Lds Church Backs Utah Lgbt Anti-Discrimination Bill

[Calm]

Ahab, would you mind if I used this quote on my facebook page as the prevailing example of current doctrine and attitudes towards gays by the Mormon church? Or at least use your post as an example of a commonly held belief of active members of the Mormon church?? Just let me know how you would like me to handle this quote of yours. And any others that might want to support your Mormon beliefs, please speak up.

I would mind. I was shocked by what he said and I don't believe the majority of LDS would feel the same way.

I agree with co, if water is in short supply I am not selling it but sharing it. My LDS friends who I have discussed similar things with almost all agree. I only know of one anxiety ridden individual who came close to the build up food storage and ammo and isolate oneself and from what I've seen he has grown out of his fear.

Edited March 19, 2015 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

Emotional blackmail?  You are going to have to explain that comment.

 

It's just Scott's way of dealing with his cognitive dissonance.  

[california boy]

I would mind. I was shocked by what he said and I don't believe the majority of LDS would feel the same way.

I agree with co, if water is in short supply I am not selling it.

So is it the selling that you object to or the absolute discrimination against selling it to gays?

 

I kinda know the answer.  You certainly seem to be more moderate on most of these issues.  I would like to know how you feel about the church leaders codifying into law the ability to discriminate against gays based on Mormon religious belief.  Do you support them in this position?  Do you as a member feel this is a good direction for the church to be taking?

[pogi]

Ahab was just following the direction of church leaders in teaching it's members how to discriminate.

 

CFR that Ahab was following the direction of church leaders on how to discriminate by not selling water to homosexuals?

 

Do not let isolated comments of one member corrupt your perception of the whole. 

[Pahoran]

Nope Not at all.  You can quote anything I have ever posted on this board anywhere you want.  And you can label me as an exMormon who left the church because I am gay.  And yes you can also label me as an immoralists.  Just tell them that you are Mormon and this is what Mormons think of gays.

No, I won't be repeating your lies. I think you're an immoralist, not because you are "gay," but because you are consciously using immoral means to reach an immoral end.

 

As you can tell, I have turned over a new leaf.  Ahab was just following the direction of church leaders in teaching it's members how to discriminate.

You are lying, as you habitually do.

The Church does not teach its members how to "discriminate," except between right and wrong.

Ahab's position is an extreme one, and contrary to normative LDS teaching.

And if you have one tenth of the experience in the Church you claim for yourself, you know this to be true.

But it serves your "gay" agenda to pretend otherwise, doesn't it?

 

I am going to broadcast the churches efforts and its members to discriminate against gays.  Like the church leadership, I think this is an important issue of our time.  Let all the world know how church leaders and its members fully and justly support discrimination against gays.

In the which assertion, you are lying. As you habitually do.

The Church supports religious freedom -- meaning, in this particular instance, the freedom to avoid participating in or enabling an immoral act.

I realise that the thought of having someone say no to you is enough to have you gibbering with rage, but not all of us are as "entitled" as that; and not all of us think you should be, either.

 

If you want to comment on this doctrine, I would be more than happy to quote you as well. Say how you feel about making a cake for a gay wedding, and I will post it.

As you perfectly well know, not wishing to be coerced into participating in a "gay wedding" is about the event, not the people involved. Thus, those who claim it is "discrimination against gays" are lying in their teeth.

This has been pointed out to you time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time.

You have never responded to this utterly incontrovertible fact, but have merely repeated the lie as if it had never been addressed.

While it is tempting for me to suppose that you do this because you love lies, I think the real reason is because you know the truth doesn't support your agenda.

That's what's really going on, isn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Poster removed and suspended.

[Pahoran]

So is it the selling that you object to or the absolute discrimination against selling it to gays?

 

I kinda know the answer.  You certainly seem to be more moderate on most of these issues.  I would like to know how you feel about the church leaders codifying into law the ability to discriminate against gays based on Mormon religious belief.  Do you support them in this position?  Do you as a member feel this is a good direction for the church to be taking?

As you perfectly well know, that is not what has happened, nor is it what the Church is trying to achieve.

The Church is acting to protect religious liberty. Nothing more, nothing less.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

I don't think gays or anyone else should be deprived of basic needs. I am less certain about requiring all when it comes to luxuries, but in that case if anyone could refuse for one reason, everyone should be able to refuse for any reason including religion (refuse to serve LDS for example).

I am not a lawyer, I have not studied politics or all the implications of the bill and the likely effects on society. I cannot not make an informed decision about it at this time.

I do know over the decades in the States and elsewhere that when I've seen the government get involved in anti discrimination, I've found that feelings and beliefs they are working against often persist and are strengthened. I think working on discrimination on a private community level is more effective in the long run for changing hearts.

Edited March 19, 2015 by calmoriah

[california boy]

CFR that Ahab was following the direction of church leaders on how to discriminate by not selling water to homosexuals?

 

Do not let isolated comments of one member corrupt your perception of the whole. 

 

Didn't the church just codify into law that members of the church can withold selling anything to someone who is gay because of Mormon beliefs?  Didn't the church state that it has a right to discriminate against gays not only in it's churches and educational institutions but in any business the church owns?  What do you think this current legislation is about?  Ahab is just following the churches direction.  He is just supporting his church leaders.  He is just being a good Mormon following church doctrine.

[california boy]

As you perfectly well know, that is not what has happened, nor is it what the Church is trying to achieve.

The Church is acting to protect religious liberty. Nothing more, nothing less.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Sorry, but that is not what the law says.  It clearly states that Mormons can discriminate against gays based on their religious beliefs.    Period.  And it clearly states the the church itself can discriminate against gays and anyone else that it wants in its educational institutions and any business the church owns.  This is now the official position of the church and it's leaders are currently making the rounds of TV interviews reinforcing this position.  I thought you liked this new law and the ability to legally discriminate against gays based on your religious beliefs.

 

If you believe that I have misrepresented the legislation or that people in Utah are not allowed to discriminate against gays or anyone else that it wants to based on their religious beliefs, then show me where this kind of discrimination is now against the law.

[Scott Lloyd]

Before the inevitable thread closure comes, I'll just comment that thread closures seem to happen disproportionately in threads in which California boy is a participant. Is there a takeaway point there?

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think gays or anyone else should be deprived of basic needs. I am less certain about requiring all when it comes to luxuries, but in that case if anyone could refuse for one reason, everyone should be able to refuse for any reason including religion (refuse to serve LDS for example).

I am not a lawyer, I have not studied politics or all the implications of the bill and the likely effects on society. I cannot not make an informed decision about it at this time.

I do know over the decades in the States and elsewhere that when I've seen the government get involved in anti discrimination, I've found that feelings and beliefs they are working against often persist and are strengthened. I think workings on discrimination on a private community level is more effective in the long run for changing hearts.

If somebody refused to sell me a luxury product or service because I am Mormon, I wouldn't be inclined to kick and scream about it, and I certainly wouldn't take anyone to court over it. Edited March 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

If somebody refused to sell me a luxury product or service because I am Mormon, I wouldn't be inclined to kick and scream about it, and I certainly wouldn't take anyone to court over it.

 

You may not report it, but you are still being discriminated against.

[smac97]

You may not report it, but you are still being discriminated against.

 

I'm curious.  In your view, would a gay baker be within his rights to decline to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church and decorate it with the phrase "God Hates F*gs" in the icing?  Or would the Westboro folks be entitled to sue that gay baker into oblivion for his "discrimination" against them?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited March 19, 2015 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

You may not report it, but you are still being discriminated against.

I can live with having to go around the corner for my floral arrangements or down the street for my decorated cakes.

[california boy]

I'm curious.  In your view, would a gay baker be within his rights to decline to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church and decorate it with the phrase "God Hates F*gs" in the icing?  Or would the Westboro folks be entitled to sue that gay baker into oblivion for his "discrimination" against them?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

The baker is required by law to bake a cake for any customer.  He is not required to write any message on any cake including the Westboro Baptist Church or a gay wedding cake.  That falls under free speech laws.  If the baker refused to bake a cake for Westboro Baptist Church because of their religious beliefs then they would have grounds to sue the baker and would probably win as have others who have been discriminating against.  

 

I believe in supporting all anti discrimination laws as much as I believe in supporting all freedom of speech laws and religious rights laws.  This country is better for those civil rights laws that were passed 50 years ago.  They have been found constitutional by the Supreme Court.  And furthermore I believe that it is Christ-like to not discriminate especially against a group like the Westborough Baptist Church.  I would tell them I was gay and tell them I did not support them in their hatred towards gays, but I would make them the best cake I could possibly make and am honored to serve them.

[sheilauk]

Didn't the church just codify into law that members of the church can withold selling anything to someone who is gay because of Mormon beliefs?  Didn't the church state that it has a right to discriminate against gays not only in it's churches and educational institutions but in any business the church owns?  What do you think this current legislation is about?.

no, no and this recent legislation covers only housing and employment as I'm sure you well know. It was specifically stated that the issue of the provision of goods and other services was too difficult to formulate any legislation. And presumably those lgbt advocates who participated in crafting this legislation were wrong.

[california boy]

I can live with having to go around the corner for my floral arrangements or down the street for my decorated cakes.

 

You probably could marry who you loved without a church doing every thing it could to prevent that marriage.

You probably could hold your spouses hand and no one freaks out or kicks you out of their restaurant

You probably could give your wife a quick kiss on church property and not be escorted off

You probably could adopt a child by going to an adoption agency and they wouldn't turn you down because of who you love

You probably never got fired from a job, not because of your work but because someone didn't like who you married.

You probably have never been beaten to a pulp because you were holding hands with your wife.

 

Yeah I can see why being discriminated against by some ignorant florist would not bother you much.  But do you at least have some idea why some gay couples push back against companies that are willing to break the law simply because of who you love?

[Calm]

You probably could marry who you loved without a church doing every thing it could to prevent that marriage.

my observations of the past:

The LDS Church encouraged voters not to give legal recognition to a SS marriage as a legal marriage while providing some of the legal benefits associated with marriage through civil domestic partnerships. It is not campaigning to stop other churches from performing marriage ceremonies they see as valid in their faith. It is not campaigning to put any homosexual couple who defines their relationship as a religious or marriage in jail, even in states it is still not recognized. It is not encouraging people to demonstrate at a gay wedding and call them to repentance. Nothing is being done in a legal sense to prevent couples from living together in a committed relationship though lack of legal recognition can make things outside the relationship difficult if you haven't planned for it legally. The Church does not encourage any form of abuse or violent to frighten or punish a couple.

So I don't see the Church doing everything it could to prevent that marriage relationship, not even everything they could do to prevent it legally given they only were highly active in a few votes that were seen as key for establishing trends and possible precedent for defending churches' choices not to solemnise SSM and quite quiet in others.

It is such hyperbole on both sides when I read it that is highly discouraging and leads me to believe someone isn't trying to understand positions or implications fully and thus they lose credibilty because it gets to the point that it is propaganda, confusing the issues and not enlightening them in practice, following verbal stories as if facts while often ignoring what is really happening. This attitude is wide spread in politics which I have yet to find a group where I admire for presenting the pro and cons in a humane way, not forcing them into the mold of good and evil, love and hate, selflessness and selfishness.

Edited March 19, 2015 by calmoriah

[Daniel2]

I'm curious. In your view, would a gay baker be within his rights to decline to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church and decorate it with the phrase "God Hates F*gs" in the icing? Or would the Westboro folks be entitled to sue that gay baker into oblivion for his "discrimination" against them?

Thanks,

-Smac

A gay baker cannot refuse to sell a cake to Westboro. That would be illegal discrimination based on relgion.

No one csn be coerced to write anything on a cake--that would be a violation of freedom of speech.

[california boy]

no, no and this recent legislation covers only housing and employment as I'm sure you well know. It was specifically stated that the issue of the provision of goods and other services was too difficult to formulate any legislation. And presumably those lgbt advocates who participated in crafting this legislation were wrong.

The bill does cover housing and employment.  And I applaud the church for  helping to pass laws protecting gay couples from being fired and not being discriminated against in housing.  But unfortunately that is not all this bill does.

 

 

This bill gives legal cover for

"closely held businesses," religious institutions or their affiliates the right to refuse to provide services if it would violate their religious beliefs. And it would allow religious freedom to be used as a defense in civil or governmental claims of discrimination.

The exemptions for religious freedom in SB296 were concessions to the state's predominant faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after senior Mormon leaders said they would support a statewide nondiscrimination bill if it provided protections for religious expressions and the exercise of faith.

 

 

What this means is that anyone in the state of Utah can legally discriminate against any gay or other minority simply based on their religious beliefs.  It also exempts the church from those housing and job discrimination laws.  It allows the church to discriminate against gays in any of it's educational institution AND any business the church owns or opporates. There is also a poison pill in the bill.   If any of the bill is found to be illegal (most likely the discrimination part) then the housing and employment protections go away.

 

 

Senate Bill 296 was legislated as a package to carefully balance the legitimate rights of different groups. Inserted into the bill is what lawyers term a “non-severability clause,” which means that if any one part of the bill is ever challenged and fails in court, the entire bill fails. This is an important disincentive to those who might wish to overturn the remarkable work that the Utah legislature accomplished in its 2015 session.

 

 

[california boy]

my observations of the past:

The LDS Church encouraged voters not to give legal recognition to a SS marriage as a legal marriage while providing some of the legal benefits associated with marriage through civil domestic partnerships. It is not campaigning to stop other churches from performing marriage ceremonies they see as valid in their faith. It is not campaigning to put any homosexual couple who defines their relationship as a religious or marriage in jail, even in states it is still not recognized. It is not encouraging people to demonstrate at a gay wedding and call them to repentance. Nothing is being done in a legal sense to prevent couples from living together in a committed relationship though lack of legal recognition can make things outside the relationship difficult if you haven't planned for it legally. The Church does not encourage any form of abuse or violent to frighten or punish a couple.

So I don't see the Church doing everything it could to prevent that marriage relationship, not even everything they could do to prevent it legally given they only were highly active in a few votes that were seen as key for establishing trends and possible precedent for defending churches' choices not to solemnise SSM and quite quiet in others.

It is such hyperbole on both sides when I read it that is highly discouraging and leads me to believe someone isn't trying to understand positions or implications fully and thus they lose credibilty because it gets to the point that it is propaganda, confusing the issues and not enlightening them in practice, following verbal stories as if facts while often ignoring what is really happening. This attitude is wide spread in politics which I have yet to find a group where I admire for presenting the pro and cons in a humane way, not forcing them into the mold of good and evil, love and hate, selflessness and selfishness.

Gay marriage was legal in California before Prop 8.  When Prop 8 passed, gay marriage was no longer legally allowed.  Everyone is quite aware of the Churches involvement in Prop 8.  Every federal and district court in this country has ruled that gay marriage is a civil right.

[pogi]

Didn't the church just codify into law that members of the church can withold selling anything to someone who is gay because of Mormon beliefs? 

 

No.  The law makes no provisions for such, and "does not apply to places of public accommodations in their interactions with the public."

 

This comes from a source you would trust:

http://www.equalityutah.org/news-and-events/latest-news/what-you-need-to-know-about-utahs-sb-296

 

What this means is that anyone in the state of Utah can legally discriminate against any gay or other minority simply based on their religious beliefs.

 

 

That simply is NOT what it means.

 

Ahab is just following the churches direction.  He is just supporting his church leaders.  He is just being a good Mormon following church doctrine.

 

 Ahab is just being Ahab and is not in any way following the churches direction.  Do you really believe that the church teaches that a good Mormon should refuse to sell water to a homosexual?  This is ridiculous!  The law only applies to religious organizations and church-affiliated organizations, it does not apply to Ahab, unless he works for the church.  Even then, a religious organization cannot discriminate for any reason, they would have to demonstrate that selling water to a homosexual is against their teachings.  It is not. 

[Ahab]

Just another reason why I think Mormons have left the teachings of Christ to the dust bin. Statements like this make it easy to just leave the church to it's own demise. Go ahead, let it be known that Mormons feel justified in treating others with discrimination and reputation. You are just following the direction church leaders are pointing the church to head. I think you are right in line with current church teaching. Matthew 25 is evidently no longer doctrine in the church.

Ahab, would you mind if I used this quote on my facebook page as the prevailing example of current doctrine and attitudes towards gays by the Mormon church? Or at least use your post as an example of a commonly held belief of active members of the Mormon church?? Just let me know how you would like me to handle this quote of yours. And any others that might want to support your Mormon beliefs, please speak up.

I don't speak for the whole Church. Nobody does, at least not in the sense that what one member says is what every member would say. But you can quote what I said as coming from me, because I'm the one who said it.

[Ahab]

No.

He would not.

Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

NOT approve of me NOT giving homosexuals first claim to water with water in short supply, instead with me giving water to those who were the most thirsty and in greater need of the water???? NOT approve of me formulating a plan to distribute the water I had to distribute with me NOT putting homosexuals at the top of my distribution list simply/merely because they are homosexuals and I would not give homosexuals priority status????? Not approve of me refusing to give water to homosexuals for that reason?????

Sure he would. He has told me he would.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A gay baker cannot refuse to sell a cake to Westboro. That would be illegal discrimination based on relgion.

 

They should be able to. In fact I would have no objection to it.