california boy Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Right, but HB322 is not in the package. I have already showed you what those bills are. HB322 is contrary to those bills in many ways. If the church supported that bill, why is it not mentioned anywhere? Only the other three are mentioned. If the author of HB322 took some of Oak's comments out of context with everything else that has been said and drafted a bill on that false premise, that does not equal sponsorship or support of the bill by the church. Why are you clumping HB322 in the package of 3?I know HB322 passed in the house, but what about the Senate? Has it been signed into law? sorry. I edited my post a bit. I guess the question I have is do you think that some church leaders have been advocating for laws that would codify the ability to discriminate based on religion??
pogi Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 sorry. I edited my post a bit. I guess the question I have is do you think that some church leaders have been advocating for laws that would codify the ability to discriminate based on religion?? Everything the church has been advocating for got signed into law in those three bills. caliboy, the church did not support HB322. What more can be said? It did not fit the model that they have been pushing for. Did it even pass? Was the bill inspired by out of context comments? Perhaps. I can't say. But ultimately it did not pass the scrutiny of the church for endorsement, while the other three bills did. Trying to irrefutably state that HB322 is the position of the church is WRONG. 1
california boy Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Everything the church has been advocating for got signed into law in those three bills. caliboy, the church did not support HB322. What more can be said? It did not fit the model that they have been pushing for. Did it even pass? Was the bill inspired by out of context comments? Perhaps. I can't say. But ultimately it did not pass the scrutiny of the church for endorsement, while the other three bills did. Trying to irrefutably state that HB322 is the position of the church is WRONG. I hope you are right. It would be a terrible thing if the church had any part in passing HB322
pogi Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 It would be a terrible thing if the church had any part in passing HB322 On that we can agree. The question remains...did it pass? I can't find anything that verifies it, all I can find is that it passed the House and was headed for the Senate.
Calm Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) This site apparently tracks the activity of bills: http://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/static/HB0322.html This summarized the session and states: http://fox13now.com/2015/03/13/the-legislatures-over-heres-what-lawmakers-did-to-your-life/ Another religious liberties bill, HB322, passed the House late Wednesday but was not considered in the Senate. Totally off topic, but noteworthy imo: It’s the first of its kind initiative in the nation. House Bill 378 creates a white collar crime registry — like a sex offender registry — for convicted fraudsters. Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, said the bill is one of the top priorities of Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes to crack down on fraud in the state.“Utah is known throughout the nation for its high-level of vulnerability for affinity fraud,” said Sen. Bramble. “Utah’s unique personal weavings offer a rich environment for predatory behavior.” Edited March 26, 2015 by calmoriah 1
Stone holm Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 So what exactly is the difference between the Utah religious freedom statute and the bill passed in Indiana which is resulting in all the threatened convention boycotts aimed at Indianapolis?
pogi Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 So what exactly is the difference between the Utah religious freedom statute and the bill passed in Indiana which is resulting in all the threatened convention boycotts aimed at Indianapolis? The bill in Indiana most closely resembles HB322 which did not pass in the Senate and the church did not support or sponsor the bill. The bills that did pass do not allow for discrimination in public accommodations, the Indiana bill does. There is a discussion on a new thread about this.
Stone holm Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 The bill in Indiana most closely resembles HB322 which did not pass in the Senate and the church did not support or sponsor the bill. The bills that did pass do not allow for discrimination in public accommodations, the Indiana bill does. There is a discussion on a new thread about this.Public accommodations being hotels and restaurants? What about bakeries?
pogi Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Public accommodations being hotels and restaurants? What about bakeries?No, public accommodations are pretty much any business open to the general public, like bakeries.
Stone holm Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 No, public accommodations are pretty much any business open to the general public, like bakeries.I see, well that would explain why Indiana is getting hit with the boycotts and not Utah.
mormonnewb Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) DELETED ... NOT HELPFUL. Edited March 27, 2015 by mormonnewb
rockpond Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Your last sentence is so generalized, simplistic and slanted, it's hard to discuss it intelligently.Suffice it to say that there inevitably will be occasions when one person's purported "gay rights" collide with another's religious liberty and freedom of conscience. In that event, reasonable people will try to strike a balance on a case-by-case basis.I reject the charge that endeavoring in good faith to find such a balance amounts to being unChristlike. I'd say it's just the opposite.What was simplistic and slanted about my statement?I didn't say that finding a balance between civil rights and religious liberty was unChristlike. I said that supporting legislation that protects one's right to fire or evict someone based on their sexual orientation doesn't seem particularly Christlike. I'm sure you can see the difference between those two principles. Defending our own interests as a Church is hardly cause for patting ourselves on the back and using a press release to say "hey, look, we're following Christ's example".
CV75 Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 What was simplistic and slanted about my statement?I didn't say that finding a balance between civil rights and religious liberty was unChristlike. I said that supporting legislation that protects one's right to fire or evict someone based on their sexual orientation doesn't seem particularly Christlike. I'm sure you can see the difference between those two principles. Defending our own interests as a Church is hardly cause for patting ourselves on the back and using a press release to say "hey, look, we're following Christ's example".Jesus defended Himself all the time and attributed His actions to doing what He had seen the Father do, in carrying out His mission to the downtrodden (plucking, rubbing and eating the corn on the Sabbath; healing on the Sabbath; paying taxes; dining with sinners; clearing the temple, etc.). The same is being done here. I don’t see the “Conclusion” paragraph as a pat on the back but a statement of fact just as Jesus' statements about His following His Father, and delivered with a spirit of appreciation for those involved in coming up with the compromise.
rockpond Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Jesus defended Himself all the time and attributed His actions to doing what He had seen the Father do, in carrying out His mission to the downtrodden (plucking, rubbing and eating the corn on the Sabbath; healing on the Sabbath; paying taxes; dining with sinners; clearing the temple, etc.). The same is being done here. I don’t see the “Conclusion” paragraph as a pat on the back but a statement of fact just as Jesus' statements about His following His Father, and delivered with a spirit of appreciation for those involved in coming up with the compromise. It's interesting that you cite "dining with sinners". Is that okay as long as we don't bake a cake for them? Or take any pictures? 1
CV75 Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 It's interesting that you cite "dining with sinners". Is that okay as long as we don't bake a cake for them? Or take any pictures? I may not understand the question, since on one hand Jesus fed 5,000 with bread He prepared and on the other He allowed costly ointment to be used on Him instead of being sold for the poor. He allowed some 2,000 to enter swine bodies and then did not rescue them from drowning. I’m sure there were sinners among all three sets, and I’m sure He could exercise His religious freedom and defend the choices in all three cases.
Calm Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 It's interesting that you cite "dining with sinners". Is that okay as long as we don't bake a cake for them? Or take any pictures? I think it is more what the purpose of the dinner is meant for. Or are you suggesting that Jesus would have gone to something that resembled the descriptions of bacchanalia?
rockpond Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 I may not understand the question, since on one hand Jesus fed 5,000 with bread He prepared and on the other He allowed costly ointment to be used on Him instead of being sold for the poor. He allowed some 2,000 to enter swine bodies and then did not rescue them from drowning. I’m sure there were sinners among all three sets, and I’m sure He could exercise His religious freedom and defend the choices in all three cases. Christ has the authority to judge sinners. We do not.
rockpond Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 I think it is more what the purpose of the dinner is meant for. Or are you suggesting that Jesus would have gone to something that resembled the descriptions of bacchanalia? No. CV75 pointed out that Christ sat to eat with sinners. I think it's okay for us to bake a cake for a gay wedding. That's all.
CV75 Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Christ has the authority to judge sinners. We do not.I think it is very clear that I wasn’t advocating that we have teh authority to judge sinners (I notice there’s another thread on that topic—go knock yourself out!). I was responding to your contradicting implications that Christ didn’t defend His interests (where He clearly did; review the examples); that He freely gave to sinners and withheld nothing from them; and that His compassionate actions toward sinners were defensible only if He served sinners in the way they demanded (but He clearly put that issue to rest—John 6:26-27). I’m not sure where you are trying to go with these posts. No. CV75 pointed out that Christ sat to eat with sinners. I think it's okay for us to bake a cake for a gay wedding. That's all. I don't see any connection at all between Christ eating with sinners, presumably to fellowship and bring them into the fold, and His providing them food in celebration of their sins (which He did not do). Edited March 30, 2015 by CV75 2
rockpond Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I think it is very clear that I wasn’t advocating that we have teh authority to judge sinners (I notice there’s another thread on that topic—go knock yourself out!).I was responding to your contradicting implications that Christ didn’t defend His interests (where He clearly did; review the examples); that He freely gave to sinners and withheld nothing from them; and that His compassionate actions toward sinners were defensible only if He served sinners in the way they demanded (but He clearly put that issue to rest—John 6:26-27).I’m not sure where you are trying to go with these posts.I don't see any connection at all between Christ eating with sinners, presumably to fellowship and bring them into the fold, and His providing them food in celebration of their sins (which He did not do).I am in favor of the Church defending its interests. But when its interests include the right to fire or evict people for being gay, I don't feel that is following Christ's example.
CV75 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I am in favor of the Church defending its interests. But when its interests include the right to fire or evict people for being gay, I don't feel that is following Christ's example.That's been evident from the start, as well as not providing any defense for that feeling on the same standards with which you lob at the Church!
rockpond Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 That's been evident from the start, as well as not providing any defense for that feeling on the same standards with which you lob at the Church! I'm not sure what you're referring to with that comment. What do I "lob at the Church"?
Recommended Posts