Lds Church Backs Utah Lgbt Anti-Discrimination Bill

[Ahab]

I highly doubt that was your intent.

So still not funny to you even after I explained I was trying to be funny? And why won't you just believe whatever I tell you about me or my intentions? Surely I know myself and my intentions better than you do.

I'll also now add that I was talking about the principle involved in the bill rather than thinking of what state of the union (USA) the bill applied to. Who knows, other states may soon pass a similar bill.

And although you may continue to nitpick about my point and my example I still think the wedding cake baker analogy could be an example of employer-employee relations, since I'm talking about a potential customer/client who is gay trying to hire a particular baker to bake a fresh wedding cake rather than offering to buy an already finished product that is offered for sale to anyone generally. At least it seems like an employer-employee type of relationship to me, knowing that employees can be hired for a particular job, not necessarily full-time, and without offering any additional benefits other than a particular sum for a particular job. But I really don't know how an employer-employee relationship is legally defined and you can continue to nitpick my example as much as you want to.

At least now in Utah according to that bill anyone who is affiliated with a religious group or institution is free to discriminate against gay people regarding employment or housing, and I applaud that freedom being legally sanctioned.

[Scott Lloyd]

So you agree that it is proper for the bill granting special protection to the Mormon Church that it denies secular business owners: the bill says that if you work at a for-profit company owned by an atheist, the atheist cannot fire you for speaking your religious convictions outside of work, but if you work for a for-profit company owned by the Mormon Church, the Mormon Church can fire you for speaking your religious convictions outside of work.

I've said only that an employee who publicly defames his employer or the owner of the company that employs him could justifiably find himself terminated.

 

That goes for whether said employer or owner is a secular business, a church or an individual.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

I've said only that an employee who publicly defames his employer or the owner of the company that employs him could justifiably find himself terminated.

 

That goes for whether said employer or owner is a secular business, a church or an individual.

 

As you said above, the very topic we are discussing is the bill under consideration.  The bill exempts for-profit businesses owned by the Church from the restrictions it places on other businesses.  

[Pahoran]

So you agree that it is proper for the bill granting special protection to the Mormon Church

False. As usual.

It grants the same protection to all churches and the Boy Scouts as well.

But you knew that, didn't you?

 

that it denies secular business owners: the bill says that if you work at a for-profit company owned by an atheist, the atheist cannot fire you for speaking your religious convictions outside of work, but if you work for a for-profit company owned by the Mormon Church, the Mormon Church can fire you for speaking your religious convictions outside of work.

I doubt it. The Church's wholly owned businesses have employed non-Mormons in various positions before, including a Christian Scientist as the boss of the Deseret News.

The notion that such people would be forbidden to speak their "religious convictions outside of work" -- such as, for example, at church services -- is nonsense.

But perhaps when you said "religious convictions" you were using it as a euphemism for something like "anti-Mormon propaganda." Did you, perhaps, have someone like Grant Palmer in mind?

All I can say to that is, that if anti-Mormon propaganda is all there is to someone's "religious convictions," they don't have much to talk about, do they?

And why would they even want to be employed by the Church?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

As you said above, the very topic we are discussing is the bill under consideration.  The bill exempts for-profit businesses owned by the Church from the restrictions it places on other businesses.  

I'm not well enough acquainted with the bill to argue it in detail. But I can easily visualize a scenario where a bitter employee of a Church-owned, for-profit business holds forth with a very public, anti-Mormon vendetta, then uses the bill now under discussion to claim protection from reprisal on the grounds of speaking his "religious convictions." Perhaps what you are highlighting is designed to prevent that sort of thing. If so, I can hardly fault it.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

The very public, highly visible backing of the proposed legislation by the Church is quite a bit in and of itself. The Church didn't have to do that.

I agree with Scott on the above. The church didn't have to publicly advocate for LGBT protections, and their doing so generated the discussion in venues that previously refused to acknowlegement the subject.

For good or bad, that is the power that the church wields over its membership, and the influence it has over local government in Utah.

I also agree with all those that point out the serious flaws in the legislation. By advocating for religious exemptions, the church has inadvertently opened the door to discrimination based on religion (and the lack thereof).

Thst is why I see this piece of law as temporary... it will not withstand the constitutional challenges that will invariably come.

However, the symbolic power at play here is the church advocating for at least some civil rights for gays. That alone is progress, even with the serious (albeit temporary) flaws.

[Stone holm]

General reaction am hearing out here is that this was actually set up as a model to protect discrimination as far as possible in the guise of extending rights that would have been forced anyway. Doubt many care outside Utah as to what Utah does.

[Pahoran]

General reaction am hearing out here is that this was actually set up as a model to protect discrimination as far as possible in the guise of extending rights that would have been forced anyway. Doubt many care outside Utah as to what Utah does.

I'm not sure I follow you. Nobody cares, but everyone's got an opinion?

And that opinion rather unsurprisingly reflects your own regional chauvinism?

Umm, okay.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

False. As usual.

It grants the same protection to all churches and the Boy Scouts as well.

But you knew that, didn't you?

I doubt it. The Church's wholly owned businesses have employed non-Mormons in various positions before, including a Christian Scientist as the boss of the Deseret News.

The notion that such people would be forbidden to speak their "religious convictions outside of work" -- such as, for example, at church services -- is nonsense.

But perhaps when you said "religious convictions" you were using it as a euphemism for something like "anti-Mormon propaganda." Did you, perhaps, have someone like Grant Palmer in mind?

All I can say to that is, that if anti-Mormon propaganda is all there is to someone's "religious convictions," they don't have much to talk about, do they?

And why would they even want to be employed by the Church?

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm not talking about the Church's employment policies. I'm talking about the content of the bill that was just passed by the Utah House of Representatives. According to that bill, employers can't fire people for "speaking their own mind on their own dime" as you put it earlier in this thread. However, the bill also says that for-profit businesses that are owned by churches aren't subject to that law. After the governor signs the bill, it will be illegal for an atheist business owner to fire somebody who spends his weekends preaching that some of his coworkers will be going to hell for being gay. However, it would be perfectly legal for the Mormon Church to fire an actuary at Beneficial Life Insurance Company for saying that he didn't believe in God. I'm not saying whether Beneficial Life (which is owned by the Church) would or would not fire somebody for saying he was an atheist. All I'm saying is that the soon-to-be law exempts the Mormon Church from the legal requirements of tolerance it requires non-religious business owners to obey. If the Church thinks this bill is such a great idea, it would be nice if it would "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and not negotiate into the deal an exemption for itself.

Of employees in Utah that work at businesses that are owned by a church, roughly 100% work for businesses owned by the Mormon Church. It is disingenuous to claim this exemption isn't specifically for them.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Analytics

[passport]

But this is what you just don't grasp, Tovarich: Free speech entails no "consequences."

That's why it's free.

Regards,

Pahoran

All speech as consequences. If you say stupid things people will view you as stupid and treat you accordingly. If you say smart things people will see as wise and treat you accordingly. If you say heinous things people won't like you and try to avoid you. If you say things publicly that people disagree with they will criticize it. If you say persuasive thing you might get people to change their minds. Speech without consequences would be pointless.

[Stone holm]

All speech as consequences. If you say stupid things people will view you as stupid and treat you accordingly. If you say smart things people will see as wise and treat you accordingly. If you say heinous things people won't like you and try to avoid you. If you say things publicly that people disagree with they will criticize it. If you say persuasive thing you might get people to change their minds. Speech without consequences would be pointless.

Agreed. Free Speech has to do with government curtailment of speech, there has always been and always will be private consequences such as loss of business to business owners, loss of elections by politicians, etc.

[Stone holm]

I'm not sure I follow you. Nobody cares, but everyone's got an opinion?And that opinion rather unsurprisingly reflects your own regional chauvinism?Umm, okay.Regards,Pahoran

Should have been clearer, sorry. The bills which are popping up which have laws to protect the religious beliefs of business owners are being seen as backdoor pro discrimination laws being enacted to promote discrimination against LGBT veiled as the opposite. On the other hand, Utah is viewed, rightly or wrongly, as being a politically ultra right fringe State politically so it is frequently ignored in the Northeast.

[Pahoran]

All speech as consequences. If you say stupid things people will view you as stupid and treat you accordingly. If you say smart things people will see as wise and treat you accordingly. If you say heinous things people won't like you and try to avoid you. If you say things publicly that people disagree with they will criticize it. If you say persuasive thing you might get people to change their minds. Speech without consequences would be pointless.

Conceded on "consequences." Replace with "repercussions" or "retribution."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Agreed. Free Speech has to do with government curtailment of speech, there has always been and always will be private consequences such as loss of business to business owners, loss of elections by politicians, etc.

I'm aware that the "rights" provisions of America's vaunted constitution were originally intended to curtail and delimit the power of the federal government; and likewise with the earliest "civil rights" legislation. I find it amusing that modern American "liberals" take a conservative/strict constructionist view of all the bits that protect liberty, while taking a broad and expansive application to the bits that impinge upon liberty.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Stone holm]

I'm aware that the "rights" provisions of America's vaunted constitution were originally intended to curtail and delimit the power of the federal government; and likewise with the earliest "civil rights" legislation. I find it amusing that modern American "liberals" take a conservative/strict constructionist view of all the bits that protect liberty, while taking a broad and expansive application to the bits that impinge upon liberty.Regards,Pahoran

Really?

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with Scott on the above. The church didn't have to publicly advocate for LGBT protections, and their doing so generated the discussion in venues that previously refused to acknowlegement the subject.

For good or bad, that is the power that the church wields over its membership, and the influence it has over local government in Utah.

I also agree with all those that point out the serious flaws in the legislation. By advocating for religious exemptions, the church has inadvertently opened the door to discrimination based on religion (and the lack thereof).

Thst is why I see this piece of law as temporary... it will not withstand the constitutional challenges that will invariably come.

However, the symbolic power at play here is the church advocating for at least some civil rights for gays. That alone is progress, even with the serious (albeit temporary) flaws.

So the underlying, implied message here is that Daniel2 welcomes the proposed legislation because he fully expects that the gains sought by the LGBT movement will be entrenched in law even as the quid pro quo guarantees of religious freedom will eventually be struck down, leaving Mormons and other people of faith with nothing, the unwitting dupes of political manipulation.

 

I can see why he and others might be gleeful about that.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm aware that the "rights" provisions of America's vaunted constitution were originally intended to curtail and delimit the power of the federal government; and likewise with the earliest "civil rights" legislation. I find it amusing that modern American "liberals" take a conservative/strict constructionist view of all the bits that protect liberty, while taking a broad and expansive application to the bits that impinge upon liberty.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

 

Really?

 

Yea, verily.

[Daniel2]

So the underlying, implied message here is that Daniel2 welcomes the proposed legislation because he fully expects that the gains sought by the LGBT movement will be entrenched in law even as the quid pro quo guarantees of religious freedom will eventually be struck down, leaving Mormons and other people of faith with nothing, the unwitting dupes of political manipulation.

I can see why he and others might be gleeful about that.

I wondered whether you or Pahoran would pick up and comment on that first. ;-) Kudos!

"Religious freedom" is not what this bill protects--it ultimately advances a license to discriminate--against both gay and staight citizens, against religious and non-religious, based purely on religion. Under its rules, discrimination against interracial couples or even couples holding non-mainstream religious views will be perfectly legal. These provisions are the antithesis of public accommodation laws, which seek to prevent discrimination and advance freedoms for all. Those are the portions that will cause the law to be struck down. This law seeks to serve two masters--it will not stand.

And yes--I will be joyful when it is, so we all may be truly equally protected, regardless of religion, gender, or sexual orientation.*

*Where is the "Twirling my Machiavellian Mutstache while cackling maniacally" Smiley when I need it?!?!

Scott.... in a moment of candor: I don't ask anything for myself that I don't equally return in kind to and for you. If I serve others, my beliefs shouldn't dictate who I serve and who I don't... and I won't let my beliefs or non-beliefs or judgements or biases get in the way of true equal protection under the law. If you see something nefarious about that...well...I guess we disagree......but despite our differeces, I'll still serve ya regardless, brother, because I will do unto you as I would have you do unto me.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Daniel2

[Pahoran]

I wondered whether you or Pahoran would pick up and comment on that first. ;-) Kudos!

"Religious freedom" is not what this bill protects--it ultimately advances a license to discriminate--against both gay and staight civilians, against religious and non-religious, based purely on religion. Under its rules, discrimination against interracial couples or even couples holding non-mainstream religious views will be perfectly legal. These provisions are the antithesis of public accommodation laws, which seek to prevent discrimination and advance freedoms for all. Those are the portions that will cause the law to be struck down. This law seeks to serve two masters--it will not stand.

And yes--I will be joyful when it is, so we all may be truly equally protected, regardless of religion, gender, or sexual orientation.*

Yes, "gays" will be "protected" from ever hearing anyone say "no."

Because that would be just the ultimate hardship.

Sob.

Regards,

Pahoran

[california boy]

Yes, "gays" will be "protected" from ever hearing anyone say "no."

Because that would be just the ultimate hardship.

Sob.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

You don't get it.  This isn't just about gays.  These laws allow discrimination against ANYONE based on religious beliefs.  They go against federal civil rights laws.  They will be struck down by the courts unless the government repeals those civil rights laws. It is as simple as that.  And when that happens, I am sure we will hear screaming from you and others of "activist judges"  who simply are enforcing federal law.  Which is their job btw.

 

Anyone who expects a Muslin to ring up their bacon at the grocery store, a interacial couple to receive a marriage license, a black person to be served at a restaurant, a Mormon to serve them their coffee, a Jew to make their hamburger, should be against that part of the law.

 

It is amazing to me how some feel that just because someone is gay, or black or of a different religion they are not entitled to equal protection under the law.  But hey, people have been discriminating against one group or another since the beginning of time. It seems to be human nature, and is a way other groups make themselves feel superior.  "we are not like those blackies.  They are met to serve us.  We are not like those dirty Irish.  We are not like those papalist Catholics.  We are not like those Christ killing Jews, and now, we are not like those sinning gays.  It is all the same story, different group.  It has been 50 years since it was illegal to discriminate in this country.  And for the most part, the civil right laws have been successful in legally preventing people from discrimination.  Now those laws are being challenged of all people, by "christians".  Too bad all can not simply follow the example of Christ and serve all and treat others as they would like to be treated without discrimination.

[Ham Clam]

Trying to figure out if Utah is more progressive than Missouri or not.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Trying to figure out if Utah is more progressive than Missouri or not.

Not sure if I care if it is more progressive than another state. Just wondering if it is just more progressive than conservative. It seems that way sometimes.

[Ahab]

Some people don't seem to get or agree with the idea that nobody should have the legal right to force or coerce someone else to do something that goes against their religious principles. Nobody. Not a preacher. Not a police officer. Not an employer. Not an employee. Not a politician, or a judge. Nobody.

The "but if I want someone to do something for me then they should do it" idea needs to just go away. I know it won't, but it should. I think it's a result of less charitable thinking.

[Scott Lloyd]

Some people don't seem to get or agree with the idea that nobody should have the legal right to force or coerce someone else to do something that goes against their religious principles. Nobody. Not a preacher. Not a police officer. Not an employer. Not an employee. Not a politician, or a judge. Nobody.

The "but if I want someone to do something for me then they should do it" idea needs to just go away. I know it won't, but it should. I think it's a result of less charitable thinking.

Yes.

 

Behold the revival of involuntary servitude in America.

[california boy]

Some people don't seem to get or agree with the idea that nobody should have the legal right to force or coerce someone else to do something that goes against their religious principles. Nobody. Not a preacher. Not a police officer. Not an employer. Not an employee. Not a politician, or a judge. Nobody.

The "but if I want someone to do something for me then they should do it" idea needs to just go away. I know it won't, but it should. I think it's a result of less charitable thinking.

 

 

Yes.

 

Behold the revival of involuntary servitude in America.

 

 

You are right.  There are a heck of a lot of people who believe that discrimination from providing a service is NOT a religious value.

 

So you both think that baking a cake for a gay couple is the same thing as slavery huh.  And your argument to defend your discrimination is that a man should not have to be compelled to do something against his will or it is the same as being a slave huh?

 

How about paying your taxes.  How about serving in the military when the draft is enforce?  There are numerous things that being a citizen in this country is required of you whether you want to do them or not.  This involuntary servitude has been tried as a defense numerous times and have always been rejected by the Supreme Court.  Or do you think that submitting to the Supreme Court and the laws of this country is also the same as being forced against your will to do something.  heck why even have laws that compel us to do something we don't want to do.

 

So do you still stand by your belief that the laws of this country should not force you to do something against your will?  Can I attach your post to my taxes come April 15th?

Edited March 13, 2015 by california boy