Will this N.C. gay marriage lawsuit come to Utah?

[Daniel2]

4 hours ago, Deborah said:

I honestly don't see a religious basis for doing something as part of your job even if it disagrees with your personal feelings. If you don't like the requirements of the job find another job. This is of course totally separate from churches and private individuals who perform religious ceremonies. However, it appears that the LBG community is pushing this to the churches.

 

http://nbc.com.co/christian-pastor-in-vermont-sentenced-to-one-year-in-prison-after-refusing-to-marry-gay-couple/

To be clear, Deb,

If one reads the title alone of the article you posted, one only gets part of the story.  The gentleman in the article was not found guilty as a pastor of failing to perform a marriage based on his ecclesiastical status--he was found guilty as a for-profit business owner of refusing to provide the same public goods and services that he offered to the general public, and therefore in violation of anti-discrimination laws based on public accommodations.  This is clarified later in the article, which states:

Quote

 

According to the criminal investigation, the Christian Proctor Church is registered with the state as a “religious corporation” limited to performing “one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”

But the church is also registered as a for-profit business and city officials said that means the owners must comply with state and federal regulations.

 

If the pastor didn't want to comply with the state's regulations governing businesses, he entirely free to register his organization as a non-profit religion, instead of a "for-profit business."  He can be one or the other--but not both. 

Edited December 11, 2015 by Daniel2

[Russell C McGregor]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I reject parts of our Constitution. I do not think God was responsible for the 3/5ths of a person bit or the agreement to allow the slave trade to continue without impediment until 1808. I also reject the clause prohibiting titles of nobility as they currently disqualify Jesus from ruling over the nation as he has several titles. I also question the wisdom of Article IV, Section 3 which seems to prohibit the existence of West Virginia. Does God hate West Virginia?

To be fair, the 3/5ths of a person bit (according to my reading) was actually a compromise worked out between the Southerners (who wanted every slave to be counted as a whole person) and the Northerners (who didn't want them counted at all) so that the South wouldn't have a preponderance of congressional seats based upon their slave population.

Thus, while it makes good anti-racist slogan-bait, it wasn't because they were black, but because they couldn't vote that the slaves weren't counted as whole persons.

Like I said, that's just from my reading. I'm prepared to be corrected on that point.

[Deborah]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

The gentleman in the article was not found guilty as a pastor of failing to perform a marriage based on his ecclesiastical status--he was found guilty as a for-profit business owner of refusing to provide the same public goods and services that he offered to the general public, and therefore in violation of anti-discrimination laws based on public accommodations. 

Still he was a private business owner, not a state or city employee. Do you feel it's right he should be forced to do something he is opposed to in his own private business? I don't.

[Daniel2]

25 minutes ago, Deborah said:

Still he was a private business owner, not a state or city employee. Do you feel it's right he should be forced to do something he is opposed to in his own private business? I don't.

He wasn't forced to do something against his will. He's free to close the doors of his business if he doesn't want to abide by the laws of operating private businesses.

And yes, I believe he should obey the law. Do you?

Edited December 12, 2015 by Daniel2

[Deborah]

19 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

He wasn't forced to do something against his will. He's free to close the doors of his business if he doesn't want to abide by the laws of operating private businesses.

And yes, I believe he should obey the law. Do you?

Why should he be forced to close his doors. That is wrong on so many levels. Furthermore that is where the business part conflicts with the ecclesiastical since it would have been a religious ceremony in his capacity as pastor.

[Daniel2]

25 minutes ago, Deborah said:

Why should he be forced to close his doors. That is wrong on so many levels. Furthermore that is where the business part conflicts with the ecclesiastical since it would have been a religious ceremony in his capacity as pastor.

If he refuses to abide by the laws governing doing business, he should close his doors.

What "levels" are that wrong on...?

If the business conflicts with his ecclesiastical actions as a pastor, he is free to do something else.

[Russell C McGregor]

51 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

If he refuses to abide by the laws governing doing business, he should close his doors.

What "levels" are that wrong on...?

If the business conflicts with his ecclesiastical actions as a pastor, he is free to do something else.

Exactly. The juggernaut isn't trying to coerce anyone into doing anything they don't want to. Anyone who doesn't want to pander to them is perfectly free to give up their livelihood. What could be fairer than that?

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Exactly. The juggernaut isn't trying to coerce anyone into doing anything they don't want to. Anyone who doesn't want to pander to them is perfectly free to give up their livelihood. What could be fairer than that?

Um... your so-called "gay jaugernaut" had nothing to do with anti-discrimination laws, which have been a matter of settled law for over 50 years now...

Really... no one here seems to imagine applying all this hand-wringing about the horrors of business owners being forced to serve customers they don't want to serve if we're talking about blacks, or jews, or Mormons... for some reason, it's only about being forced to serve gays that conservatives seem to be shocked and angry about.

So, again, while you want to make this all about "the jaugernaut," the concept that business owners can't refuse service to protected classss--or they risk fines and ultimately closure of their businesses if they refuse to comply with the law--has been around for decades, Russ (and Deb). 

Edited December 12, 2015 by Daniel2

[Deborah]

Why would anyone want to have someone who is against their relationship marry them, except to make a scene.

[Russell C McGregor]

28 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Um... your so-called "gay jaugernaut" had nothing to do with anti-discrimination laws, which have been a matter of settled law for over 50 years now...

Really... no one here seems to imagine applying all this hand-wringing about the horrors of business owners being forced to serve customers they don't want to serve if we're talking about blacks, or jews, or Mormons... for some reason, it's only about being forced to serve gays that conservatives seem to be shocked and angry about.

So, again, while you want to make this all about "the jaugernaut," the concept that business owners can't refuse service to protected classss--or they risk fines and ultimately closure of their businesses if they refuse to comply with the law--has been around for decades, Russ (and Deb). 

"Protected classes." IOW, privileged classes.

Got it.

Incidentally, while you naturally assume everyone else weighs every question just like you do -- by reference to your own self-interest -- I happen to think business owners ought to be free to refuse to serve Mormons if such is their desire.

But, as you perfectly well know -- because it's been done to death in this forum -- every single person accused of refusing to "serve gays" has actually been willing to serve them for any other purpose than a "same sex wedding." It is the event, not the persons, to which they, as a matter of conscience, object.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Many, many people make this error, and you are, for the most part, a good, articulate and lucid writer. But if I don't say something about it, who will?

Me possibly, this is one of the common errors I obsess about. 

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Really... no one here seems to imagine applying all this hand-wringing about the horrors of business owners being forced to serve customers they don't want to serve if we're talking about blacks, or jews, or Mormons... for some reason, it's only about being forced to serve gays that conservatives seem to be shocked and angry about.

I challenge this claim.  I have read a number of individuals in these threads who have taken the stand that the choice of whom to serve should be given to everyone in every case (though some will limit it to nonlifethreatening or nonsafety services).

I myself as one of them, though I limit it to nonsafety or necessity (such as grocery stores) services...I don't think medical service people should have a right to refuse unless there is someone else immediately available if immediate treatment is needed or within a short distance if not a time sensitive issue so transportation and time is not a hardship for those seeking the service.  I have stated before several times I don't think the societal value is higher when one forces a business owner to serve everyone as I believe allowing them to act according to their own desires will in general lead to more change of internal beliefs and attitudes and greater tolerance (because they have to live with the consequences of their choices) than compelling them by law to be 'tolerant'.  It is not perfect because it depends on the local culture being generally tolerant, but I still think in the long run it will change individuals and cultures more than legal insistence of nondiscrimination.

 

I have seen several other posters state similar positions on discrimination laws.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Calm

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why then did William Gladstone (a great British statesman) say that "The Constitution of the United States is the greatest document ever struck off at one time by the mind and purpose of man." What was he thinking?  See  Dallin Oaks, "The Divinely Inspired Constitution," Ensign, 12/1 (Feb 1992), online at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/02/the-divinely-inspired-constitution?lang=eng .

I have no idea what he was thinking but I disagree with him. I mean have you looked at the Constitution's punctuation? Could you be a more little more vague about what clauses refer to what?

At least it keeps constitutional lawyers in a job I guess.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I challenge this claim.  I have read a number of individuals in these threads who have taken the stand that the choice of whom to serve should be given to everyone in every case (though some will limit it to nonlifethreatening or nonsafety services).

I myself as one of them, though I limit it to nonsafety or necessity (such as grocery stores) services...I don't think medical service people should have a right to refuse unless there is someone else immediately available if immediate treatment is needed or within a short distance if not a time sensitive issue so transportation and time is not a hardship for those seeking the service.  I have stated before several times I don't think the societal value is higher when one forces a business owner to serve everyone as I believe allowing them to act according to their own desires will in general lead to more change of internal beliefs and attitudes and greater tolerance (because they have to live with the consequences of their choices) than compelling them by law to be 'tolerant'.  It is not perfect because it depends on the local culture being generally tolerant, but I still think in the long run it will change individuals and cultures more than legal insistence of nondiscrimination.

 

I have seen several other posters state similar positions on discrimination laws.

Yeah, worked really well in the South. Racism just faded away primarily because the white majority couldn't live with their consciences.

/sarcasm

We have not changed and undoing the Civil Rights Movement is freakishly dangerous. You do realize Mormons are a minority in most of the nation right? Even if you don't care about others being excluded from society so that business owners can protect their fundamental right to ban Jews and Hispanics from their establishments to protect their delicate consciences you would think simple self-preservation would lead us to want to keep these protections in place.

Then again I am living in a country where we have a fascist candidate leading in the polls. Maybe we just burn the whole thing down and start over. Hey God, are those seals, trumpets, and vials ready? We need a cleanup on aisle Earth.

[Russell C McGregor]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, worked really well in the South. Racism just faded away primarily because the white majority couldn't live with their consciences.

/sarcasm

If you're referring to the "Jim Crow" laws, they were what mandated discrimination. They didn't just make it an option.

Sure, there would probably have been some businesses that would have refused service without those laws anyway, just as there would have been some that would have served everyone if the laws hadn't been in place. I don't pretend to know what the ratio would have been, and maybe the rather draconian definition of "public accommodation" to include private actors might have been necessary at the time to force a course correction.

But despite the way they like to dramatise themselves, gays are hardly a disadvantaged group. One of the arguments I keep hearing in favour of gay adoption is that same sex couples are usually better off financially than mixed-sex couples. In my observation, that's not usually a characteristic of an underclass that needs "protection."

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, worked really well in the South. Racism just faded away primarily because the white majority couldn't live with their consciences.

Do you think racism has diminished significantly since laws were established?  Maybe this is one area where I am overly cynical.  I saw a lot of anger and hatred over forced integration in my high school and not any progress as a result over the years I was familiar with the area (once my family moved out, I lost touch).  I want racism to actually go away, not just disappear from public view (I could care less about the rights of business owners or even about rights in general, from what I've seen all rights are privileges many of us just luck out in having so I don't see them as sacred untouchables, I would be perfectly happy to live in a totalitarian country if it managed to create a people who were loving and compassionate to each other and we were able to seek out God...or not...as we desired).

And there is a very good chance I could feel very differently if I had to experience significant prejudice in my own life.  At the moment, what is most important to me is that we maximize our opportunies to progress as individuals.  I want hearts and souls to be changed and I don't see it happening when the government steps in.  Perhaps what would be more important to me would be for people to have to deal with less conflict if it was happening to me.  Perhaps I would even believe that it was the laws that would creating a better environment for change if my experiences had been significantly different.

I am not complaining because the US went for anti-discrimination laws in general and didn't limit them to necessities of life.  I don't see it as a travesty or huge limitation on freedom.  It is simply what I see as likely more effective process of eternal change, but I am not disappointed or upset that others don't see it that way, nor am I going to go out to actively promote my own belief.  I don't believe I have enough information in this area to merit placing my own opinion on that kind of pedestal.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Calm

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I reject parts of our Constitution. I do not think God was responsible for the 3/5ths of a person bit or the agreement to allow the slave trade to continue without impediment until 1808. I also reject the clause prohibiting titles of nobility as they currently disqualify Jesus from ruling over the nation as he has several titles. I also question the wisdom of Article IV, Section 3 which seems to prohibit the existence of West Virginia. Does God hate West Virginia?

Well, you don't know what you're talking about, then.

The 3/5's thing was not because the founders thought slaves were less than a whole person.  It was because the slave states wanted to count their slaves in the census so as to increase their representation in the House of Representatives, regardless of the fact that slaves were not considered citizens and it was a hollow mockery to increase a slave state's Rep count because of them.  The non-slave states didn't want to count slaves at all  So they compromised.  The matter of the slave trade was likewise a compromise between stopping it immediately and never stopping it.  If they hadn't been willing to compromise on these two issues (among others), the United States would have ended after a rather short run, because the Articles of Confederation were not conducive to a strong Union.  We probably would have ended up with probably two or three different confederations, and these would have probably squabbled with each other so much that the West would never have been settled, and Mexico's borders would have run from the Columbia River to the Yucatan peninsula. 

Jesus, as it happens, is not a citizen of the United States, thus his titles are not at issue under the Constitution, and Jesus does not rule over the United States in any case.  That awaits the One World Government which will exist after His Second Coming.

The sole possible point you have is the issue of West Virginia, the creation of which, without the concurrence of Virginia, would seem to violate the Constitution.  However, since Virginia was in rebellion, it might be said that the only lawful government in Virginia was the one which met in Wheeling, and as the de facto legal government of Virginia under the Constitution, all it needed to do was agree that Virginia should be split into two, and then Bob's your uncle!  In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States declared the acts that created West Virginia out of Virginia to be constitutional in Virginia vs. West Virginia, in 1870.  So God does not hate West Virginia.

But you weren't serious about any of that, anyway, so it's all in good fun!

Edited December 12, 2015 by Stargazer