Examples Of Religious Freedom Being Trampled Or Threatened

[Analytics]

How is it different?

 

 

Jwhitlock described the desired status as for troops being "required to accept openly practicing gay adults."  That language makes me envision a creepy "openly practicing gay adult" showing up at a troop meeting and announcing that since he's gay, the troop is required to accept him as a member of the troop.  But scouts doesn't work that way, and it isn't what they say they want.

 

What they want is for all sponsoring organizations to be required to say that they don't discriminate on the bases of sexual orientation.  What that would mean in practice in a Mormon troop is that the bishop gets to choose the scout master, and if the person he wanted to choose happened to be gay, he would have the flexibility to choose him.

 

Giving bishops a little more flexibility in who they choose to be scout masters isn't an encroachment on religion. 

[tagriffy]

You're still missing the point. In defining and demanding their own "rights", gays are demanding that religious groups adjust their religious beliefs and practices to accommodate those "rights". The foundational rights of association and freedom of religious belief are being abridged by subjective claims of "discrimination", which specifically demands that religious groups adjust their policies, doctrines, practices and standards to accommodate homosexual behavior.

 

So whose rights are really being violated and abridged? Hint - it's not the steamroller for gay rights that's currently plowing through our society.

 

You've still yet to show any examples of how gay rights activists "demands" are infringing upon the rights of religious groups. Religious groups are free to have their doctrinal teachings and practices. Gays are allowed to criticize those doctrines, and if the religious group is infringing on their rights, gays are allowed to seek legal remedy. If the LDS Church is required to perform temple sealings of gay couples, then you might have something. If Southern Baptists are become subject to being beaten and murdered the way gays were and are, then you might have something. But as long as the activists don't go beyond what is within their rights to do, freedom of religion is not infringed. Claims of discrimination do not abridge rights of association and religious belief. Neither does criticizing discrimination. Neither do laws, policies, and procedures against doing business with groups that discriminate.

[jwhitlock]

What they say they want is to end discrimination. 

 

The statement in full is as follows:

 

"Ending discrimination" in this context simply means that there would be a BSA-wide policy that says sponsoring organizations must agree that they won't discriminate against gays when choosing leaders.  However, they would still retain their right to choose the leaders they want. 

 

Asking an organization not to discriminate against gays is different than asking the organization to "be required to accept gays as leaders with no strings attached."

 

According to them, how do religious organizations discriminate against gay adults? By not accepting them as scout leaders.

 

How would religious organizations not (according to them) "discriminate" against gay adults? By accepting them as scout leaders.

 

And if a church "agreed" to accept gays as leaders, but never actually let them work on that position? How long do you think that they would plant a gay adult in there and have them ask to be a scout master? What do you think would happen then? I would suggest that past practices of gay activists would dictate that they are going to make sure that churches are actually doing what they WANT them to do. They're not going to let churches have any such right to determine who they actually want serving in those positions.

 

Discrimination, as defined by gay activists, is that gays are not barred from anything at all. It will continue to be discrimination in their minds, and they will punish that "discrimination" as long as any church has a doctrine that homosexual behavior is wrong and that SSM is wrong.

 

You've verified in your post that an end of discrimination is what they want. What you either don't understand or are willfully ignoring is that discrimination, as they define it, is all encompassing and supersedes religious belief. 

[jwhitlock]

Jwhitlock described the desired status as for troops being "required to accept openly practicing gay adults."  That language makes me envision a creepy "openly practicing gay adult" showing up at a troop meeting and announcing that since he's gay, the troop is required to accept him as a member of the troop.  But scouts doesn't work that way, and it isn't what they say they want.

 

What they want is for all sponsoring organizations to be required to say that they don't discriminate on the bases of sexual orientation.  What that would mean in practice in a Mormon troop is that the bishop gets to choose the scout master, and if the person he wanted to choose happened to be gay, he would have the flexibility to choose him.

 

Giving bishops a little more flexibility in who they choose to be scout masters isn't an encroachment on religion. 

 

Are you actually telling us that the flexibility needed by a bishop should come from the BSA, and not from God and those He has called to lead His church??

 

The kind of rationalization you're doing here in the name of misplaced discrimination boggles the mind.

[tagriffy]

Much as you want to believe it, freedom of religion is NOT a privilege. SSM is a privilege. Don't conflate the two.

 

The State does not have to give marital relationships legal recognition along with benefits and privileges. In that sense marriage is a privilege. But if the State is going to do it, then equal protection under the law demands it can't deny certain groups of people legal recognition of their marriages along with the attendant benefits and privileges without a compelling interest.

 

Now, then, to stick to the focus of the thread, how does the State giving legal recognition along with the attendant benefits and privileges to LGBTQs trample or threaten religious freedom?

[jwhitlock]

You've still yet to show any examples of how gay rights activists "demands" are infringing upon the rights of religious groups. Religious groups are free to have their doctrinal teachings and practices. Gays are allowed to criticize those doctrines, and if the religious group is infringing on their rights, gays are allowed to seek legal remedy. If the LDS Church is required to perform temple sealings of gay couples, then you might have something. If Southern Baptists are become subject to being beaten and murdered the way gays were and are, then you might have something. But as long as the activists don't go beyond what is within their rights to do, freedom of religion is not infringed. Claims of discrimination do not abridge rights of association and religious belief. Neither does criticizing discrimination. Neither do laws, policies, and procedures against doing business with groups that discriminate.

 

I've shown examples; you've elected to ignore them.

 

That's fine. I realize that those on your side don't particularly care about religious freedom. That's more than evident from the primacy that "discrimination" has taken as the basis for which all practices in society must be judged. Everything in the Constitution must be subject to the litmus test of discrimination, and those claiming discrimination always be avenged and their oppressors must be punished.

 

Isn't it wonderful that you're able to admit that "If the LDS Church is required to perform temple sealings of gay couples, then we MIGHT have something."  "Might" have something? Not if the holy and all powerful test of discrimination has anything to say about it. Then we'll be hearing that Mormons can think what they want, but when it comes to what they practice, those practices must pass the no discrimination test before they're allowed.

 

But of course, that can't be considered limiting religious freedom, can it.

 

Your post is instructive as demonstrative of the attitude of those who don't care about religious freedom of others. That kind of attitude is exactly what we're talking about when we express concerns that religious freedoms are being eroded.

[tagriffy]

What don't you understand about public access being denied to individuals because of religious belief? What don't you understand about freedom of religion being a constitutionally protected right?

 

What don't you understand about public access not being a right in most cases? Schools don't have to let anyone use their facilities--and as such they can deny the use of their buildings to anyone for any reason they please. School property, school rules.

[jwhitlock]

The State does not have to give marital relationships legal recognition along with benefits and privileges. In that sense marriage is a privilege. But if the State is going to do it, then equal protection under the law demands it can't deny certain groups of people legal recognition of their marriages along with the attendant benefits and privileges without a compelling interest.

 

Now, then, to stick to the focus of the thread, how does the State giving legal recognition along with the attendant benefits and privileges to LGBTQs trample or threaten religious freedom?

 

Given your use of MIGHT in your previous post, I doubt that there is anything that you would accept as a threat to religious freedom. When you express the sentiment that Southern Baptists MIGHT have a case if gays are beating and murdering them, it certainly tells us that you don't think there is any religious practice or doctrine or belief at all that should be viewed as a right.

 

You've answered your own question. Since you think that forcing Mormons to perform temple sealings for gays MIGHT be a threat to religious freedom - but that's not really a threat, since it only remotely MIGHT be viewed as a threat, and that isn't going to happen since discrimination claims will take care of that - it's clear that nothing I provide is acceptable as evidence to you.

 

All hail Discrimination! That is the key to our power and to eliminating the scourge of religion from our society!

 

Aside from finding your viewpoint reprehensible, I do appreciate you posting it so I can understand what we're really dealing with.

[jwhitlock]

What don't you understand about public access not being a right in most cases? Schools don't have to let anyone use their facilities--and as such they can deny the use of their buildings to anyone for any reason they please. School property, school rules.

 

And that attitude is why there is so much wrong with our society. I've paid my school taxes only to be told that I'm not allowed to do anything in "their" facilities. Once my children step into the school, I no longer have any parental rights in regard to them. The school overrides those rights.

 

You actually think all this is ok? You actually think all of our rights have not been abridged over time by the government? And do you actually think that way gays are demanding that religious groups be excluded from the public arena with their claims of discrimination is any different than what schools are doing?

 

Your kind of attitude as expressed in your posts is what is threatening our society and our freedoms.

[cinepro]

Are you actually telling us that the flexibility needed by a bishop should come from the BSA, and not from God and those He has called to lead His church??

 

The kind of rationalization you're doing here in the name of misplaced discrimination boggles the mind.

 

What are you talking about?  Right now, even if God wanted to "inspire" a Bishop to call an openly gay member of the ward to a Boy Scout or Cub Scouts leadership position, according to current BSA policy, he couldn't. 

 

The thinking on this is totally detached from reality.  As I noted in another thread, the BSA allowing openly gay leaders would have very little effect on the Church (if any).  How could it?

 

First, the BSA (and the Church) would have to officially track the sexual orientation of each potential leader.  Then the BSA would need to set some standard by which they expected the Church to call homosexual leaders.  Would it be one per council?  Ten per state?  Then how would the gay Church members feel if they were called to be Scoutmaster and they didn't want to do it, but they knew there was a quota to fill and that was the only reason (or part of the reason) they were called.

 

I'm sure there are a few wards in which there are potential leaders (who want to be a Scoutmaster) who are openly gay and who might be called (and who don't have another calling), but I suspect the number is well below 100 wards worldwide.  Being a Scoutmaster is a very hard calling; it demands a lot of time and planning, every week.  And it is very thankless; few ward members other than the parents of scouts know or care who the Scoutmaster is.

 

If there are gay members of the Church who want to be Scoutmasters and will invest the time, energy and money into it to get trained and run a good program, then good grief, who could ever have a problem with that?  Because heaven knows in most wards the heterosexual leaders are not running the program like they should.

 

In response to this point, Scott suggested this:

 

The more likely scenario is that some militant, practicing homosexual, in order to force the political issue, would demand the privilege to lead an LDS troop and would try to leverage the national BSA leadership and ultimately the courts to make it happen.

 

This is even more absurd, and highly unlikely.

 

Here is why:

 

 

Gay Man: Hello Bishop Smith.  I am an openly gay man, and I would like to be a leader of your ward's Scout troop.  If you don't let me, I'll sue.

 

Bishop Smith: It's good to meet you, Brother Man.  We are always looking for more help with our Scouting program.  We have a Scoutmaster right now, but we could use you as an Assistant Scoutmaster.  First, I need you to fill out this form and the BSA will do a background check.  Then I'll send you a web link, and you'll need to do your BSA Youth Protection Training; it only takes about 40 minutes. 

 

On the back of the registration form, there's a description of the Scouting Uniform; wearing the uniform is one of the methods of Scouting, and we need you to wear the uniform as an example to the other Scouts.  No, you don't get reimbursed for the cost of the uniform.  It will be about $100 all together.  You'll also need to sew the badges on, or find a tailor to do it for you.

 

Let me know once you've got your uniform and we'll find some training for you.  Training is another important part of the BSA.  The first course will be for about 6 hours on a Saturday.  You'll probably also want to get certified as an Outdoor leader; that's a evening/day course with some overnight camping.  If you don't have some camping gear, you'll want to start combing Craigslist to look for deals, or just go to REI and max out your credit card.

 

Once you've got that taken care of, I'll have you meet with Brother Jensen; he's our current Scoutmaster.  He'll get you up to speed on the planned activities.  Scouts meets each Tuesday evening here at the Church.  They also go camping on a Friday night every two months or so; we'll really need your help on those campouts.

 

On the first Thursday of each month, we have our Council's Roundtable meeting at the Stake Center.  It runs from 7pm to 9pm, and we'll need you to attend that meeting to stay up to date on upcoming activities.

Each summer, the boys go to Scout Camp. It's one week, at the end of June. We'll need you to attend camp with the boys, so you probably want to request the time off from work now. You do have a week of vacation time you can use, right?

 

Thanks again, and it will be great to have you on board!

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2015 by cinepro

[jwhitlock]

 

What are you talking about?  Right now, even if God wanted to "inspire" a Bishop to call an openly gay member of the ward to a Boy Scout or Cub Scouts leadership position, according to current BSA policy, he couldn't. 

 

The thinking on this is totally detached from reality.  As I noted in another thread, the BSA allowing openly gay leaders would have very little effect on the Church (if any).  How could it?

 

First, the BSA (and the Church) would have to officially track the sexual orientation of each potential leader.  Then the BSA would need to set some standard by which they expected the Church to call homosexual leaders.  Would it be one per council?  Ten per state?  Then how would the gay Church members feel if they were called to be Scoutmaster and they didn't want to do it, but they knew there was a quota to fill and that was the only reason (or part of the reason) they were called.

 

I'm sure there are a few wards in which there are potential leaders (who want to be a Scoutmaster) who are openly gay and who might be called (and who don't have another calling), but I suspect the number is well below 100 wards worldwide.  Being a Scoutmaster is a very hard calling; it demands a lot of time and planning, every week.  And it is very thankless; few ward members other than the parents of scouts know or care who the Scoutmaster is.

 

If there are gay members of the Church who want to be Scoutmasters and will invest the time, energy and money into it to get trained and run a good program, then good grief, who could ever have a problem with that?  Because heaven knows in most wards the heterosexual leaders are not running the program like they should.

 

In response to this point, Scott suggested this:

 

 

This is even more absurd, and highly unlikely.

 

Here is why:

 

 

Oh, please. There are gay couples who are willing to go through the legal hassle of suing a bakery that wouldn't make a cake for them. Normal people would just take their business elsewhere.

 

Give a gay activist an opening (such as the BSA requiring that ALL chartered units, even religious ones, accept gay adult leaders) to stick it to the church, and you can bet that they'd go through whatever needed to be done to do so.

 

That's why your analogy is not applicable. Such a gay activist wouldn't pick a ward where he knew he'd be allowed to serve. He'd pick a ward where he could be sure he would be rejected. He wouldn't have to go through all of the activities, because he wouldn't be allowed to serve in the first place. I'm surprised that you left that big of a hole in your rationalization.

 

Scott's suggestion was absolutely valid. Your analogy, cute though it may have been, missed the point of what would actually happen.

[tagriffy]

As long as religious freedom is misrepresented as simple discrimination, then that is exactly what is going on.

 

Good thing no one here is doing that then.

[jwhitlock]

Good thing no one here is doing that then.

 

It's exactly what you've done with your posts.

[cinepro]

Oh, please. There are gay couples who are willing to go through the legal hassle of suing a bakery that wouldn't make a cake for them. Normal people would just take their business elsewhere.

 

Give a gay activist an opening (such as the BSA requiring that ALL chartered units, even religious ones, accept gay adult leaders) to stick it to the church, and you can bet that they'd go through whatever needed to be done to do so.

 

That's why your analogy is not applicable. Such a gay activist wouldn't pick a ward where he knew he'd be allowed to serve. He'd pick a ward where he could be sure he would be rejected. He wouldn't have to go through all of the activities, because he wouldn't be allowed to serve in the first place. I'm surprised that you left that big of a hole in your rationalization.

 

Scott's suggestion was absolutely valid. Your analogy, cute though it may have been, missed the point of what would actually happen.

So explain to me exactly how that would happen. Assuming most wards already have Scoutmasters, are you saying the "gay activists" would find a ward with a Bishop they assume is homophobic, move an openly gay man into the ward, have him attend and wait patiently until the Scoutmaster is released, and then complain when the gay man isn't called as the new Scoutmaster?

I don't know how it works in non-LDS troops, but you can't "apply" to be a Scoutmaster in an LDS troop. I've known dads who wanted to help out and expressed interest and were assigned as Assistant Scoutmasters, so I suspect that is probably what would happen. A Bishop (or Scout Troop) would never, ever select a man that they didn't know well as a Scoutmaster anyway. I think a more than suitable defense to your imagined scanario would be to simply say "I didn't want Mr. Man to be our Scoutmaster not because he claims to be gay, but because I had no idea who he was and it didn't seem responsible to pick some guy who I've never met before to be our youth leader, regardless of what gender he is or isn't attracted to."

And these aren't "analogies". In order for you to say that something is going to happen (or might happen), you need to show that it could happen.

Edited July 17, 2015 by cinepro

[tagriffy]

Do I need to spell it out for you? The stock answer on this thread for any conflict between religious rights and gay rights has been that religious rights always discriminate in such situations, and therefore are wrong.

 

Get it now?

 

No. Because that hasn't been the stock answer. The stock answer is that freedom of religion does not give one either a sword to violate other people's rights or a shield against other people's scrutiny.

[tagriffy]

Except where they come into conflict, and then claimed gay rights must always take precedence.

 

That is, of course, where all this is headed.

 

Nobody said that. When there is a legitimate conflict, that gets settled by the rules already in place. The problem is that you haven't provided an example of a legitimate conflict.

[jwhitlock]

So explain to me exactly how that would happen. Assuming most wards already have Scoutmasters, are you saying the "gay activists" would find a ward with a Bishop they assume is homophobic, move an openly gay man into the ward, have him attend and wait patiently until the Scoutmaster is released, and then complain when the gay man isn't called as the new Scoutmaster?

I don't know how it works in non-LDS troops, but you can't "apply" to be a Scoutmaster in an LDS troop. I've known dads who wanted to help out and expressed interest and were assigned as Assistant Scoutmasters, so I suspect that is probably what would happen. A Bishop (or Scout Troop) would never, ever select a man that they didn't know well as a Scoutmaster anyway. I think a more than suitable defense to your imagined scanario would be to simply say "I didn't want Mr. Man to be our Scoutmaster not because he claims to be gay, but because I had no idea who he was and it didn't seem responsible to pick some guy who I've never met before to be our youth leader, regardless of what gender he is or isn't attracted to."

And these aren't "analogies". In order for you to say that something is going to happen (or might happen), you need to show that it could happen.

 

You answered your own question. Anyone in an LDS ward, even a non-member, could request to be an assistant scoutmaster. That's church policy. It wouldn't take long to set it up, either.

 

It absolutely could happen.

[jwhitlock]

No. Because that hasn't been the stock answer. The stock answer is that freedom of religion does not give one either a sword to violate other people's rights or a shield against other people's scrutiny.

 

All you've done is to rephrase the subjective discrimination accusations that we've been talking about here. It doesn't matter how you try to put lipstick on it to make it more palatable, it's still a claim of discrimination that has no reasonable basis in fact, but will be accepted by the courts because a gay person is claiming it.

 

What you term as "a sword to violate other people's rights" is telling us that the right of association doesn't apply, and that freedom of religion doesn't apply when a gay man demands that he not be excluded from participation in anything he wants - including LDS scout troops or temple sealings or beating Southern Baptists.

 

When you tell us that religion has no shield against other people's scrutiny, then you're saying that religious people can't expect to practice their religion without someone evaluating it and telling them what they can or cannot do.

 

Thanks again for providing your kinds of insight into how you view us.

[tagriffy]

Isn't it wonderful that you're able to admit that "If the LDS Church is required to perform temple sealings of gay couples, then we MIGHT have something."  "Might" have something? Not if the holy and all powerful test of discrimination has anything to say about it. Then we'll be hearing that Mormons can think what they want, but when it comes to what they practice, those practices must pass the no discrimination test before they're allowed.

The point in my use of might is that you don't anything as it stands. Christian-related religion is the 800 pound gorilla in our society; it has been for some time; and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. And they've used that status to trample the rights everyone else. Now everyone else is fighting back in whatever way they can. Big surprise. When they start doing things that Christian-related religion has been doing to them, then you'll have a legitimate case of religious freedom being trampled. Right now, you're just coming off as whining that you no longer get to trample other people's rights the way you used to.

[sunstoned]

All you've done is to rephrase the subjective discrimination accusations that we've been talking about here. It doesn't matter how you try to put lipstick on it to make it more palatable, it's still a claim of discrimination that has no reasonable basis in fact, but will be accepted by the courts because a gay person is claiming it.

 

What you term as "a sword to violate other people's rights" is telling us that the right of association doesn't apply, and that freedom of religion doesn't apply when a gay man demands that he not be excluded from participation in anything he wants - including LDS scout troops or temple sealings or beating Southern Baptists.

 

When you tell us that religion has no shield against other people's scrutiny, then you're saying that religious people can't expect to practice their religion without someone evaluating it and telling them what they can or cannot do.

 

Thanks again for providing your kinds of insight into how you view us.

It sounds like you have been listening to too much talk radio.  If you were to leave off the Glen Beck for a while and actually use some critical thinking skills, it wouldn't take long to figure out that "gay man demands that he not be excluded from participation in anything he wants - including LDS scout troops or temple sealings or beating Southern Baptists." is ridiculous.  The church discriminated against blanks for over a 130 years, not allowing them marry or even to enter the temple.  This includes not just back men, but black women too,  and the government did nothing. It is very clear that you and the LDS church are free to discriminate all you want.  It's a free county and the government will not stop you.  Just don't start a business that serves the public, and then try to discriminate.  Thank God that issue was settled 40 years ago.  Now, everyone can sit at the Woolworth's lunch counter.  

 

Let's keep moving forward. 

Edited July 17, 2015 by sunstoned

[jwhitlock]

The point in my use of might is that you don't anything as it stands. Christian-related religion is the 800 pound gorilla in our society; it has been for some time; and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. And they've used that status to trample the rights everyone else. Now everyone else is fighting back in whatever way they can. Big surprise. When they start doing things that Christian-related religion has been doing to them, then you'll have a legitimate case of religious freedom being trampled. Right now, you're just coming off as whining that you no longer get to trample other people's rights the way you used to.

 

Quite a jaundiced view of history you have there. Nothing good comes out of Christianity, does it. Glad I was able to coax that out of you; I wonder if most of the people who have taken your side on this thread would concur with your characterization. I suspect that they might.

 

However, what you say above is simply false in tone and in actuality. It's a stereotype, and an invalid one at that. I'm sure that you would be up in arms if anyone here talked about all gays in that same way, but we don't really do that, do we. We tend to be very specific in targeting where the real problems are. We try not to fall into the trap that you and yours often try to set of characterizing all homosexuals in a certain way.

 

So you've demonstrated that there are two sets of rules that you want to play be. One for gays (they get anything they want) and one for Christians (they need to be beaten and murdered). That's nowhere more evident than in the fact that when we talk about letting religiously sponsored BSA troops choose leaders according to their own standards, and not as mandated by the BSA or gay rights groups, you characterize it as whining and trampling on other people's rights.

 

I wonder if the others on this thread agree with you, or whether they consider your views as on the fringe?

[tagriffy]

 

And that attitude is why there is so much wrong with our society. I've paid my school taxes only to be told that I'm not allowed to do anything in "their" facilities. Once my children step into the school, I no longer have any parental rights in regard to them. The school overrides those rights.

 

You actually think all this is ok? You actually think all of our rights have not been abridged over time by the government? And do you actually think that way gays are demanding that religious groups be excluded from the public arena with their claims of discrimination is any different than what schools are doing?

 

Your kind of attitude as expressed in your posts is what is threatening our society and our freedoms.

 

Oh, I do think our rights have been abridged over time by the government. This is just not one of those cases. Schools are built to serve a certain purpose. If the school decides to allow its facilities to be used outside that purpose, it is free to set rules governing how and by whom those facilities are used. As long as those rules are generally applicable and consistently followed, there is no problem. And if those rules include not letting its facilities be used by groups that discriminate, so be it. You want to use their facilities, then you follow their rules. If you don't like the rules, then you can either rent facilities from a public accommodation, buy or build your own facilities, or simply have your meeting at a public park, which is open for everyone's use.

 

If gays are demanding religious groups be excluded from the public arena, good luck to that, but it's not going to happen. Why not? Because religious groups have as much a right to the public arena as everyone else. See how that works?

Edited July 17, 2015 by tagriffy

[jwhitlock]

It sounds like you have been listening to too much talk radio.  If you were to leave off the Glen Beck for a while and actually use some critical thinking skills, it wouldn't take long to figure out that "gay man demands that he not be excluded from participation in anything he wants - including LDS scout troops or temple sealings or beating Southern Baptists." is ridiculous.  The church discriminated against blanks for over a 130 years, not allowing them marry or even to enter the temple.  This includes not just back men, but black women too,  and the government did nothing. It is very clear that you and the LDS church are free to discriminate all you want.  It's a free county and the government will not stop you.  Just don't start a business that serves the public, and then try to discriminate.  Thank God that issue was settled 40 years ago.  Now, everyone can sit at the Woolworth's lunch counter.  

 

Let's keep moving forward. 

 

Not very familiar with my personal life, are you. Yet that doesn't stop you from making statements about me which are false. Not a good way to demonstrate any credibility in what you're arguing.

 

As for critical thinking skills, perhaps you should do some more reading about what is actually going on. Perhaps you should visit some gay web sites and read what they're saying.  I certainly do. I'm familiar that Affirmation has stated that they want ALL aspects of LDS practice, including temple sealings, to be made available to gay couples. Scouts for Equality has demonstrated that they want religiously sponsored troops to be required to accept gay adult leaders. Ever seen the vitriol and hatred spewed out at a gay demonstration against a church? Read about it instead of telling us that it's ridiculous.

 

Mislabel religious belief as discrimination like you do above. Read about what some of the more radical gays think about straights and churches and marriage.

 

Then come back and tell us that these things aren't going to have any effect on religious freedom - even as we watch the court rulings unfold that continue to restrict those freedoms.

 

I realize that it's SOP for your side to denigrate those who don't agree with them, like you've done here. I find it to be a dishonest practice. 

[sunstoned]

Not very familiar with my personal life, are you. Yet that doesn't stop you from making statements about me which are false. Not a good way to demonstrate any credibility in what you're arguing.

 

As for critical thinking skills, perhaps you should do some more reading about what is actually going on. Perhaps you should visit some gay web sites and read what they're saying.  I certainly do. I'm familiar that Affirmation has stated that they want ALL aspects of LDS practice, including temple sealings, to be made available to gay couples. Scouts for Equality has demonstrated that they want religiously sponsored troops to be required to accept gay adult leaders. Ever seen the vitriol and hatred spewed out at a gay demonstration against a church? Read about it instead of telling us that it's ridiculous.

 

Mislabel religious belief as discrimination like you do above. Read about what some of the more radical gays think about straights and churches and marriage.

 

Then come back and tell us that these things aren't going to have any effect on religious freedom - even as we watch the court rulings unfold that continue to restrict those freedoms.

 

I realize that it's SOP for your side to denigrate those who don't agree with them, like you've done here. I find it to be a dishonest practice. 

You are right.  I don't know you and I suspect that  you are probably a good and decent person IRL. If you ever visit Payson, I would be happy to buy you lunch.  But to be honest, your on line persona has leanings to the extreme.  There is no global gay conspiracy.  These people just want to be treated as equals. Why the bitterness?  What other people do or don't do, including getting married, does not impact my rights or the rights of any church.  

  

Being a active member for over 40 years, I think you and I might share some common ground.  I know very well the "us versus them" mentality that is part of the LDS culture. I was raised in it, and I didn't find real peace until I finally let go of that mind set.  Live and let live.  Love is the key.

Edited July 17, 2015 by sunstoned

[tagriffy]

All you've done is to rephrase the subjective discrimination accusations that we've been talking about here. It doesn't matter how you try to put lipstick on it to make it more palatable, it's still a claim of discrimination that has no reasonable basis in fact, but will be accepted by the courts because a gay person is claiming it.

 

 

Now you're just demonstrating pure sheer paranoia. No other class has their claim of discrimination accepted by the courts just because a member of that class is claiming it, and there is no reason to believe it will happen that for GLBTQ persons. This isn't a free-for-all; if a gay person claims discrimination, they need to proved discrimination occurred just like everybody else does using the same rules everybody else has to abide by. No one here is saying anything different.

 

 

What you term as "a sword to violate other people's rights" is telling us that the right of association doesn't apply, and that freedom of religion doesn't apply when a gay man demands that he not be excluded from participation in anything he wants - including LDS scout troops or temple sealings or beating Southern Baptists.

 

When you tell us that religion has no shield against other people's scrutiny, then you're saying that religious people can't expect to practice their religion without someone evaluating it and telling them what they can or cannot do.

 

Thanks again for providing your kinds of insight into how you view us.

 

 

And thank you for providing your kind of insight into how you view us by the way you twist what I have said. You have the right to associate with anyone you please for whatever legal purpose you please. And that includes deciding not to allow someone to associate with you. I have no right to be part of your association, and therefore I cannot demand you allow me in. I can certainly try to persuade you using any legal means under my disposal. That's my right, and you cannot demand I do otherwise, either. Your freedom of association simply means you can continue to exclude me. If you go further and try to stop me from trying to persuade, then you are violating my rights and your freedom of association doesn't protect you.

 

You're right I'm saying religious people can't expect to practice without someone evaluating it. But that is where it stops. I cannot tell a religious person what they can or cannot do with regard to their religious doctrine. You can practice your religious beliefs as you please, so long as you are violating no one else's rights. I can criticize your religious beliefs as I please, so long as I am not violating anyone's rights. I can't force you to stop following your religious beliefs, and you can't force me to stop criticizing them. That's the deal we've made in our society. I live by it, and I expect you to live by it too.