Scott Lloyd Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 I didn't say that. I already said he is supporting gay people whether he realized it or not, and most likely his friends.What makes you think he would object to supporting gay people in ways that did not include approval of or upholding them in sinful behavior?
stemelbow Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Kids are welcomed and even part of the parade. That is one of my problems with it given what else is being shown. Yeah...I meant it should be made kid friendly, at least as I see it. I think it important that many people participate if we truly want gay people to be a part of our society, though. There's definitely the element of people loving it because it is about shock and in your face-ness. I think as people jump on board the nonsense gets left out. People are just there to celebrate one another. I got some pipe dreams I guess.
stemelbow Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 What makes you think he would object to supporting gay people in ways that did not include approval of or upholding them in sinful behavior? Well that was my question that started all of this. What's the problem going to the parade? he's not supporting their misdeeds, at least I can't reasonably see it that way. I'm not sure what he's afraid to support. But with that said, I'll leave Cal's answer as the end of it. If that's it, then that's it. I can accept that.
bluebell Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) I was trying to say, in our different perceptions, this question is irrelevant to me. I don't see celebrating at a parade for those who are gay as celebrating something that is hurting them.I do realize this. But if you want to understand why someones does something then you have to look at the issue thru their eyes. And the officer does see homosexual relationships has harmful to those who participate in them. In order to gauge whether or not his reaction is valid you have to see the situation like he does. If you would react similarly under similar circumstances then that implies something about his reactions as well. Either you are both in the wrong, or both reasonable. Edited February 27, 2015 by bluebell
Scott Lloyd Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Well that was my question that started all of this. What's the problem going to the parade? he's not supporting their misdeeds, at least I can't reasonably see it that way. I'm not sure what he's afraid to support. Given the context and atmosphere, it could easily be perceived that he was supporting that which he disapproves of. He has a right not to engage in anything that could thus be misperceived, and he should not have to give up that right to work for the police department -- or any other government agency, for that matter. To force him to do so is an infringement on his freedom of conscience and his religious liberty. That's the long and the short of it. Edited February 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Interesting that the saints left Nauvoo under persecution and fled to the Salt Lake valley to build "Zion". And now, in todays corrupt society we live in, sexual immorality gets to flaunt it down the very streets of that place the saints tried to create with Zion.
carbon dioxide Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 The job description of a police officer is to protect the public and enforce the law. I am sure there is no place that says police officers also have the duty to be used as pawns in political and social causes. 2
The Nehor Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Interesting that the saints left Nauvoo under persecution and fled to the Salt Lake valley to build "Zion". And now, in todays corrupt society we live in, sexual immorality gets to flaunt it down the very streets of that place the saints tried to create with Zion. If the LDS didn't have a brothel in Nauvoo that we also left behind (but built a new one in SLC) we could probably be more judgmental.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 If the LDS didn't have a brothel in Nauvoo that we also left behind (but built a new one in SLC) we could probably be more judgmental. CFR.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 I think that involving any of the public paid agencies as part of the gay parade is wrong. Perhaps fire and brimstone out of heaven needs to come down on the next parade.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) If the LDS didn't have a brothel in Nauvoo that we also left behind (but built a new one in SLC) we could probably be more judgmental.What a bizarre argument. From FairMormon Answers webpage: Question: Was there a brothel in Nauvoo near the temple? There was indeed a brothel in Nauvoo that was operated by John C. Bennett, who tried to block legal action against itIt is claimed that the presence of a brothel in Nauvoo near the temple demonstrates the moral degeneracy of the Mormons. There was indeed a brothel in Nauvoo, however, it was operated by John C. Bennett, who tried to block legal action against it once the Mormons found out about it. It was disposed of when Bennett's actions were unmasked, and he left Nauvoo in disgrace vowing revenge. To imply guilt on the part of the Latter-day Saints as a whole for the secret and errant actions of John C. Bennett goes beyond the pale of injustice. Edited February 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 CFR.See my post in response. The Nehor was dropping a bomb of distorted information.
The Nehor Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 What a bizarre argument. From FairMormon Answers webpage: To imply guilt on the Latter-day Saints as a whole for the secret and errant actions of John C. Bennett is goes beyond the pale of injustice. It wasn't an argument; it was a joke. I should have put a smiley in there.
The Nehor Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 See my post in response. The Nehor was dropping a bomb of distorted information. It's what I do.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 It's what I do. Why do you do such things? Not very Christ-like.
The Nehor Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Why do you do such things? Not very Christ-like. Jesus was pretty sarcastic.
sethpayne Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 A few questions spring to mind:In highly religious communities where a majority of officers' personal religious convictions may reflect this officer's views--what does a police chief do, then?What if the majority of his force are LDS and equally decline their appointed roles in crowd control?What if LDS officers declined to work Sundays, because of all their beliefs in honoring the Sabbath? A police officer's duty is to the public. ALL of the public. Cops can't pick and choose what groups they decide are worth protecting. The same thing would apply to an Evangelical or Catholic cop refusing to serve duty at the Days of 47 parade. And if he refused to do it, he should be fired for discriminating against the very public that pays his salary.
KevinG Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Jesus was pretty sarcastic. When someone asks you What Would Jesus Do? Remind them that turning over tables and scourging people is not out of the realm of possibilities. (I just made that my sig.) Edited February 27, 2015 by KevinG
Ahab Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 As public servants, the police should service any parade equally in their official capacity.You don't have to be so obstinate, Daniel.Maybe police whose jobs involve riding on motorcycles while working no longer get to choose where they will ride those motorcycles, instead having to ride them wherever they are ordered to ride them if they want to keep their jobs involving riding motorcycles wherever they are ordered to ride them, but police officers should be allowed to do work in other jobs for the police department if there is an opening and they are qualified.I think it's just getting to the point where we shouldn't explain why we don't want to do something when it goes against our religious beliefs or moral convictions. Like don't ask, don't tell, and just saying yes or no.
KevinG Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 The Police Chief should ask officers if they would like to be part of ceremonial details, and give volunteers a choice on events. Then if a Gay officer doesn't want to be a part of a Boy Scouts of America event he doesn't have to.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 The Police Chief should ask officers if they would like to be part of ceremonial details, and give volunteers a choice on events. Then if a Gay officer doesn't want to be a part of a Boy Scouts of America event he doesn't have to.Makes sense to me. I don't know why it should be such a problem for Chief Burbank -- unless, as I suspect, he is ideologically or politically driven.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 When someone asks you What Would Jesus Do? Remind them that turning over tables and scourging people is not out of the realm of possibilities. (I just made that my sig.)I like it -- except that I didn't have the impression Jesus actually whipped anyone bodily, just that he made the scourge to aid him in overturning the tables and such.
toon Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Of course that's what they are going to say....But did you even read the statement by the Officer in the OP. He told the full story, that he was entirely willing to do other security at the parade. Leading a parade in a motorcycle (which is what he was asked to do) is not a necessary part of his job. IT's a "ceremony" action, zero to do with security.Or are you calling the officer a liar? Are you calling the department a liar? Why do you assume the officer credible and the police department not? How do you know that leading a parade in a motorcycle is not a necessary part of his job? How do you know that it isn't considered an essential part of safety and crowd control? Why do you assume that it's purely ceremonial.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) A police officer's duty is to the public. ALL of the public. Cops can't pick and choose what groups they decide are worth protecting. The same thing would apply to an Evangelical or Catholic cop refusing to serve duty at the Days of 47 parade. And if he refused to do it, he should be fired for discriminating against the very public that pays his salary.What seems unclear to some here is that this is not about "protecting" anybody. It's about putting on a show for their entertainment. In fact, he offered to do something instead which, unlike doing the showy motorcycle maneuvers, actually would involve protecting the public. Edited February 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Are you calling the department a liar? Why do you assume the officer credible and the police department not? How do you know that leading a parade in a motorcycle is not a necessary part of his job? How do you know that it isn't considered an essential part of safety and crowd control? Why do you assume that it's purely ceremonial.That's what the officer says. He seems credible and to be a man of integrity. I'm taking his word for it. The initial statement from the Police Department, on the other hand, sounds like the sort of self-serving bureaucratese a PR person might engage in just to get inquiring news media off their back. The police chief was interviewed recently. Do his subsequent statements bear out that the assignment in question was more than just ceremonial? Edited to add: Here's a link to the Deseret News article. Chief Burbank is quoted therein. Which of his quoted comments indicate that the choreographed motorcycle maneuvers are "an essential part of safety and crowd control"? Here was an opportunity for him to say so if it were true; apparently he chose not to. Instead, the message that comes across to me is that "you are to do the duties as assigned. And those duties cover a broad range of activities" (emphasis mine). Never mind that some of the duties might not have anything in particular to do with -- or even remotely connected to -- public safety. Edited February 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts