parade as being a celebration of people having sex? I thought it was a celebration that pretty much says, "yes, we're gay. We've felt like we've had to hide our true selves. But it's nice to get out and tell people we are gay and to know that others are also and people actually can love us, individually."

I guess, as Scott mentioned, it really is just about perception. People perceive gay celebration to be sex, or something. That seems weird to me.

[stemelbow]

Being gay isn't a choice, but living a gay lifestyle is.

What does that mean? Gay people live just like the rest of us. they work. They love. They feel. They eat. They drink. They read. They go to Church. They live. They all live their own lifestyle. Just like the rest of us. Are you talking about sex or something?

 

The parade celebrates the gay lifestyle, among other things.  Think of something that you truly feel is detrimental to one of your friends-that is TRULY going to hurt them.

 

Would you celebrate them being able to do it?

 

I can see why you would disagree with the officer's choice, but i admit that i'm having real trouble understanding how you can't think of anything you wouldn't be o.k. celebrating with a friend.

I never said I approve of everything friends do. I do approve of who they are, though. Being gay is who they are. I can celebrate that and in so doing not approve of each of their deeds (even their sexual deeds). It seems silly to view it differently to me. No one approves of all that another does. I've never seen it anyway, outside of someone referencing Jesus.

[bluebell]

It's a hypothetical I don't quite get. I don't know 95% of anyone's lifestyle. I might think I have a pretty good idea of what people are doing each day, but nothing near 95%. Most of what people are is sitting right in their head. Sorry, your hypothetical doesn't really seem answerable to me.

 

So you view the parade as being a celebration of people having sex? I thought it was a celebration that pretty much says, "yes, we're gay. We've felt like we've had to hide our true selves. But it's nice to get out and tell people we are gay and to know that others are also and people actually can love us, individually."

I guess, as Scott mentioned, it really is just about perception. People perceive gay celebration to be sex, or something. That seems weird to me.

 

Cal could not link to certain parts of the parade because of sexual innuendo and nudity.  Given that, is it really 'weird' that people would link a gay parade with the celebration of sex?

 

And i'm guessing  that the officer just threw out the 95% number.  I doubt it's quantifiable.  He was just saying that he and his gay friends have a TON in common and that he doesn't care if someone is 'gay' but that his disagreement is really with a very small part of what most people view as being gay.  It just happens that the parade celebrates that part along with everything else.

 

Could you answer my previous question?  

 

Think of something that you truly feel is detrimental to one of your friends-that is TRULY going to hurt them.  Would you celebrate their choice and ability to do it if you were asked to?

[Yirgacheffe]

 

"Moutsos, a Mormon, said he felt uncomfortable doing what he considered celebratory circles with other motorcycles leading the parade because of his religious views. But he said he never refused to work the parade."

 

Is it impossible for him to do his job unless he's willing to do what he sees as celebratory circles?  

I though the circles police (or other cyclists) do is because it's hard to ride a motorcycle at parade slowness.

[bluebell]

What does that mean? Gay people live just like the rest of us. they work. They love. They feel. They eat. They drink. They read. They go to Church. They live. They all live their own lifestyle. Just like the rest of us. Are you talking about sex or something?

 

I never said I approve of everything friends do. I do approve of who they are, though. Being gay is who they are. I can celebrate that and in so doing not approve of each of their deeds (even their sexual deeds). It seems silly to view it differently to me. No one approves of all that another does. I've never seen it anyway, outside of someone referencing Jesus.

 

I'm not sure if you are trying to be obtuse or if this is really that confusing  (and i know that probably sounds snarky but i don't mean it that way-i just honestly can't figure out why this is so hard to understand.  You are probably thinking the same thing about me).

 

When someone says that they have no issues with gay people but can't support the gay lifestyle it seems pretty obvious that they are talking about SSM or gay sex.  It's not the best descriptive phrase i completely agree, but it's used enough in a certain context that it's not really confusing.

 

And the other obvious thing, from my perspective, is that there is a difference between not approving of something, and celebrating it.

 

I think that smoking is detrimental. I don't approve of it but I have friends who do it and my disapproval doesn't cause any problems because it doesn't really matter.  However, if i was asked to celebrate it or be in a parade that celebrated it i wouldn't do it.  I would have to take a stand on that.  Smoking is harmful to them and it's harmful to society and i would be a pretty crappy friend if i was o.k. celebrating something that i truly believed was hurting my friends.  

 

It's pretty straight forward.

[stemelbow]

Obviously, since you failed to answer it responsively. What do you mean when you say you "support" them? That you approve of their wrongdoing and will uphold them in it?

I try my best to answer questions. When they seem absurd it's hard to answer. driving a police vehicle in a parade as part of your job while dressed in official police attire can't possibly mean that the police officer approves of every act another participant in the parade has done or is doing. You realize that many gay people are celibate right? Some gay people went to the parade to celebrate too.

I don't approve of other people's wrong doing, in answer to your question. Support typically means you are there for people--you are happy when they are happy, you hug them when they need a hug, you listen when they need someone to listen...things like that.

[bluebell]

I though the circles police (or other cyclists) do is because it's hard to ride a motorcycle at parade slowness.

 

I have no idea.  I've been to some pretty large parades but i've never seen police used at the beginning for any reason-motorcylce or not.  I've seen bike cops used but they constantly rode the entire parade route and were not at the front leading the parade.  

[stemelbow]

Cal could not link to certain parts of the parade because of sexual innuendo and nudity.  Given that, is it really 'weird' that people would link a gay parade with the celebration of sex?

Public nudity is illegal. If someone is marching down the road nude, then it'd be good for a police man to stop that person.

 

And i'm guessing  that the officer just threw out the 95% number.  I doubt it's quantifiable.  He was just saying that he and his gay friends have a TON in common and that he doesn't care if someone is 'gay' but that his disagreement is really with a very small part of what most people view as being gay.  It just happens that the parade celebrates that part along with everything else.

 

Could you answer my previous question?  

 

Think of something that you truly feel is detrimental to one of your friends-that is TRULY going to hurt them.  Would you celebrate their choice and ability to do it if you were asked to?

[Rob Osborn]

The sad part is that this wouldnt even be an issue if it wasnt for the new standards of immorality we are putting in place in society.

[Calm]

I don't see a reason why he won't support it listed. He doesn't support gay people? they are just people. Is he so opposed to gay people that if someone hurts a gay person he won't do his job and stop it? Of course not. He supports gay people, just like the rest of us.

Have you watched the parade?  Some of the participants aren't exactly family friendly, imo.  One does not have to be opposed to gay people to be opposed to that sort of public display in front of children (and there were children present).

[Scott Lloyd]

I try my best to answer questions. When they seem absurd it's hard to answer. driving a police vehicle in a parade as part of your job while dressed in official police attire can't possibly mean that the police officer approves of every act another participant in the parade has done or is doing. You realize that many gay people are celibate right? Some gay people went to the parade to celebrate too.

 

I think you are being naive if you believe that a typical gay pride parade is primarily about supporting gays who choose to be celibate.

 

I don't approve of other people's wrong doing, in answer to your question. Support typically means you are there for people--you are happy when they are happy, you hug them when they need a hug, you listen when they need someone to listen...things like that.

 

So how do you apply this to what Officer Moutsos did or did not do? Are you saying he is not supporting his friends who are gay if he objects to homosexual behavior?

[stemelbow]

I'm not sure if you are trying to be obtuse or if this is really that confusing  (and i know that probably sounds snarky but i don't mean it that way-i just honestly can't figure out why this is so hard to understand.  You are probably thinking the same thing about me).

 

When someone says that they have no issues with gay people but can't support the gay lifestyle it seems pretty obvious that they are talking about SSM or gay sex.  It's not the best descriptive phrase i completely agree, but it's used enough in a certain context that it's not really confusing.

 

And the other obvious thing, from my perspective, is that there is a difference between not approving of something, and celebrating it.

 

I think that smoking is detrimental. I don't approve of it but I have friends who do it and my disapproval doesn't cause any problems because it doesn't really matter.  However, if i was asked to celebrate it or be in a parade that celebrated it i wouldn't do it.  I would have to take a stand on that.  Smoking is harmful to them and it's harmful to society and i would be a pretty crappy friend if i was o.k. celebrating something that i truly believed was hurting my friends.  

 

It's pretty straight forward.

Not trying to be obtuse. But I felt it important to ask what you mean by this stuff. I'm glad you agree using the phrase gay lifestyle is problematic. I actually think it can offend some people who are gay.

For me, gay people are people. Like the rest of us. I feel terrible that many have felt ostracized. many have been cast out of their families...stuff like that. I want the best for them all. So I see a good reason to support them. I really really don't get the desire to not support them. So, this whole episode has left me on the opposite side of the fence as you. But that's alright. We all disagree from time to time.

[stemelbow]

Have you watched the parade?  Some of the participants aren't exactly family friendly, imo.  One does not have to be opposed to gay people to be opposed to that sort of public display in front of children (and there were children present).

That's the best point raised here. I would love it if the parade were less about showiness, and it is to many, then it is. Kids should be welcome.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have no idea.  I've been to some pretty large parades but i've never seen police used at the beginning for any reason-motorcylce or not.  I've seen bike cops used but they constantly rode the entire parade route and were not at the front leading the parade.  

I've been to parades and seen the type of choreographed maneuvering that is under discussion here. And no, it is not because the parade is moving too slow for the motorcycles. It's all about entertaining and dazzling the crowd.

[stemelbow]

I think you are being naive if you believe that a typical gay pride parade is primarily about supporting gays who choose to be celibate.

I didn't say that.

 

So how do you apply this to what Officer Moutsos did or did not do? Are you saying he is not supporting his friends who are gay if he objects to homosexual behavior?

I already said he is supporting gay people whether he realized it or not, and most likely his friends.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's the best point raised here. I would love it if the parade were less about showiness, and it is to many, then it is. Kids should be welcome.

"Showiness" understates what goes on. Some of it borders on rank obscenity.

[Calm]

I though the circles police (or other cyclists) do is because it's hard to ride a motorcycle at parade slowness.

They were capable of riding straight at the beginning of the video I posted.

[Calm]

That's the best point raised here. I would love it if the parade were less about showiness, and it is to many, then it is. Kids should be welcome.

Kids are welcomed and even part of the parade.  That is one of my problems with it given what else is being shown.

[Calm]

"Showiness" understates what goes on. Some of it borders on rank obscenity.

Some of the floats looked like what you would see in a strip club minus that 'last reveal'.  There were participants walking on the side of the parade up close to the watchers who were dressed in elaborate S&M clothing.

Edited February 27, 2015 by calmoriah