"Why Are Companies Taking Sides against Religious Liberty"

[Storm Rider]

I would like to know how the LGBTQ - and whatever else goes into that acronym today - has so much power over business.  What lever do they have for such a small minority of our populace?  Mormons obviously don't have this kind of power.  Jews may have this kind of power, but only in certain fields if rumors are to be believed.  Native Indians don't have this much power.  Asians certainly don't have this much power.  Blacks have this much power.  

It is interesting to study how this extremely small group became so powerful in the US.  There are several books on the topic.  The author I read is a lesbian and was dead center of this group; Tammy Bruce is very interesting reading.  I have noticed several others.  

I find it rather deceitful to claim there is no correlation between religious liberty and LGBTQ rights.  Religions have morals and doctrines that clearly define what is acceptable and what is immoral.  Trying to sing Fa, La, La when it comes to religion and the gay agenda of cramming their specific moral standards down the throat of the American public beggars the imagination.  I am not nearly as stupid as some would believe to swallow that bit of tripe and a majority of the American public feels the same way.   

[HappyJackWagon]

The backlash against religious freedom is created because of the absurd laws passed by states like Tennessee, naming the Bible the official State book, or Mississippi allowing for individuals and businesses to discriminate in employment, service and housing for LGBT individuals. Of course we also have the North Carolina law that is also openly declaring it legal to discriminate against LGBT based on deeply held principles or religious beliefs.

As long governments subjugate a population like the LGBT community to second class status, all in the name of "religious freedom" there will be push back. The pendulum swings.

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I would like to know how the LGBTQ - and whatever else goes into that acronym today - has so much power over business.  What lever do they have for such a small minority of our populace?  Mormons obviously don't have this kind of power.  Jews may have this kind of power, but only in certain fields if rumors are to be believed.  Native Indians don't have this much power.  Asians certainly don't have this much power.  Blacks have this much power.  

It is interesting to study how this extremely small group became so powerful in the US.  There are several books on the topic.  The author I read is a lesbian and was dead center of this group; Tammy Bruce is very interesting reading.  I have noticed several others.  

By powerful do you mean it's become increasingly less popular to discriminate against them? They don't have near the level of "power" that Mormons or other religious groups have, but I hope they'll be on equal footing someday, in regards to the law. 

 

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I find it rather deceitful to claim there is no correlation between religious liberty and LGBTQ rights.  Religions have morals and doctrines that clearly define what is acceptable and what is immoral.  Trying to sing Fa, La, La when it comes to religion and the gay agenda of cramming their specific moral standards down the throat of the American public beggars the imagination.  I am not nearly as stupid as some would believe to swallow that bit of tripe and a majority of the American public feels the same way.   

No one will force you to accept or even like gay people. But increasingly it will be more difficult to force them to the back of the bus. 

By the way, most Americans favor gay marriage rights. 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Gray

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 I guess if you feel that we should appeal the civil rights laws that have been in place for over 50 years, then knock yourself out.  

I never said this, I never implied this. This statement is a classic straw-man. You build a fake argument (that I believe we should appeal civil right laws) and then you attack that belief. Problem is I never, not once even came close to suggesting this. I think our civil right laws are fine.

 

Quote

I personally believe those laws have made America a better place to live.

I agree

 

Quote

Bigotry, racism, homophobia antisemitism are all learned attitudes.

Okay, I agree. I never said or implied differently. Whats your point?

 

 

Quote

 Children don't start out with having these attitudes towards others.  They are learned.  Civil rights laws break that cycle.

Okay, I agree. I never said or implied differently. Whats your point?

 

Quote

the civil rights laws that have been in place for over 50 years

Yes, wonderful, I am thankful for them.

 

The Free Exercise and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been around for 227 years. Little by little it has been chipped away at. This chipping has opened the doors that have been shut many times over 227 years. Laws that compel the forced morality of a believing group, to go against their religious beliefs, in favor for another group with contrary beliefs, has set a dangerous precedent.

This has made it allowable for beliefs to become superior to the law of the land, and in effect is to permit every same sex married couple to become citizens unto themselves. Court decisions that force people to capitulate their religious beliefs for another persons (SS couples) beliefs, in effect robs one group of people not only of their religious liberties, but of the liberty to govern themselves.

The irony here is that through the political process one group can successfully undermine the political process of others. Justice Alito expressed the concern that the courts opinion would be used to attack the beliefs of those who disagree with same-sex marriage, who "will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools," leading to "bitter and lasting wounds. He was right.

 

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, Anijen said:

 

The Free Exercise and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been around for 227 years. Little by little it has been chipped away at. This chipping has opened the doors that have been shut many times over 227 years. Laws that compel the forced morality of a believing group, to go against their religious beliefs, in favor for another group with contrary beliefs, has set a dangerous precedent.

This has made it allowable for beliefs to become superior to the law of the land, and in effect is to permit every same sex married couple to become citizens unto themselves. Court decisions that force people to capitulate their religious beliefs for another persons (SS couples) beliefs, in effect robs one group of people not only of their religious liberties, but of the liberty to govern themselves.

The irony here is that through the political process one group can successfully undermine the political process of others. Justice Alito expressed the concern that the courts opinion would be used to attack the beliefs of those who disagree with same-sex marriage, who "will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools," leading to "bitter and lasting wounds. He was right.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here - how is giving gay couples the right to marry chipping away at religious freedom? 

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I would like to know how the LGBTQ - and whatever else goes into that acronym today - has so much power over business.  

They don't.  The businesses who support them value acceptance, inclusion, non-discrimination, and freedom.

If you think that it was ever about LGBTQ persons having power over business, you failed to see the real issues at play.

[Anijen]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure what you're getting at here - how is giving gay couples the right to marry chipping away at religious freedom? 

I dunno, maybe by forcing ministers to conduct a SS marriage even if they don't believe in SS marriage.

 

Don't get me wrong, I believe a SS married couple deserves every benefit that is afforded a traditional married couple. I believe it is wrong to discriminate. I am trying to make the point that court decisions that allow SS marriage or decisions that forces a baker to make a cake and that baker is opposed to doing it, is allowing the effect of these laws the right to force a morality standard upon us. How we behave, how we believe, how we can act...

I am failing at make my point because of closed minded people cannot get beyond the shouting of racism, bigotry, and hatred, but they fail to see the eventual harm to others religious beliefs. 

[Storm Rider]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They don't.  The businesses who support them value acceptance, inclusion, non-discrimination, and freedom.

If you think that it was ever about LGBTQ persons having power over business, you failed to see the real issues at play.

Or maybe you are terribly naive.  Based upon the writings of people involved - you don't have a clue.  I encourage you to do some reading.  Go to Amazon and pick up any book by Tammy Bruce - it will open your eyes and mind to reality.  

Nothing I have said should be interpreted that to say that idealism does not have its place - I am just saying that in this instance it was accomplished by specific agendas that crushed many people along the way and still does in order to be tolerant, inclusive, and equal.  

Here are a few:

• The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds
• The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values
• The New American Revolution

Edited April 13, 2016 by Storm Rider

[Daniel2]

"Why Are Companies Taking Sides against Religious Liberty"

Companies aren't taking a stand against religious liberty.

Religious liberty isn't the same thing as a license to discriminate.

Companies are taking a stand against the ability to discriminate.  And in so doing, they're also protecting religious liberty--that is, protecting citizens from discrimination based on others' religious biases and desire to discriminate against other citizens bases on others' religious affiliations or lack thereof.

In short, Scott... "'Religious liberty'... You keep using those words.  I don't think those things mean what you think they mean."

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Companies are taking a stand against the ability to discriminate.

You really mean: those companies that take the stand you disagree with are taking a stand against what constitutes a protected class with regards to the freedom of religious expression.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Or maybe you are terribly naive.  Based upon the writings of people involved - you don't have a clue.  I encourage you to do some reading.  Go to Amazon and pick up any book by Tammy Bruce - it will open your eyes and mind to reality.  

Nothing I have said should be interpreted that to say that idealism does not have its place - I am just saying that in this instance it was accomplished by specific agendas that crushed many people along the way and still does in order to be tolerant, inclusive, and equal.  

Here are a few:

• The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds
• The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values
• The New American Revolution

You think I am naive and your recommendation is that I read the writings of an internet talk show host?  I'll pass.

I'm basing my comments on having worked for companies with values similar to those I mentioned.  

 

[Gray]

39 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I dunno, maybe by forcing ministers to conduct a SS marriage even if they don't believe in SS marriage.

Outside of someone who is doing it as a business or someone contracting with the government to perform a service, ministers are not required to conduct same sex marriages. 

 

Quote

Don't get me wrong, I believe a SS married couple deserves every benefit that is afforded a traditional married couple. I believe it is wrong to discriminate. I am trying to make the point that court decisions that allow SS marriage or decisions that forces a baker to make a cake and that baker is opposed to doing it, is allowing the effect of these laws the right to force a morality standard upon us. How we behave, how we believe, how we can act...

I am failing at make my point because of closed minded people cannot get beyond the shouting of racism, bigotry, and hatred, but they fail to see the eventual harm to others religious beliefs. 

I appreciate your even-keeled approach. However, I fail to see how making businesses serve people regardless of sexual orientation is chipping away at religious liberty. Businesses have long had to serve protected classes without prejudice. There have always been limits on what businesses can do. But individual religious expression is not affected, right?

Edited April 13, 2016 by Gray

[Storm Rider]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They don't.  The businesses who support them value acceptance, inclusion, non-discrimination, and freedom.

If you think that it was ever about LGBTQ persons having power over business, you failed to see the real issues at play.

Oh, that talk show host that you disqualify out of hand.  She is a lesbian and was president of the the California chapter of NOW.  I can understand how you could discount her  - after all a gay, left-wing, politically active advocate should be discounted from conversation when it comes to gay issues and the actually methods they use, which she finds repugnant.  Her problem?  She believes in being honest.  Shocking isn't it.  But, that sand you have planted your head in - please don't tell anyone you are neutral or informed.  You consciously choose ignorance and yet want to an advocate for an agenda.  What do we call people like that?

[Gray]

35 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Here are a few:

• The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds
• The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values
• The New American Revolution

This looks like propaganda and fear mongering. 

[bcuzbcuz]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know that some here see red whenever the topic of religious freedom is brought up, and I know that some here like to pretend there is no current threat to religious freedom and demand to be shown examples whenever the topic is mentioned and then they get irritated when such examples are forthcoming. But such denial is the very reason to remain vigilant and to keep the issue before the public eye, despite the annoyance it causes to some.

In the interest of providing examples, here is a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece about how efforts to pass legislation to safeguard religious liberty in the wake of Obergefell are being hindered, in some instances, by corporations. In the long run, they do so arguably to their own detriment, as such politically correct tyranny is harmful to the economic enviroment.

This topic is relevant to this board as the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ have staked out a position in favor of assertive efforts to safeguard religious liberty. It is thus incumbent upon faithful members individually to lend their support to that effort.

Here's an interesting snippet from the WSJ piece with a local (LDS related) note of interest:

Here's a more general but noteworthy snippet:

 

Religious liberty??? Your comments and the article you reference are truly laughable.

Your definition of religious liberty actually lacks definition. It is, instead, an excuse to take a giant leap backwards in time. And by backwards, I really mean backwards.

Living outside the US, our newspapers don't have a Sunday comics section. But we get our laughs by reading about Trump, legislation passed in Georgia and Mississippi, and campaigns called "religious freedom" where people get outraged by which gender uses which toilet. 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

 

In short, Scott... "'Religious liberty'... You keep using those words.  I don't think those things mean what you think they mean."

Here is what I mean:

Quote

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Of course, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, the guarantees established in the First Amendment -- including the free-exercise clause -- are extended to state and local governments.

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

 

In short, Scott... "'Religious liberty'... You keep using those words.  I don't think those things mean what you think they mean."

Here is what I mean:

Quote

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Of course, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, the guarantees established in the First Amendment -- including the free-exercise clause -- are extended to state and local governments.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Oh, that talk show host that you disqualify out of hand.  She is a lesbian and was president of the the California chapter of NOW.  I can understand how you could discount her  - after all a gay, left-wing, politically active advocate should be discounted from conversation when it comes to gay issues and the actually methods they use, which she finds repugnant.  Her problem?  She believes in being honest.  Shocking isn't it.  But, that sand you have planted your head in - please don't tell anyone you are neutral or informed.  You consciously choose ignorance and yet want to an advocate for an agenda.  What do we call people like that?

I didn't disqualify her.  She deserves a voice and an opinion like everyone else.  But I don't see her as a strong source for a better understanding of religious freedom.  I also see no reason to believe that she somehow speaks on behalf of all gays and their "methods" just because she is a lesbian.  This is not ignorance on my part, it's wisdom.

If the agenda you speak of is religious freedom, then yes, I am advocating for that.

[Ahab]

35 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Or maybe you are terribly naive.  Based upon the writings of people involved - you don't have a clue.  I encourage you to do some reading.  Go to Amazon and pick up any book by Tammy Bruce - it will open your eyes and mind to reality.  

Nothing I have said should be interpreted that to say that idealism does not have its place - I am just saying that in this instance it was accomplished by specific agendas that crushed many people along the way and still does in order to be tolerant, inclusive, and equal.  

Here are a few:

• The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds
• The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values
• The New American Revolution

So what we have here, as Sheriff Bufford T Justice would say, is a lack of respect for the law!

Except this is not anarchy, my friend.  Or at least it doesn't stay that way for very long.

Our adversary and his cohorts have caught on to the idea that laws can be used and abused to uphold things that are evil with the idea that anything that is legal is good, or at least acceptable.

That's all that is going on here, and I suppose it could not be any other way right now.

The more freedom we have the more we are free to do things that are evil as well as the things that are good.

[Ahab]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You think I am naive and your recommendation is that I read the writings of an internet talk show host?  I'll pass.

I'm basing my comments on having worked for companies with values similar to those I mentioned.  

 

And apparently you think as they do now.

[cinepro]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know that some here see red whenever the topic of religious freedom is brought up, and I know that some here like to pretend there is no current threat to religious freedom and demand to be shown examples whenever the topic is mentioned and then they get irritated when such examples are forthcoming. But such denial is the very reason to remain vigilant and to keep the issue before the public eye, despite the annoyance it causes to some.

In the interest of providing examples, here is a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece about how efforts to pass legislation to safeguard religious liberty in the wake of Obergefell are being hindered, in some instances, by corporations. In the long run, they do so arguably to their own detriment, as such politically correct tyranny is harmful to the economic enviroment.

 

To reiterate the points made by others, I think part of the problem with this issue is that the phrase "religious liberty" is starting to sound more and more like a euphemism for something else. 

People have pretty solid ideas of what different freedoms are, and I think when people envision "freedom of religion" or "religious liberty", they are thinking of being able to join the Church of their choice, go to Church on Saturday or Sunday, not having the government pick a favored religion for the country, dressing and eating in a certain way, and so on.

These recent developments with government actions to protect "religious liberty" are straying into areas that may involve liberty and "religion", but are a new wrinkle in how the concept is implemented.  That doesn't mean they aren't good or justifiable, it just means you are going to have to do a better job explaining what, exactly, you mean when when you say "religious liberty" and "religious freedom", and recognize why just using those words doesn't automatically make people support whatever it is that is being legislated.

 

 

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Or maybe you are terribly naive.  Based upon the writings of people involved - you don't have a clue.  I encourage you to do some reading.  Go to Amazon and pick up any book by Tammy Bruce - it will open your eyes and mind to reality.  

Nothing I have said should be interpreted that to say that idealism does not have its place - I am just saying that in this instance it was accomplished by specific agendas that crushed many people along the way and still does in order to be tolerant, inclusive, and equal.  

Here are a few:

• The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds
• The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values
• The New American Revolution

I haven't read her books yet.

In the interests of time, in moving the conversation forward, and in deciding whether her works are worth spending time reading, can you summarize 5 or 6 of her most compelling, salient points and their supporting evidence?

Edited April 13, 2016 by Daniel2

[Buckeye]

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

To reiterate the points made by others, I think part of the problem with this issue is that the phrase "religious liberty" is starting to sound more and more like a euphemism for something else. 

People have pretty solid ideas of what different freedoms are, and I think when people envision "freedom of religion" or "religious liberty", they are thinking of being able to join the Church of their choice, go to Church on Saturday or Sunday, not having the government pick a favored religion for the country, dressing and eating in a certain way, and so on.

These recent developments with government actions to protect "religious liberty" are straying into areas that may involve liberty and "religion", but are a new wrinkle in how the concept is implemented.  That doesn't mean they aren't good or justifiable, it just means you are going to have to do a better job explaining what, exactly, you mean when when you say "religious liberty" and "religious freedom", and recognize why just using those words doesn't automatically make people support whatever it is that is being legislated.

 

 

To wit, there are other current issues much more closely aligned to traditional notions of "religious liberty" than the LGBT anti-discrimination laws that everyone is fixated on now. The most obvious example which the LDS church could support- but poignantly has avoided - is the effort to remove laws that criminalize religiously-motivated plural marriage between consenting adults. If we were really interested in religious liberty, you'd think we'd be most interested in helping the Sister Wives family.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Buckeye

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Religious liberty??? Your comments and the article you reference are truly laughable.

Your definition of religious liberty actually lacks definition. It is, instead, an excuse to take a giant leap backwards in time. And by backwards, I really mean backwards.

Living outside the US, our newspapers don't have a Sunday comics section. But we get our laughs by reading about Trump, legislation passed in Georgia and Mississippi, and campaigns called "religious freedom" where people get outraged by which gender uses which toilet. 

 

 

Living outside the U.S., you perhaps don't have the reverence for First Amendment freedoms that we do here. Or at least that some of us (hopefully still a majority) have.

 

[mtomm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Of course then we are left with the subjective determination of whether or not particular leaders were moved upon by the Holy Ghost when speaking on religious freedom.

For me, however, I don't need a witness of the importance of supporting religious freedom.  So it isn't really an issue.  I don't see it as an issue for anyone else on this thread.  What does seem to be debatable is how to best achieve that freedom.  However, since the Brethren seem to be in favor of allowing discrimination based on ones beliefs, it seems that they should be okay with Disney, Marvel, AMC, NCAA, etc choosing not to involve themselves with municipalities that don't support their beliefs and values.

 

Which is what everyone always argues in this forum. They don't want to be forced to business with certain types. Let the marketplace decide....

But when businesses choose to not do business with certain types that is somehow bad.  We've got a serious double standard happening.