Scott Lloyd Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Nope, not social pressure. If it was social pressure we'd be closer, but that's clearly not how the Church works. We need church membership to be desirous and receptive to the possibility of further revelation on the matter. Doesn't look like we're there yet. I was about to respond to this, but I don't think I can improve on what Storm Rider said: I think the membership is always desirous of new or continuing revelation; what the membership is not willing is to throw out the entire history of God's dealings with humanity through the family unit. Your proposal is such that nothing is sacred, there are no constants, and all is acceptable IF carnal humans desire it. In your opinion where is the line that differentiates the sacred and eternal from the desires of the flesh?
rockpond Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 I was about to respond to this, but I don't think I can improve on what Storm Rider said: Thank you... Storm Rider didn't quote me so I wasn't alerted to his response. I'll respond now.
rockpond Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 I think the membership is always desirous of new or continuing revelation; what the membership is not willing is to throw out the entire history of God's dealings with humanity through the family unit. Your proposal is such that nothing is sacred, there are no constants, and all is acceptable IF carnal humans desire it. In your opinion where is the line that differentiates the sacred and eternal from the desires of the flesh? Your response represents the issue I was highlighting -- you already believe we have the answer to this matter so no need for further revelation. You feel that such a change would be a violation of God's character and law. Where is the line that differentiates the sacred and eternal from the desires of the flesh? I believe that God sets that line. And I believe the law of chastity is no sexual relations before marriage and complete fidelity to your husband or wife during marriage. For me, that is the pattern in how we overcome carnal desires.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Your response represents the issue I was highlighting -- you already believe we have the answer to this matter so no need for further revelation. You feel that such a change would be a violation of God's character and law. Where is the line that differentiates the sacred and eternal from the desires of the flesh? I believe that God sets that line. And I believe the law of chastity is no sexual relations before marriage and complete fidelity to your husband or wife during marriage. For me, that is the pattern in how we overcome carnal desires.You're leaving out a crucial element. Redefinition of marriage by secular governments is not recognized by God (see the prominent text in my sig line, the quote from Elder Nelson). Ergo, Government laws permitting same-sex "marriage" cannot be used to rationalize a view of the law of chastity as incorporating any definition of marriage as other than being between a man and a woman. Edited March 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
rockpond Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) You're leaving out a crucial element. Redefinition of marriage by secular governments is not recognized by God (see the prominent text in my sig line, the quote from Elder Nelson). Ergo, Government laws permitting same-sex "marriage" cannot be used to rationalize the law of chastity as incorporating the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. I'm not leaving that out. I agree with you. Government laws are irrelevant to God's laws. I've made no mention of SSM legalization in this thread because it doesn't factor in to the "prediction". Edited March 17, 2015 by rockpond
Pahoran Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 ...published as a news release with no identified author. It should be easy to disavow that one when the "Dehlin prediction" occurs. Keep that clock running!You mean If the "Dehlin prediction" occurs.Which it won't.Regards,Pahoran 1
CV75 Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 We need church membership to be desirous and receptive to the possibility of further revelation on the matter. Doesn't look like we're there yet.“We need…? Please define who “we” is--please be as specific as possible. In D&C 59 (especially verses 1-4; 21-22, but it’s covered by the whole section) the Lord says that further commandments are predicated upon the demonstrated willingness for the Church membership to obey (including to honor, sustain and defend) the current commandments, and not on their secret/heartfelt/sincere desire for and acclimated receptivity to possible further revelation on a matter (having its origin outside of inspired councils) that has been perverted and foisted upon them. 3
Pahoran Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Nope, not social pressure. If it was social pressure we'd be closer, but that's clearly not how the Church works. We need church membership to be desirous and receptive to the possibility of further revelation on the matter. Doesn't look like we're there yet. You mean we have to reject the answer already given, and "be desirous" of an answer that suits our preferences. That's not going to happen either. Those who want the Church to start celebrating "same sex marriages" are those who call evil good and good evil. Whether they are motivated by a desire to destroy the Church, or simply to force us to conform to the non-values of a fallen world, their desire is manifestly a wicked one. And unbecoming of a Latter-day Saint. When Antiochus IV Epiphanes slaughtered a pig on the altar of the Temple of Zerubbabel in Jerusalem, it was seen as desecrating the temple so that it was profane, and could not become holy until it was rededicated. The celebration of a "same sex marriage" in a latter-day temple would make the former desecration seem like a housekeeping incident by comparison. Every authentic Latter-day Saint respects the Temple and sees it as holy; consequently, no authentic Latter-day Saint wishes for it to be desecrated by the solemnisation of a grossly immoral relationship therein. Only apostates, whether open or covert, could wish such a thing. And the case of John Dehlin really ought to demonstrate that closet apostates are not going to successfully white-ant the Church. Regards, Pahoran 2
Hamilton Porter Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 If the church declaRed it supports Same sex marriage I'd go along with it. So would about 75% of the church under 45. Thus, in this highly unlikely event, it would have to wait until the old mullahs died for it to happen.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 If the church declaRed it supports Same sex marriage I'd go along with it. So would about 75% of the church under 45. Thus, in this highly unlikely event, it would have to wait until the old mullahs died for it to happen.Assuming your numbers are correct, the 75 percent under 45 perhaps need to be taught why such a thing is unthinkable and that waiting for people to die off isn't going to result in any change in that respect. Moreover, since many people can be expected to gain wisdom with age and experience, that figure may well change as that portion of the demographic ages. 1
rockpond Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 “We need…? Please define who “we” is--please be as specific as possible.We being the general church membership. The way I understand the revelatory process, it is unlikely that we would receive further light from the Lord regarding a matter for which we already believe we have a complete understanding. In D&C 59 (especially verses 1-4; 21-22, but it’s covered by the whole section) the Lord says that further commandments are predicated upon the demonstrated willingness for the Church membership to obey (including to honor, sustain and defend) the current commandments, and not on their secret/heartfelt/sincere desire for and acclimated receptivity to possible further revelation on a matter (having its origin outside of inspired councils) that has been perverted and foisted upon them.Agreed.
california boy Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) This is outlandish. The Church is absolutely being forthright in declaring and clarifying its intent here. There is no and has been no untruthfulness on the part of the Church on this matter. If you think otherwise, perhaps it is because you have talked yourself into believing the Church was making concessions it did not make and never intended to make. And here we have yet another example of attempted emotional blackmail (see my sig line, the portion in royal blue). In effect: "Shame on the Church for ticking off 'the LGBT community.' I'm going to get my kids to not be involved in the Church now because it won't shut up about this public issue." Well I do agree with you, this is outlandish. Probably the main reason I got involved in this discussion board is that I wanted to get a better idea how members felt about the direction that the church has taken. First on Prop 8 and then on other related issues. I felt like my contribution could be to offer from a former member who served a mission, taught seminary, served as young men’s president, bishoprics and the high counsel who understands church doctrine very well could give a gay perspective of many of these issues that face the church. In a lot of ways, I have involved myself in the LGBT community when discussions concerning the church come up. So many are so angry and can only see the bigotry and hatred that they perceive the church has against gays. I try to tell them that the churches position and attitudes towards gays are softening and the church is becoming more welcoming to its gay members. I, however never tell them that the churches position that gay relationships or gay marriage will ever change. Like many here, I see no sign of those positions changing. And quite frankly, as I have said repeatedly, I don't really care if the church ever accepts gay marriage. I don't think the gay community cares if the church ever accepts gay marriage. It just won't be a church they will be interested in attending or investigating. The issue against the church in the gay community is not about its doctrinal beliefs, it is about the church imposing those beliefs on others. When the church took on Prop 8, the church was fighting to take the civil right to marry away from gay couples. Those civil rights are not just the opinion of the gay community but also EVERY district and federal judge that has reviewed this issue from the constitutional law of this country. That is much different than what the church is claiming that it only wanted to defend their view that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The church could have defended that position without spending 40 million dollars and providing 70% of the labor force to pass Prop 8. There is only one goal that the church had. And that was to codify in law the churches beliefs on marriage. The church still holds the belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman to this day. And that belief is not going to change. Yet Prop 8 was overturned and the Supreme Court is likely to rule this summer on legalizing gay marriage throughout this country. Will that change the churches position? NOT ONE IOTA. Prop 8 was NOT about defending religious liberty. It was ONLY about taking away the civil rights of gay couples to marry and forcing others to follow the beliefs of the church. So now we have round two. Now the church is lobbying legislature in the name of religious freedom to codify in law the ability to wipe out the civil rights laws of this country that have been in place for 50 years. We now have the church defending bakers photographers florist, for profit wedding venues etc. who want to take away those civil right and accommodation laws from gay Americans and allow the wholesale discrimination against gays and anyone else who disagrees with their religious beliefs. That has become clear. And I might add, that when those cases have gone before the courts, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM have been found guilty of breaking the accommodation laws. This is the new banner the church has picked up. Well I say to the church, if that is the direction you want to take the church then, GO RIGHT AHEAD. Let this church be known as the church that pushes to take away the civil rights of gays among all nations, kindred, and tongues. Let this church be known as the church that pushes discrimination of gays among all nations, kindred, and tongues. Let this church be known as the church that taught racist policies for most of its history among all nations, kindred, and tongues. Let this church be known as the church that modified the meaning of marriage for it's own members, but withheld it from others. If this is where the church is headed, then count me out. I am no longer going to defend the church as a church that has love and compassion to its gay members. And when others call the church out for bigotry and hatred towards gays because of these political policies, I am no longer going to defend the church and the positions it takes. Whatever reputation the church receives, it will be because it has earned it through its actions in codifying into law the taking away of civil rights and discrimination. A move I am sure the leaders fully understand. I obviously did not realize or maybe hoped that wasn't their intent. Yes, scott, it is outrageous. You think I am being unfair? Tell me how I can possibly defend the church that is embarking on a campaign to legislate into law discrimination practices that are against the federal anti discrimination laws of this country that have been in place for 50 years. Just like Prop 8 and the churches efforts to force others to follow the churches beliefs, these laws legalizing discrimination against those who don't share the same beliefs as the church will also be thrown out in the courts. As Christ said "by their fruits ye shall know them." Let's just see where this is all headed in the next 5 years. Edited March 18, 2015 by california boy
Stone holm Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 We being the general church membership. The way I understand the revelatory process, it is unlikely that we would receive further light from the Lord regarding a matter for which we already believe we have a complete understanding. Agreed.Did you mean to suggest that the Lord would not give further revelation if He felt that we had already decided we had the answer to a question and therefore wouldn't listen? That would be an interesting explanation as to why nothing happened during Harold B. Lee's tenure on the African descent and the Priesthood issue, given his alleged "Over my dead body" comment. 1
rockpond Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Shall I start a 10-year one for "any significant changes"? I'll wait until you've defined that a bit better. You can start a 10 year clock if you'd like but I'm not sure how to define "significant changes". I can give you an example of a small development that is making the rounds this week: http://www.ldsliving.com/story/78352-elder-christofferson-answers-can-members-of-the-church-support-gay-marriage And apostle stating that you members can support and even advocate for gay marriage without having their membership threatened. This is one of those areas that doesn't seem to have been universally understood prior. Some members were able to support/advocate for gay marriage others faced discipline... a bit of leadership roulette.
rockpond Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Did you mean to suggest that the Lord would not give further revelation if He felt that we had already decided we had the answer to a question and therefore wouldn't listen? That would be an interesting explanation as to why nothing happened during Harold B. Lee's tenure on the African descent and the Priesthood issue, given his alleged "Over my dead body" comment. Yes, if we have "decided" an issue... If we already believe we have the answer... How can we possibly ask with "a sincere heart and real intent"?
Pahoran Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) So now we have round two. Now the church is lobbying legislature in the name of religious freedom to codify in law the ability to wipe out the civil rights laws of this country that have been in place for 50 years. We now have the church defending bakers photographers florist, for profit wedding venues etc. who want to take away those civil right and accommodation laws from gay Americans and allow the wholesale discrimination against gays and anyone else who disagrees with their religious beliefs. That has become clear. And I might add, that when those cases have gone before the courts, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM have been found guilty of breaking the accommodation laws. This is the new banner the church has picked up. Well I say to the church, if that is the direction you want to take the church then, GO RIGHT AHEAD.You're getting hysterical, Caliboy.You are working yourself into a state of apoplexy over the possibility that someone might say no to you, and you won't be able to sue them into financial oblivion. Quelle horreur!The fact is that your [im]moral panic is unwarranted. There are many jurisdictions where people in service industries are allowed to say no, and that has failed entirely to create an oppressed underclass out of anyone.In a free country, people in service-related industries are the servants of a million bosses. But in one regard, they are still their own bosses: they retain the right to refuse anyone who approaches them, and are not accountable to anyone to explain why they have refused service.That right, I respectfully submit, is a civil right; at least, it obtains in all civil societies that I know anything about, and ought to be recognised as such in any society that calls itself free.In contract law, someone hanging out a shingle and opening the door, is not thereby making an offer. She is merely extending an "invitation to treat," i.e. to open negotiations. She has no obligation to accept, or even to consider, any offer that might come her way, and someone walking in the door does not ipso facto create such an obligation.The "civil rights" / public accommodation laws you hold so dear to your heart make a travesty of the normal operation of commerce in a free market. The hanging out of the shingle, and the opening of the door, now effectively constitute an offer, even though they are not intended to do so; and a person walking in the door is still free to accept or reject that offer, or to negotiate for terms, but the person making the offer is no longer free to take it off the table.This is manifestly unjust. But why should you worry, since it works in your favour?The fact is that the community is hardly under-represented in the hospitality, food and generally service-related industries. If (for some reason you simply cannot begin to fathom) a photographer really doesn't want to attend a "same sex wedding," then your fingers are unlikely to have to walk very far to find one who does -- and who isn't all that unlikely to be "gay" himself. And even if he's normal, surely his willing co-operation makes him a better choice for your event than someone who really doesn't want to be there?Is your "right" to coerce the reluctant photographer into serving you so desperately important to you that you'll have a hissy fit if you just have to move onto someone who actually wants to serve you?Regards,Pahoran Edited March 19, 2015 by Nemesis It is not ok to hide slurs in acronyms 4
california boy Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 You're getting hysterical, Caliboy.You are working yourself into a state of apoplexy over the possibility that someone might say no to you, and you won't be able to sue them into financial oblivion. Quelle horreur!The fact is that your [im]moral panic is unwarranted. There are many jurisdictions where people in service industries are allowed to say no, and that has failed entirely to create an oppressed underclass out of anyone.In a free country, people in service-related industries are the servants of a million bosses. But in one regard, they are still their own bosses: they retain the right to refuse anyone who approaches them, and are not accountable to anyone to explain why they have refused service.That right, I respectfully submit, is a civil right; at least, it obtains in all civil societies that I know anything about, and ought to be recognised as such in any society that calls itself free.In contract law, someone hanging out a shingle and opening the door, is not thereby making an offer. She is merely extending an "invitation to treat," i.e. to open negotiations. She has no obligation to accept, or even to consider, any offer that might come her way, and someone walking in the door does not ipso facto create such an obligation.The "civil rights" / public accommodation laws you hold so dear to your heart make a travesty of the normal operation of commerce in a free market. The hanging out of the shingle, and the opening of the door, now effectively constitute an offer, even though they are not intended to do so; and a person walking in the door is still free to accept or reject that offer, or to negotiate for terms, but the person making the offer is no longer free to take it off the table.This is manifestly unjust. But why should you worry, since it works in your favour?The fact is that the LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM community is hardly under-represented in the hospitality, food and generally service-related industries. If (for some reason you simply cannot begin to fathom) a photographer really doesn't want to attend a "same sex wedding," then your fingers are unlikely to have to walk very far to find one who does -- and who isn't all that unlikely to be "gay" himself. And even if he's normal, surely his willing co-operation makes him a better choice for your event than someone who really doesn't want to be there?Is your "right" to coerce the reluctant photographer into serving you so desperately important to you that you'll have a hissy fit if you just have to move onto someone who actually wants to serve you?Regards,PahoranYou do realize that photographer you mentioned was found guilty by a court of law of discrimination and ordered to pay a fine. He broke the law. If you don't want to photograph gay weddings then don't photograph any weddings. You aren't forced to photograph weddings, you just aren't allow to discriminate. If the church believes that putting in the right to legislate discrimination into the law is so safe from breaking the federal civil rights laws, then why did they put in this poision pill that disolves all of this law when the part of discrimination is thrown out in court? 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. Despite your assertion, I think the church knows full well that legalized discrimination that goes against the federal civil rights laws of this country is not going to hold up in court. When it is challenged and found unconstitutional, Mormons will cry activist judges and the first thing that will happen is gays will once again not be protected from housing and employment discrimination in Utah. The church got exactly what it wanted. And is all I am saying is the church will also get the exact reputation it earned. Hey I am on your side on this one. Go Church. Pass these discrimination laws. Become as famous for legalized discrimination against gays as you are for taking away the civil rights of gays in Prop 8. Let the world know just what kind of church you are. I am just not going to make any more excuses for the church. In fact, when this subject gets brought up, I am going to raise the awareness of what the church is actually doing to the LGBT community. I will spread the message. What more could you want me to do. Isn't it what you plan to do as well? 2
rockpond Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM Would you care to explain what your acronym stands for? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) From the Q and A on LDS Newsroom as quoted in this thread by teddyaware: What about protections for bakers, photographers or other business owners who cannot in good conscience provide services to same-sex weddings?Protections are automatically extended for small businesses or property owners as described above. However, the legislation does not address this issue, which is known as “public accommodation.” This remains a highly controversial area. LGBT people fear that overly broad exemptions would allow a server in a fast food restaurant to refuse to serve a hamburger or deny basic services that have nothing to do with religious faith. For their part, some religious people, especially those with expressive businesses such as photography, do not want to be forced to use their creative art to celebrate something (such as a same-sex wedding) with which they fundamentally disagree, especially when there are other businesses nearby who are willing to provide the service. This is a difficult area to legislate, and all parties agreed to leave public accommodation for another time. Reading between the lines, I perceive that all parties were unable to come to agreement on this particular issue, so by default, it was left out of the legislation. This statement draws what I believe is a valid distinction and strikes a reasonable balance between some services that have nothing to do with religious faith -- such as fast-food sales -- and others that would require a provider to take part in something that violates her freedom of conscience. Pahoran made a very cogent point when he said: If (for some reason you simply cannot begin to fathom) a photographer really doesn't want to attend a "same sex wedding," then your fingers are unlikely to have to walk very far to find one who does -- and who isn't all that unlikely to be "gay" himself. And even if he's normal, surely his willing co-operation makes him a better choice for your event than someone who really doesn't want to be there? It is inscrutable to me how anyone is oppressed by having to choose another photographer -- or florist or baker -- from a rich pool of available providers if one in particular, as a matter of conscience, does not want to be involved in providing the service in a given instance. This has nothing to do with basic necessities of life such as food, shelter or employment. It strikes me as one segment of society vindictively and spitefully trying to lord it over another and endeavoring to do so with the force of law. Rather than endure such tyranny, good people are likely to choose another line of work or service, which, taken to its logical conclusion, would render some professions off limits to people of faith. That does not strike me as a free or wholesome society -- or one that is particularly civil. Edited March 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 You can start a 10 year clock if you'd like but I'm not sure how to define "significant changes". I can give you an example of a small development that is making the rounds this week: http://www.ldsliving.com/story/78352-elder-christofferson-answers-can-members-of-the-church-support-gay-marriage And apostle stating that you members can support and even advocate for gay marriage without having their membership threatened. This is one of those areas that doesn't seem to have been universally understood prior. Some members were able to support/advocate for gay marriage others faced discipline... a bit of leadership roulette.This is not a new development. It's a confirmation of a position that has been consistently held by the Church over time. That is to say, no one is penalized in the Church for holding or expressing a political opinion -- until such expression strays into the territory of open opposition to the Church and its mission. And with an issue like this, where there exists such spite for the Church because of its past action in asserting its values in the public arena, one might be very prone to straying into that territory. So no, an occasional affirmation by an apostle or Church leader of a consistently held position by the Church could not be regarded as a "significant change," and you would not be able to claim victory for your cause if and when it occurs.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) You can start a 10 year clock if you'd like but I'm not sure how to define "significant changes". I can give you an example of a small development that is making the rounds this week: http://www.ldsliving.com/story/78352-elder-christofferson-answers-can-members-of-the-church-support-gay-marriage And apostle stating that you members can support and even advocate for gay marriage without having their membership threatened. This is one of those areas that doesn't seem to have been universally understood prior. Some members were able to support/advocate for gay marriage others faced discipline... a bit of leadership roulette.Having responded to this, I now wish to highlight for the record a portion of that recorded interview that is very important and directly relevant to what we have been discussing here. I present below my transcription of that portion of the interview:Question: What would you say to those members who wonder: Is it possible, would the Church ever one day accept monogamous, same-sex marriage or move further beyond the position that you’re currently at? Answer: I don’t think so, because that’s such a fundamental aspect of what we see as the purpose of life. You know we talk about the plan of salvation, as we call it, and we take into account the pre-mortal existence, this current existence and what comes hereafter, marriage between a man and a woman, the family, grows out of that. All of that is so fundamental to what has happened, what needs to happen here and what comes hereafter, that without it, it falls apart. So, I don’t think we can take away the cornerstone without everything else coming down.As I half-expected he would, the interviewer tried to make something equivocal out of Elder Christofferson's phrasing: Q: You say you “don’t think.” Are you leaving any room at all for … Before the question was finished, Elder Christofferson gently but firmly replied with a one-word answer: A: No. So, rockpond, if you need a name of an apostle to put with a statement such as this, lest it be "disavowed" sometime in the next 39 or so years, you have the name of Elder Christofferson. Although, as I've pointed out before, this is not the first time he has so expressed himself. Earlier in the interview, the reporter tried, as others have done, to make something out of Elder Christofferson's family siutation (having a brother who is gay). The apostle quite clearly responded that this had no bearing on the deliberations of the Brethren, that they have followed the long-established practice of counseling together in councils and together seeking revelation from God. Perhaps I'd better provide a transcription of that too:Q: We've reported on your situation -- you have a brother who's gay -- and you've talked about how that has impacted your family. Has that, personally for you, has that family dynamic impacted at all how you've approached this issue, how you've approached publicly advocating as an apostle for SB 296? A: No, the real genesis of the movement, if you will, behind these issues has been a matter of counseling together as we do in the Church. We operate by councils. There's the Quorum of the Twelve, which is a council, the First Presidency is a council, and at the ward, the local levels and the stake levels, we rely heavily on counseling together to determine which way to go and as a way of facilitating revelation and inspiration and receiving guidance that way. So it's not one person says, you know, because of this experience that I've had in my life, this is how we need to do it, but it's this sharing of past experience, sharing of knowledge and background, but it's after everything else a search for revelation, a search to know what the Lord's will is, and that's what we try to follow. Edited March 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
rodheadlee Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) You do realize that photographer you mentioned was found guilty by a court of law of discrimination and ordered to pay a fine. He broke the law. If you don't want to photograph gay weddings then don't photograph any weddings. You aren't forced to photograph weddings, you just aren't allow to discriminate. If the church believes that putting in the right to legislate discrimination into the law is so safe from breaking the federal civil rights laws, then why did they put in this poision pill that disolves all of this law when the part of discrimination is thrown out in court? Despite your assertion, I think the church knows full well that legalized discrimination that goes against the federal civil rights laws of this country is not going to hold up in court. When it is challenged and found unconstitutional, Mormons will cry activist judges and the first thing that will happen is gays will once again not be protected from housing and employment discrimination in Utah. The church got exactly what it wanted. And is all I am saying is the church will also get the exact reputation it earned. Hey I am on your side on this one. Go Church. Pass these discrimination laws. Become as famous for legalized discrimination against gays as you are for taking away the civil rights of gays in Prop 8. Let the world know just what kind of church you are. I am just not going to make any more excuses for the church. In fact, when this subject gets brought up, I am going to raise the awareness of what the church is actually doing to the LGBT community. I will spread the message. What more could you want me to do. Isn't it what you plan to do as well?So if Hugh Hefner pops down to the local photography shop and wants me to come and take pics of nude women I have to do it? or only if they are getting married? Edited March 18, 2015 by rodheadlee
rockpond Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 This is not a new development. It's a confirmation of a position that has been consistently held by the Church over time.Yes, a position that's been consistently held by the Church but not consistently applied in all areas. So the confirmation and clarification is much appreciated. 1
california boy Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 So if Hugh Hefner pops down to the local photography shop and wants me to come and take pics of nude women I have to do it? or only if they are getting married? If part of the photographer's business is shooting nudes, then yes. If the photographer does not shoot nudes for anyone else then no. You are not forced to offer services that you don't want to or find objectionable. Is all you can not do is discriminate agains Hugh Hefner because you don't serve straight people. Hence, if a photographer does not want to shoot weddings, then he does not have to. If he does shoot weddings then he can not discriminate against gays, well except in Utah.
Recommended Posts