"Why Are Companies Taking Sides against Religious Liberty"

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Expositor incited violence against the citizens of Nauvoo.

Really?  What did it say to incite violence against the citizens of Nauvoo?

[thesometimesaint]

53 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Really?  What did it say to incite violence against the citizens of Nauvoo?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Expositor incited violence against the citizens of Nauvoo.

And also exposing a lot of polygamy.  If they could destroy the Expositor..what keeps the Enquirer in business today?  It is illegal!

[thesometimesaint]

Non Sequitur.

The early 19th Century in the US was far different than the early 21st Century in the US.

Destruction of a press, while disgusting in our eyes, doesn't mandate a charge of Treason.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor

I've read that... I don't see where the Expositor incited violence.  Nor do I see what it said that was slanderous.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And also exposing a lot of polygamy.  If they could destroy the Expositor..what keeps the Enquirer in business today?  It is illegal!

 

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Non Sequitur.

The early 19th Century in the US was far different than the early 21st Century in the US.

Destruction of a press, while disgusting in our eyes, doesn't mandate a charge of Treason.

The wiki page linked above cites Dallin Oaks (from years back as a law professor) stating that destruction of the press was legally questionable.

[Anijen]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And also exposing a lot of polygamy.  If they could destroy the Expositor..what keeps the Enquirer in business today?  It is illegal!

The laws are different today than what they were back then. However I agree with Elder Oaks when he said;

" ... under the law of the time the newspaper could have been declared libelous and therefore a public nuisance by the Nauvoo City Council. ... while under contemporaneous law it would have been legally permissible for city officials to destroy, or "abate," the actual printed newspapers, the destruction of the printing press itself was probably outside of the council's legal authority, and its owners could have sued for damages"

Today the destruction would be all together illegal! Even back then the owner could have sued in a civil action for actual damages. 

[Jeanne]

Just now, Anijen said:

The laws are different today than what they were back then. However I agree with Elder Oaks when he said;

" ... under the law of the time the newspaper could have been declared libelous and therefore a public nuisance by the Nauvoo City Council. ... while under contemporaneous law it would have been legally permissible for city officials to destroy, or "abate," the actual printed newspapers, the destruction of the printing press itself was probably outside of the council's legal authority, and its owners could have sued for damages"

Today the destruction would be all together illegal! Even back then the owner could have sued in a civil action for actual damages. 

Thank you for this info.  I appreciate it.  But one would have to ask if destroying a printing press would not incite a community anyway???

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you for this info.  I appreciate it.  But one would have to ask if destroying a printing press would not incite a community anyway???

Maybe yes maybe no. It was a far different US back then.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Parish_Lovejoy

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you for this info.  I appreciate it.  But one would have to ask if destroying a printing press would not incite a community anyway???

You'll note that nobody has been able to answer my question about what was slanderous or what incited violence from the Nauvoo Expositor.

I feel like the story about the Expositor was another one of those half-truths I grew up being told & believing as a church member.  The real story seems to be that Joseph didn't want ex-mo's revealing his polygamy and other indiscretions to the community.

 

[Jeanne]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You'll note that nobody has been able to answer my question about what was slanderous or what incited violence from the Nauvoo Expositor.

I feel like the story about the Expositor was another one of those half-truths I grew up being told & believing as a church member.  The real story seems to be that Joseph didn't want ex-mo's revealing his polygamy and other indiscretions to the community.

 

That is kind of what I am thinking.  I think Joseph was worried about a lot of things.  Polygamy was the big one.

 

[bcuzbcuz]

On 14 April 2016 at 4:08 AM, carbon dioxide said:

Not when it comes to the bathroom.   Men should go to their designated spots and the women to their designated spots.  No switching teams because one thinks they are on the other team.

I recommend you never travel to Europe. You will be forced into situations that will leave you constipated for years, if not with severe bladder problems. In Stockholm, my home town, large department stores and other facilities for large events have washroom facilities that can only be called uni-sex. 

First of all, it's going to cost you to use the facility, regardless of gender or specific need. It costs a little under a dollar for each person. There is an attendant on hand at all times to make change, although most users come ready with the appropriate coin to deposit in the turnstile. The attendant is also reguired to maintain cleanliness. I've usually seen them with mop in hand.

Upon entering you see a very large series of hot/cold water washbasins in an oval formation, that dispense soap, paper towels and blow dryers. Circling the washbasins are toilets with no gender specification, only indicators as to whether the door is locked or unlocked. It doesn't matter if you're male or female, when a toilet is available, you may enter. In the stall, which is completely enclosed from floor to ceiling (no peaking under the stall is needed to see if a stall is occupied), there is a toilet plus wash basin. Each stall has hooks for bags, overcoats, purses, etc. Some facilities are only lit with dim blue lights to prevent drug users from using the facilities (they can't find a vein in such light).  

So there is your problem. No matter your gender, you will be using washroom facilities that are visited and used by the opposite gender. If that's a problem for you, you will have to wait until you get home or back to the hotel. Good luck with that.

Oh, there is a major exception to this uni-sex toilet facilities. If you go to major sports events: hockey, football, handball, basketball, etc, the toilets are designated male or female. Probably because beer is served at the games....and beer creates a different percentage perspective on washroom usage and why all mens facilities are equipped with urinals. 

Just so you know.

[provoman]

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Ahab said:

Do you seriously think your scenario helps anyone to understand the issue here?  Anyone who doesn't understand it yet, I mean?

Let's start with eliminating the expectation that the intent of every business is to sell goods and service to the general public.  And with the expectation that any business owner should be able to sell goods and services to whoever they want to sell to without any government entity mandating that they must sell goods and services to anyone who walks into that business. 

Forget the color of anyone's skin for a moment if you can.  The fact that ANY body or group of people thought they could go in to a restaurant or bakery and DEMAND to be served should not have been tolerated.

For the government to try to force by law anyone to provide a service is in essence the government trying to enforce slavery, not allowing any business owner to refuse to serve anyone they don't want to serve.

What we have here is a lack of respect for FREEDOM!

 

Your mischaracterization was not helpful. 

I provided an accurate description of the op-ed piece.

Witnessing a private individual consume alcohol in a restaurant is not an infringement on individual Religious Liberty of other patrons in the establishment.   A Muslim or Jew or Mormon religious liberty is not infringed when he purchases an airline ticket, accepts a random seat assignment and that random selection places him next to a woman not his wife who shoulders are visible.

[thesometimesaint]

On 4/22/2016 at 4:06 PM, rockpond said:

You'll note that nobody has been able to answer my question about what was slanderous or what incited violence from the Nauvoo Expositor.

I feel like the story about the Expositor was another one of those half-truths I grew up being told & believing as a church member.  The real story seems to be that Joseph didn't want ex-mo's revealing his polygamy and other indiscretions to the community.

 

Sealings are not marriages. There is ample evidence that others besides Joseph had multiple Sealings. What Joseph was against was unauthorized Sealings.

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

If your business is open to the public. It legally has to be open to the public.

[rockpond]

On April 22, 2016 at 5:06 PM, rockpond said:

You'll note that nobody has been able to answer my question about what was slanderous or what incited violence from the Nauvoo Expositor.

I feel like the story about the Expositor was another one of those half-truths I grew up being told & believing as a church member.  The real story seems to be that Joseph didn't want ex-mo's revealing his polygamy and other indiscretions to the community.

 

 

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Sealings are not marriages. There is ample evidence that others besides Joseph had multiple Sealings. What Joseph was against was unauthorized Sealings.

Not sure what your response has to do with my point.  But okay.  And still no evidence to support the claim that the expositor was slanderous or incited violence. 

[thesometimesaint]

Of course you don't. From the murder of Joseph, and Hyrum to The Street of Tears it was all justified violence.

[rodheadlee]

On 4/13/2016 at 11:51 AM, Daniel2 said:

 

 

Companies are taking a stand against the ability to discriminate. 

Don't make me laugh. The old, the young, the not so beautiful people and the poor are wantonly discriminated against.