Lds Church Backs Utah Lgbt Anti-Discrimination Bill

[Ahab]

Can someonw tell me (truly) if the anti-discrimination laws apply only to transactions involving money, or business licenses?

For example, could someone legally refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding but still bake wedding cakes for "straight" weddings as long as there was no money or a business license involved? Or would that still be in violation of anti-discrimination laws?

[Daniel2]

There is still a lot about the case of Kloosterman that is unclear...

That's what most of us said about Officer Moutsos, but that lack of clarity sure didn't stop you from filling in the gaps, jumping to conclusions, and subsequently defending him.

[pogi]

Can someonw tell me (truly) if the anti-discrimination laws apply only to transactions involving money, or business licenses?

For example, could someone legally refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding but still bake wedding cakes for "straight" weddings as long as there was no money or a business license involved? Or would that still be in violation of anti-discrimination laws?

 

That would be considered a gift.  Thankfully, we are allowed to discriminate in gift giving, Christmas is expensive enough as it is. 

[Daniel2]

Not too long ago, I posted that I didn't believe I would ever see the day in my lifetime when the state of Utah, against prevailing community standards, would be forced to accept the imposition of same-sex "marriage." Boy, was I in for a rude awakening!

I agree.. your track record for predicting the future isn't accurate.

The scare quotes around the word "marriage" in relation to gays and lesbians always make me chuckle in these types of responses. Marriage has several meanings, many of which don't refer to people, let alone male and female wedded partners. People have no problem using the term marriage (without quotations) in to refer to the marriage of two hearts or concepts... or a perfect marriage of flavors in a recipe... or the marriage of music and dance... common law couples who never tied any knot... etc... For some reason, some have to put scarey looking "--"s around it to demonstrate their objection to acknowledging other peoples' relarionships. IMO, it comes across less than flattering for those who use it... but knock yourself out.

As Shakespeare wrote (without any quotation marks, I might add):

Let me not to the marriage of true minds

Admit impediments. Love is not love

Which alters when it alteration finds,

Or bends with the remover to remove:

O no; it is an ever-fixed mark,

That looks on tempests, and is never shaken;

It is the star to every wandering bark,

Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.

Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks

Within his bending sickle's compass come;

Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,

But bears it out even to the edge of doom.

If this be error and upon me proved,

I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

(Emphasis added)

Amen. Edited March 18, 2015 by Daniel2

[Hamilton Porter]

Meanwhile, the clock running on Scott's prediction that Utah would not adopt SSM in his lifetime is now running at negative 1 year, 2 months, 26 days, 10 hours, 5 minutes, 14 seconds, and continuing to count up.

 

He can read God's mind too.

[Pahoran]

Would you care to explain what your acronym stands for?

You can read all about it here:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/lgbttqqfagpbdsm-housing-for-15-alternative-sexualities-is-ok-but-men-only-fraternities-are-not-wesleyan-university-says-134684/

I think it's important not to leave anyone out. Isn't "inclusiveness" the greatest of all possible virtues these days?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree.. your track record for predicting the future does seem to be ill-founded.

 

Well, so far I've been right in contradicting the prediction of the de-sinfulization of homosexual behavior. Did you read my transcript and get Elder Christofferson's clear and unequivocal "No" when the question was put to him? 

 

And every day that goes by gives my "track record" additional credit.

 

But rest assured, I've learned not to repose much confidence in the wisdom of the federal judiciary.

 

But the Church of Jesus Christ, on the other hand? Well, the clock stands at 39 years, 10 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 6 hours, 7 minutes,  20 seconds and counting down. The clock is moving slowly but ticking inexorably toward that 30-year deadline. And the Church continues to hold fast to its principles.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

Well, so far I've been right in contradicting the predicted de-sinfulization of homosexual behavior. Did you read my transcript and get Elder Christofferson's clear and unequivocal "No" when the question was put to him?

 

Actually, I thought he said "nope," not "no." I'm sure there's a loophole there somewhere.

[Scott Lloyd]

He can read God's mind too.

I just understand the doctrine.

 

Did you read in my transcript Elder Christofferson's remarks about how same-sex "marriage" would undermine the structure of the plan of salvation?

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, I thought he said "nope," not "no." I'm sure there's a loophole there somewhere.

I listened to it several times in the course of transcribing. But the video link is there for anyone interested.

[Ahab]

That would be considered a gift. Thankfully, we are allowed to discriminate in gift giving, Christmas is expensive enough as it is.

So is it the money or the business license that is causing the problem? Why is one type of refusal okay, legally, and the other type not?

How about this scenario:

Suppose someone with a business license to bake cakes has a sign up that says something like:

"We don't offer to bake wedding cakes for the public, generally, but we reserve the right to bake wedding cakes at our discretion. If you would like our baker to consider baking a wedding cake for you please discuss it with our baker. We do not guarantee that our baker will be able to bake one for you."

How would that go over, legally? Could the baker's choice to bake a cake be considered a gift? Or would a gift need to involve the absence of money changing hands?

[mormonnewb]

Well, so far I've been right in contradicting the prediction of the de-sinfulization of homosexual behavior. Did you read my transcript and get Elder Christofferson's clear and unequivocal "No" when the question was put to him? 

 

And every day that goes by gives my "track record" additional credit.

 

But rest assured, I've learned not to repose much confidence in the wisdom of federal judiciary.

 

But the Church of Jesus Christ, on the other hand? Well, the clock stands at 39 years, 10 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 6 hours, 7 minutes,  20 seconds and counting down. The clock is ticking inexorably toward that 30-year deadline.

 

I don't think anyone is predicting that our Church will be the FIRST to see the light with regards to homosexuality.  If our "track record" is any indication, we will be amongst the last to reach the point.  But we will get there because as Dr. King once said:

 

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it eventually gets to Salt Lake City."

 

Of course, I am paraphrasing a bit.  

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

I don't think anyone is predicting that our Church will be the FIRST to see the light with regards to homosexuality.  If our "track record" is any indication, we will be amongst the last to reach the point.  But we will get there because as Dr. King once said:

 

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it eventually gets to Salt Lake City."

 

Of course, I am paraphrasing a bit.  

 

We will not be among the last to reach the point. We will never be among that group or any group that eventually calls evil good and good evil.

[Hamilton Porter]

I just understand the doctrine.

 

Did you read in my transcript Elder Christofferson's remarks about how same-sex "marriage" would undermine the structure of the plan of salvation?

 

This is about practice, not doctrine. SSM may be considered a "second best," for those with SSA here on earth, due to the Fall.

[CV75]

We being the general church membership.

So the general Church membership needs the general "church membership to be desirous and receptive to to the possibility of further revelation on the matter?" I don't think so. I think someone else needs that, LOL.

 

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.

How does the general church membership receive a common revelation, or further light and knowledge from the Lord, much less acknowledge a common understanding on the matter (let's say an incomplete understanding considering your belief that that is most likely condition in which to obtain success)?

[pogi]

So is it the money or the business license that is causing the problem? Why is one type of refusal okay, legally, and the other type not?

How about this scenario:

Suppose someone with a business license to bake cakes has a sign up that says something like:

"We don't offer to bake wedding cakes for the public, generally, but we reserve the right to bake wedding cakes at our discretion. If you would like our baker to consider baking a wedding cake for you please discuss it with our baker. We do not guarantee that our baker will be able to bake one for you."

How would that go over, legally? Could the baker's choice to bake a cake be considered a gift? Or would a gift need to involve the absence of money changing hands?

 

It all boils down to wether a business is considered a "public accommodation" or not.  In order to operate as you suggest, it would have to set up business as a nonpublic entity such as a private club and all that that entails, including membership fees, etc.  It also has to be determined that the entity was not founded specifically to avoid compliance with Federal Civil rights laws. 

 

A gift requires the absence of money exchange...unless the gift is money of course.

 

http://www.ada.gov/taman3.html

Edited March 18, 2015 by pogi

[Hamilton Porter]

 

 

I don't think anyone is predicting that our Church will be the FIRST to see the light with regards to homosexuality.  If our "track record" is any indication, we will be amongst the last to reach the point.  But we will get there because as Dr. King once said:

 

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it eventually gets to Salt Lake City."

 

Of course, I am paraphrasing a bit.  

 

 

Um...go to Mississippi and see how you'd be treated. Utah is one of 21 states that include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination laws.

 

Church has already recognized the SSA is not a choice or a disease. Where is the Vatican?

 

The Church will be quite the innovator when it can maintain its doctrinal integrity in the face of rapid social change.

 

While anti's won't shut up regardless, major gay rights groups are already touting this legislation.

[rockpond]

So the general Church membership needs the general "church membership to be desirous and receptive to to the possibility of further revelation on the matter?" I don't think so. I think someone else needs that, LOL.

 

How does the general church membership receive a common revelation, or further light and knowledge from the Lord, much less acknowledge a common understanding on the matter (let's say an incomplete understanding considering your belief that that is most likely condition in which to obtain success)?

 

Revelation for the entire church needs to flow through the Prophet.  I think I am safe in saying that you and I agree on that.

 

Regardless of what the revelation is, do you think that the Lord would reveal something to the Prophet (for the church) if the prevailing sentiment among church members, leaders, and apostles is that we already have the answer/knowledge?

 

Certainly the Lord has the authority and power to push an "undesired" revelation on us but would He?  Would that be consistent with what we understand of Him?

[Daniel2]

I don't think anyone is predicting that our Church will be the FIRST to see the light with regards to homosexuality. If our "track record" is any indication, we will be amongst the last to reach the point. But we will get there because as Dr. King once said:

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it eventually gets to Salt Lake City."

Of course, I am paraphrasing a bit.

I was going to formulate a similar response to Scott, but yours was spot on.

Scott, I agree that Elder Christofferson (and even a majority, if not all, of the current quorum of the twelve) firmly believe that neither God or the LDS church will never make any allowance for same-sex marriage.

I also don't doubt that a majority of them, if not all, will never live to see such a day.

However, I just as firmly believe that they are wrong. The world 20-30 years from now will be entirely different... maybe even 10 years from now.

As others have said, most of society will view marriage for same-sex couples in the same way that we, today, view marriage for interracial couples.

Brigham Young, and probably all of the twelve in his day, surely were absolutely positive that God would NEVER allow interracial marriages. They would have given similar press conferences, and did voice similar convictions. And time proved them wrong.

Every day that passes without the church changing yet doesn't illustrate that you are any more right than the 30 year prediction, because that prediction takes into account that time HAS to pass before the change takes place, because many of the apostles now living must also pass before it does, just as Brigham and his contemporaries did.

The very fact that the church is being repeatedly asked about if doctrine could ever change shows that the idea already is in the cultural mindset. No one is asking whether prohibitions on alcohol or smoking or marijuana or that the law of tithing will change... just same-sex relationships.

The seeds of openness to and compassion and love and acceptance and support for gay families are already planted and flowering in the hearts and minds of the majority of today's younger generation--and some of them will eventually be the church's leaders. Just as President Kimball had a different mindset and hearset than President Young. Sometimes, the Lord has to wait for his church to overcome their own prejudices.

I am convinced that this will be one of those times, even if it's after the lives of the current leaders, or you, or I. I accept that you won't accept that, and will continue to testify otherwise... and that's ok that both of us remain firm in our convictions.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

We will not be among the last to reach the point. We will never be among that group or any group that eventually calls evil good and good evil.

Really....?

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).

Was interracial procreation truly a sin in Brigham's day?

Did the Lord truly mandate death on the spot for anyone who so-married?

Was it "always to be so"?

Did the Lord change His law?

Or was Brigham wrong?

Or is the church now calling something right that used to be wrong?

Edited March 18, 2015 by Daniel2

[carbon dioxide]

I was going to formulate a similar response to Scott, but yours was spot on.

Scott, I agree that Elder Christofferson (and even a majority, if not all, of the current quorum of the twelve) firmly believe that neither God or the LDS church will never make any allowance for same-sex marriage.

I also don't doubt that a majority of them, if not all, will never live to see such a day.

However, I just as firmly believe that they are wrong. The world 20-30 years from now will be entirely different... maybe even 10 years from now.

As others have said, most of society will view marriage for same-sex couples in the same way that we, today, view marriage for interracial couples.

Brigham Young, and probably all of the twelve in his day, surely were absolutely positive that God would NEVER allow interracial marriages. They would have given similar press conferences, and did voice similar convictions. And time proved them wrong.

Every day that passes without the church changing yet doesn't illustrate that you are any more right than the 30 year prediction, because that prediction takes into account that time HAS to pass before the change takes place, because many of the apostles now living must also pass before it does, just as Brigham and his contemporaries did.

THE very fact that the church is being repeatedly asked about if doctrine could ever change shows that the idea already is in the cultural mindset. No one is asking whether peohibitions on alcohol or smoking or marijuana or that the law of tithing will change... just same-sex relationships. The seeds of openness to and compassion and love and acceptance and support for gay families are already planted and flowering in the hearts and minds of the majority of today's younger generation--and some of them will eventually be the church's leaders. Just as President Kimball had a different mindset and hearset than President Young. Sometimes, the Lord has to wait for his church to overcome their own prejudices.

I am convinced that this will be one of those times, even if it's after the lives of thr current leaders, or you, or I.

First, if we teach our children right, they will have the same views as the General Authorities.  If there is ever a time that the Church accepts SSM, it will only because the children were not taught right and the majority decided to side with the devil over the Lord. 

 

Second, there is no doubt the world is changing.  It is on a race to the bottom.  Not only is SSM being accepted, but transsexuals are being accepted. Now gender is not what you actually are but what you think you are.  Though the world is on a spiritual decline, that is not a reason for the Church to follow it.  The Church more than ever must go in the opposite direction of where society is going.

 

Third, I would not compare attitudes about interracial marriage with SSM.  Even in interracial marriage, it was still male/female relationships.  Green and yellow bananas are still bananas.  SSM is total different.  It is like comparing apples to potatoes.

 

It is possible for the Church to accept SSM?  It is possible for the Church to reject the BOM? Is it possible for the Church to reject Jesus Christ?  All of these are in theory possible and it could happen if the membership got dumb enough and wicked enough to accept such notions.  Hopefully the Lord will come and burn the wicked from off the face of the earth before all that could happen. 

Edited March 18, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[SeekerB]

Bills like this have unintended consequences.  For instance, if I was a wedding planner and didn't want my livelyhood ruined by gay activists sueing me for everything I own, I might tell them I was too busy if I even thought they were gay, or give them a quote that was way too high.

[Gray]

I was going to formulate a similar response to Scott, but yours was spot on.

Scott, I agree that Elder Christofferson (and even a majority, if not all, of the current quorum of the twelve) firmly believe that neither God or the LDS church will never make any allowance for same-sex marriage.

I also don't doubt that a majority of them, if not all, will never live to see such a day.

However, I just as firmly believe that they are wrong. The world 20-30 years from now will be entirely different... maybe even 10 years from now.

As others have said, most of society will view marriage for same-sex couples in the same way that we, today, view marriage for interracial couples.

Brigham Young, and probably all of the twelve in his day, surely were absolutely positive that God would NEVER allow interracial marriages. They would have given similar press conferences, and did voice similar convictions. And time proved them wrong.

Every day that passes without the church changing yet doesn't illustrate that you are any more right than the 30 year prediction, because that prediction takes into account that time HAS to pass before the change takes place, because many of the apostles now living must also pass before it does, just as Brigham and his contemporaries did.

The very fact that the church is being repeatedly asked about if doctrine could ever change shows that the idea already is in the cultural mindset. No one is asking whether prohibitions on alcohol or smoking or marijuana or that the law of tithing will change... just same-sex relationships.

The seeds of openness to and compassion and love and acceptance and support for gay families are already planted and flowering in the hearts and minds of the majority of today's younger generation--and some of them will eventually be the church's leaders. Just as President Kimball had a different mindset and hearset than President Young. Sometimes, the Lord has to wait for his church to overcome their own prejudices.

I am convinced that this will be one of those times, even if it's after the lives of the current leaders, or you, or I. I accept that you won't accept that, and will continue to testify otherwise... and that's ok that both of us remain firm in our convictions.

 

Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

[Daniel2]

... it could happen if the membership got dumb enough and wicked enough to accept such notions. Hopefully the Lord will come and burn the wicked from off the face of the earth before all that could happen.

Wow.

Is that the fruit of your Faith..? A hope that those of us who believe differently will be "burned from the face of the earth"....?

But it's not "hate," it's love ... riiiiiiight...

Religious fanaticism at its worst.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

Well said, and very applicable.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Daniel2