How Does the SLC PD View Mormons? LGBT?

[california boy]

SMAC, I am glad you started this thread.  We should all repudiated discrimination and bigotry of any kind no matter where it comes from and who it is directed to.  Whether it is Mormons, Jews, blacks, gays, women or whatever the minority, the only way discrimination will stop is if we all find it inappropriate.  What I don't agree with is pitting one group against another.  That part of your post I find distasteful and unChristlike. I never recall the Savior pitting Romans against the Jews.  Rather, I remember Him teaching that all should be treated with dignity and love. 

 

As far as Officers Stayner and Eric Moutsos, they both should be condemned for their bigotry.  And it should also be acknowledged that both realized the mistake they made and tried to correct it.  And for that, they both should be forgiven and the public should move on.

[USU78]

20 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Yeah, its the Mayor. Folks I know inside the city government say she hates Mormons, and has been gradually purging them from their positions.

To nobody's surprise 

[USU78]

19 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I didn't mean to suggest such timing isn't related to the timing of the article (and I don't doubt that it is...), but the juxtaposition of the two actions is tragically ironic.

I suggest your post was more about a hammer seeing nothing but nails

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not defending Chief Burbank for his treatment of Officer Moutsos, nor am I defending Chief Brown for his treatment of Officer Stayner. As a person whose religious faith is important to him, I do believe that Officer Moutsos is entitled to his religious belief and that if he has a good-faith belief that what he was asked to do would violate his conscience and it is not an essential police function (conducting maneuvers on a motorcycle while riding in formation is not an essential police function, even when done on duty, in uniform, et cetera), he should be entitled to request a change in assignment.

All of that having been said, whatever one thinks of law enforcement supervisors/administrators and other public officials' handling of cases such as this, it does put such administrators and officials in an unenviable position. People should be broad-minded enough and be able to slice the salami thin enough to to say, “I understand where an officer such as Officer Moutsos is coming from. I may not be religiously devout, or I may not share his religious convictions, but in an infinite number of possible universes, I can't say there isn't at least one possible universe in which those convictions (and opinions held and actions taken as as a result) are not, from the perspective of a person of faith, reasonable. And if he says that he doesn't have anything against gays, that he would treat them the same as he would anyone else in the performance of his duties, and so on, and I have no evidence to the contrary, that's good enough for me.”

Alas, such broad-mindedness is in exceedingly short supply. Value your religious convictions, and believe in good faith that being asked to perform a non-essential function at an event intended for public participation and/or viewing would send the wrong message and/or that doing so would violate your conscience? Then you're a bigot! And as a law enforcement administrator, if you believe that forcing an officer to participate under those circumstances would violate his conscience, then you're a bigot, too! (Or if you don't, and you order the officer to participate anyway, then you run the risk of alienating a sizable portion of the population you are sworn to protect which shares the officer's religious convictions.)

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

SMAC, I am glad you started this thread.  We should all repudiated discrimination and bigotry of any kind no matter where it comes from and who it is directed to.  Whether it is Mormons, Jews, blacks, gays, women or whatever the minority, the only way discrimination will stop is if we all find it inappropriate.  What I don't agree with is pitting one group against another.  That part of your post I find distasteful and unChristlike. I never recall the Savior pitting Romans against the Jews.  Rather, I remember Him teaching that all should be treated with dignity and love. 

 

As far as Officers Stayner and Eric Moutsos, they both should be condemned for their bigotry.  And it should also be acknowledged that both realized the mistake they made and tried to correct it.  And for that, they both should be forgiven and the public should move on.

Officer Moutsos did nothing that warrants your condemnation. Yours is a false accusation. 

Moreover, the cases are not comparable. Stayner made vicious and ugly public remarks about a faith group in the community, including calling some of its members "assholes." Moutsos did nothing comparable. 

And by the way, you imply here that Moutsos made a "mistake." Other than acknowledging he could have been more diplomatic in approaching the chief to ask him to OK the shift trade, Moutsos has not conceded that he did anything wrong, as far as I am aware.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Officer Moutsos did nothing that warrants your condemnation. Yours is a false accusation. 

Moreover, the cases are not comparable. Stayner made vicious and ugly remarks about a faith group in the community, including calling some of its members "assholes." Moutsos did nothing comparable. 

If Stayner's hateful remarks had been directed at gays, not Mormons, should he have been fired or at least disciplined?

[toon]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Something is rotten in the City of Salt Lake City.  

 

Maybe so, but I'd hardly call the two situations comparable.  In one you have an off duty officer exercising First Amendment rights.  (I understand that in an employment setting, a public employer may at times have an interest that can override otherwise protected First Amendment activity, but it's still clear that an individual does not forfeit his or her First Amendment rights merely be accepting employment with a government entity.)  In the second case, you have an on duty officer refusing an assignment. 

Both officers were investigated.  One was cleared.*  The other resigned before the investigation was completed.

*Cleared, in the sense that we don't know what if any action was taken.  We can surmise that he wasn't fired, suspended or demoted.  But we don't know about any action short of that.

Edited June 16, 2016 by toon

[toon]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Mr. Moutsos states that he relented and agreed to participate in the Gay Rights parade, but by then "it was too late."

He didn't refuse after all.

But Moutsos was punished for his "away from work" viewpoint, while Officer Stayner is getting off for his "away from work" viewpoint.  Did you note this?

And this:

Darn straight there's a "terrible double standard."  (Former) Officer Moutsos lost his job for his personal point of view (which was/is utterly devoid of hostility/hatred toward LGBT folks).  Officer Stayner, on the other hand, faces no repercussions for his  personal point of view (which was/is per se hostile and hateful toward LDS folks and their church).

I agree with you that these two cases are not "comparable."  The one was punished not only for expressing his personal views, but also for even having those views.  Meanwhile, the other has a point of view (hostility/hatred toward Mormons) that he can both publicly express and not face any repercussions for such expressions.  

Yep.  Not much a comparison at all.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

.

Edited June 16, 2016 by toon

[toon]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Indeed.

It appears he did land on his feet.

He has had three jobs since the incident. But I think it is fairly common in this day and age to change jobs frequently. I'm afraid I'm something of a throwback, having held the same job for going on 31 years now.

I'm going to read between the lines and guess that he didn't pass probation at the other department.  There are plenty of reasons why people leave jobs, but a police officer leaving a job after only being on it for a short time is much more likely than not to be a failure to pass probation.

[toon]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

If Stayner's hateful remarks had been directed at gays, not Mormons, should he have been fired or at least disciplined?

Off duty comments, coming from a rank and file officer, and not someone part of the command staff?  No, not fired.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

SMAC, I am glad you started this thread.  We should all repudiated discrimination and bigotry of any kind no matter where it comes from and who it is directed to.  Whether it is Mormons, Jews, blacks, gays, women or whatever the minority, the only way discrimination will stop is if we all find it inappropriate.  What I don't agree with is pitting one group against another.  That part of your post I find distasteful and unChristlike. 

I did not pit one group against another.   I am not condemning Officer Steyner because he is gay.  I am critcizing him and his superiors because

• A) he has publicly expressed hatred for a large portion of the population he is sworn to protect and serve, 
• B) his superiors are letting him off without any repercussions whatsoever,
• C) his superiors are apparently letting him off because he is gay and/or because the target of his hatred are Mormons, and
• D) meanwhile, an LDS police officer had his career and reputation destroyed by those same superiors because he initially objected to being ordered to participate in a Gay Pride parade (though he later relented, but by which point the destruction of his career was a fait accompli).

Think about this situation if the roles were reversed.  If Officer Moutsos had publicly expressed hatred toward homosexuals, and as a result he receives zero adverse consequences, his promotion is allowed to go forward, and he continues to work as a "counselor" for other officers, including gay/lesbian officers.  If that happened, there would be screaming to beat the band.  Protests.  Perhaps even riots.  The police chief overseeing this travesty would lose his job.  Backpedaling would be the order of the day.

Now consider Officer Stayner essentially being fired because he declined (but later agreed) to participate in a pro-Mormon rally in which he is essentially compelled to engage in speech which is A) favorable to Mormons and their Church, and B) with which he privately disagrees.  Again, there would be screaming all over the place.  Officer Stayner would be held up and lionized as both a hero and victim of oppression.  There would be protests, perhaps even riots.  The police chief overseeing this travesty would lose his job.  Backpedaling would be the order of the day.

But none of this is happening.  Because the roles aren't reversed.

Pointing out disparate treatment of one group as compared to another isn't "pitting one group against another."  

Pointing out an instance of privileged treatment of a homosexual is not out of bounds.

Homosexuals do not get to demand "equality" in society, and then turn around and demand preferential treatment because they are gay (which, frankly, I think is what you are doing by scolding me for publicizing the SLC PD's preferential treatment of Officer Stayner).  

Quote

I never recall the Savior pitting Romans against the Jews.  Rather, I remember Him teaching that all should be treated with dignity and love. 

Ah, save it.  I have not done this.  

I respect homosexuals enough as a category of persons to hold them to the same standards as other categories.  I refuse to place them in sort of of privileged space where they are immune from criticism.

Quote

As far as Officers Stayner and Eric Moutsos, they both should be condemned for their bigotry.  

I don't think Mr. Moutsos exhibited bigotry.  At all.  Officer Stayner did.

At the end of the day, Officer Stayner has received privileged treatment for his publicly-expressed hostilities against Mormons, while (former) Officer Moutsos initially declined, and then later agreed, to participate in a Gay Pride parade, but his career was destroyed anyway.

Quote

And it should also be acknowledged that both realized the mistake they made and tried to correct it.  

Officer Stayner removed the FB post, yes.  Has he apologized?  Retracted his statement?  Sought to make amends toward or conciliation with the LDS Church and its members?  AFAIK, the answers are no, no and no.  And his career is moving ahead just fine, thank you.  With no repercussions whatsoever for publicly expressing hatred toward a large segment of the population he is sworn to protect and serve (and who help pay his salary).  Yeah, he's just a peach.

Meanwhile, (former) Officer Moutsos has repeatedly publicly expressed respect and love for LGBT folks:

• "More than anything, Moutsos is calling for unity. He says, 'I love people. I‘ll protect you. I will take a bullet for you, but I do not advocate certain things in people’s lives. Just like 99% of the world does not agree with my faith, and that’s okay.' Moutsos is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon)."  (Link)
• "{T}the former cop, who refused to participate in a parade celebrating gay rights and who now works for an organization vigorously fighting same-sex marriage, did something unexpected: He attended Sunday's wedding at the Gallivan Center of Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity, plaintiffs in the historic lawsuit that, eventually, toppled Utah's ban on same-sex marriage.  Moutsos posted on his Facebook page pictures of himself and the happy couple taken during the wedding celebration. He explained that he and Kitchen had become friends while they followed Utah's landmark anti-discrimination bill at the Legislature and that Kitchen had invited him to the wedding.  While he still holds to his religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, Moutsos described Kitchen and Sbeity as 'two great individuals' and wished them well 'on their journey together.'" (Link)
• "In an interview with The Washington Times, Mr. Moutsos said he hasn’t changed his mind about the department’s role in the parade.  'It looks like we’re doing a type of a celebration in front of the parade,' Mr. Moutsos said. 'I didn’t feel OK with being in front of that parade. And I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade, I simply didn’t want to be in one.'  After seven years on the force, he said he had often come to the aid of members of the local gay community. But as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he was uncomfortable with the message he would have sent by performing in front of the Utah Pride Parade.  'I’d feel the same way if this were an abortion parade. Even though it’s legal, I just ask not to be in front of the parade. But I will protect it,' Mr. Moutsos said." (Link)
• “'I love gay people,' the 33-year-old told the Los Angeles Times on Thursday. 'I love them like I love humanity. I just did not agree with some of the messages in that parade.'”  (Link)
• "{Moutsos} told The Times: 'I asked my supervisor, "What if an African American officer didn’t want to ride in front of a KKK parade?" And he said he’d have to do it. That’s when I knew in my heart it was wrong.'"  (Link)
• Personal Statement by Mr. Moutsos

He seems like a pretty decent guy.

Quote

And for that, they both should be forgiven and the public should move on.

Right.  The Mormon gets his career destroyed, and "the public should move on."  The gay guy gets privileged treatment because he is gay and because the targets of his publicly-expressed hatred are Mormon, with no adverse impact on his career whatsoever (a promotion is still in the works), and he has, AFAIK, never apologized or retracted his statement against the people he is sword to protect and serve, and "the public should move on."

Think about this situation if the roles were reversed.  If Officer Moutsos had publicly expressed hatred toward homosexuals, and as a result he receives zero adverse consequences, his promotion is allowed to go forward, and he continues to work as a "counselor" for other officers, including gay/lesbian officers.  If that happened, there would be screaming to beat the band.  Protests.  Perhaps even riots.  The police chief overseeing this travesty would lose his job.  Backpedaling would be the order of the day.

Now consider Officer Stayner essentially being fired because he declined (but later agreed) to participate in a pro-Mormon rally in which he is essentially compelled to engage in speech which is A) favorable to Mormons and their Church, and B) with which he privately disagrees.  Again, there would be screaming all over the place.  Officer Stayner would be held up and lionized as both a hero and victim of oppression.  There would be protests, perhaps even riots.  The police chief overseeing this travesty would lose his job.  Backpedaling would be the order of the day.

But none of this is happening.  Because the roles aren't reversed.  

Would you, if the circumstances were reversed as described above, be telling us all to "move on?"  Just accept the status quo?  

Suck it up, LGBT folks!  Know your place! Respect my authoritah!  Injustice against you and yours doesn't matter.  Just "move on."

Yeah, no.  I don't think you'd be saying that.  At all.

So it makes me curious why you are saying that to us Mormons now.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited June 16, 2016 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

19 minutes ago, toon said:

Off duty comments, coming from a rank and file officer, and not someone part of the command staff?  No, not fired.

Even the guy here in Fairfax got reassigned, not fired. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, toon said:

Maybe so, but I'd hardly call the two situations comparable. 

You're right.  In one situation, an officer publicly expressed hatred toward a large segment of the population whom he is sworn to protect and serve, whereas the other officer in the other situation didn't say or do anything like that at all.  So that's a big difference.

In one situation, an officer publicly exercised his First Amendment rights of his own free will, whereas the other officer was compelled, as a condition of his employment, to engage in speech which he felt went against his religious beliefs.  So that's a big difference.

In one situation, an officer deleted his hateful screed against Mormons, and as a result got to keep his job, face no repercussions whatsoever, and remain on track for a promotion.  Meanwhile, the officer in the other situation initially resisted being forced to participate in a Gay Pride parade, then relented and agreed to participate, only to find it was too late to save his career, the destruction of which was assured.  So that's a big difference.

In one situation, an officer was simply referred to HR, and his superiors glibly disregarded his hateful screed against Mormons as a "mistake."  Meanwhile, the officer in the other situation was publicly branded a bigot by his own boss, even though he never said or did anything indicative of hatred against homosexuals.  So that's a big difference.

In one situation, the officer deleted his hateful screed against Mormons, but otherwise has apparently not publicly retracted his statement or apologized for it.  Meanwhile, the officer in the other situation has been quoted in several news outlets publicly expressing love and respect for homosexuals.  So that's a big difference.

You are right, the situations aren't really "comparable."  That's rather the point.

Quote

In one you have an off duty officer exercising First Amendment rights. 

Did you note the part where LDS officers have been harrassed at work for mentioning God on their personal FB pages?  Here it is:

Quote

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Moutsos says he has the quiet support of other officers in a heavily Mormon force, but they have largely been cowed into silence. In fact, he says the supervisor pressed to take away Moutsos’s gun and badge last June actually sobbed when he did it.

Moutsos describes a department under the thumb of aggressive political correctness. Officers in the department have taken down their Facebook pages because others monitor them. Moutsos says a woman in the department confronted him about his mention of God on his Facebook page. She said it was offensive.

On the one hand, Moutsos says officers are told their religious beliefs are considered personal and therefore forbidden in the department, but LGBT officers are free to espouse their LGBT beliefs openly and with impunity. He says, “It is a terrible double standard.”

Again, you are right.  The two situations aren't comparable.  There is, as (former) Officer Moutsos put it, "a terrible double standard" in place at the SLC PD.

And you are apparently okay with that.

Quote

In the second case, you have an on duty officer refusing an assignment. 

Well, not quite.  The "assignment" was not to provide public safety and law enforcement services, but to to actively participate in a Gay Pride parade.

Are you comfortable with government agencies requiring their employees to engage in speech that goes against their will?

Consider these remarks by Mr. Moutsos:

Quote

"In an interview with The Washington Times, Mr. Moutsos said he hasn’t changed his mind about the department’s role in the parade.  'It looks like we’re doing a type of a celebration in front of the parade,' Mr. Moutsos said. 'I didn’t feel OK with being in front of that parade. And I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade, I simply didn’t want to be in one.'  After seven years on the force, he said he had often come to the aid of members of the local gay community. But as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he was uncomfortable with the message he would have sent by performing in front of the Utah Pride Parade.  'I’d feel the same way if this were an abortion parade. Even though it’s legal, I just ask not to be in front of the parade. But I will protect it,' Mr. Moutsos said."

What are your thoughts about these remarks?

Moreover, did you catch this bit?

Quote

When his superiors told him he could not swap, Moutsos relented and said he would do the motorcycle choreography. By then, it was too late. He says, “The police department suspended me, took away my gun and badge, and told me that I would be investigated for discrimination.”

And then the department hung him out to dry, he asserts. “Two days later, a police spokesperson gave interviews to the media, and the news reported that I refused to work a security and traffic assignment at the parade. I was immediately branded a bigot,” he says.

Meanwhile, what adverse results have accrued against Officer Steyner for his publicly expressed hatred of Mormons?

Well, none.  None at all.  (Link).

And you are okay with that.

And I find that . . . disappointing.

Quote

 

Both officers were investigated.  One was cleared.*  The other resigned before the investigation was completed.

*Cleared, in the sense that we don't know what if any action was taken.  We can surmise that he wasn't fired, suspended or demoted.  But we don't know about any action short of that.

 

Man, it's like I can practically envision you shrugging your shoulders as you typed this.

Indifference.  I get it.  "Move along, folks.  Nothing to see here.  Just a gay guy getting the kid gloves treatment from his employer - a government agency - after publicly expressing hatred against Mormons, and a Mormon getting his career and reputation publicly destroyed by his employer - that same government agency - because he temporarily resisted being compelled to participate in a Gay Pride parade.  Nope.  Nothing wrong with any of that.  Just move along."

The indifference being manifested here is . . . illuminating.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 16, 2016 by smac97

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

SMAC, I am glad you started this thread.  We should all repudiated discrimination and bigotry of any kind no matter where it comes from and who it is directed to.  Whether it is Mormons, Jews, blacks, gays, women or whatever the minority, the only way discrimination will stop is if we all find it inappropriate.  What I don't agree with is pitting one group against another.  That part of your post I find distasteful and unChristlike. I never recall the Savior pitting Romans against the Jews.  Rather, I remember Him teaching that all should be treated with dignity and love. 

 

As far as Officers Stayner and Eric Moutsos, they both should be condemned for their bigotry.  And it should also be acknowledged that both realized the mistake they made and tried to correct it.  And for that, they both should be forgiven and the public should move on.

This is a magnanimous statement and you consistently strive to maintain a balanced approach.  However, the difference between these two men is that one's career was destroyed and the other sits back, having had his wrist tapped once, and still has a job.  The first, Moutsos was excoriated and the second, Stayner, has not suffered any fall out.  Why isn't the treatment the same and why aren't the exact same people that demanded Moutsos' head asking for Stayner?  

These type of actions will always create bitter resentment that will be remembered by the local community.  They will remember who got away with it and who paid for it with their livelihood.  Some will be fearful and never speak out against the sacred cows.  Others will learn and be wiser; still others will seethe in silence.  

Someone said on the forum that Stayner was gay, if that is true, his actions are even more egregious.  Regardless, Stayner should not be trusted to interact with the public at large.  He may succeed as a voice for the gay community to the Police department, but representing the police department to the community?  He burned that down with his own gasoline of hate.  People don't forget these things.  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

If Stayner's hateful remarks had been directed at gays, not Mormons, should he have been fired or at least disciplined?

I would have approved of it if he had.

I have to think there are enough qualified candidates on the SLPD force, or enough potential candidates on the outside, that they can do better than to make someone a captain who spews public hatred for a group in the community.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I would have approved of it if he had.

I would have, as well. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, toon said:

I'm going to read between the lines and guess that he didn't pass probation at the other department.  There are plenty of reasons why people leave jobs, but a police officer leaving a job after only being on it for a short time is much more likely than not to be a failure to pass probation.

Your ill-informed assumption is worth precisely what we paid you for it. Worse than that, it borders on the libelous to say he was fired because he didn't pass probation when you have absolutely no basis for making such a claim.

As I recall, by his own account, Moutsos left the force to take a position offered to him with the Sutherland Institute because it was an advocacy organization with which he shared goals with regard to the safeguarding of freedom of conscience in society.

 

Edited June 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I did not pit one group against another.   I am not condemning Officer Steyner because he is gay.  I am critcizing him and his superiors because A) he has publicly expressed hatred for a large portion of the population he is sworn to protect and serve, B) his superiors are letting him off without any repercussions whatsoever, C) his superiors are apparently letting him off because he is gay and/or because the target of his hatred are Mormons, and D) meanwhile, an LDS police officer had his career destroyed by those same superiors because he initially objected to being ordered to participate in a Gay Pride parade (though he later relented, but by which point the destruction of his career was a fait accompli).

Think about this situation if the roles were reversed.  If Officer Moutsos had publicly expressed hatred toward homosexuals, and as a result he receives zero adverse consequences, his promotion is allowed to go forward, and he continues to work as a "counselor" for other officers, including gay/lesbian officers.  If that happened, there would be screaming to beat the band.  Protests.  Perhaps even riots.  The police chief overseeing this travesty would lose his job.  Backpedaling would be the order of the day.

You completely missed my point and the reason I made the statement that I did.  When you compare one officer being disciplined against the other and feel we should decide which incident was more just or unjust, then you are pitting one person's actions against the others when BOTH of them should be condemned.  They both exhibited behavior that should be unacceptable in the police force that is sworn to protect the ENTIRE community.  Not just Mormons, not just gays, not just blacks, not just Jews.  Who you are should not be the basis of whether you show up for work or whether you post hatred on your Facebook page.  Do you understand this concept???

 

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Now consider Officer Stayner essentially being fired because he declined (but later agreed) to participate in a pro-Mormon rally in which he is essentially compelled to engage in speech which is A) favorable to Mormons and their Church, and B) with which he privately disagrees.  Again, there would be screaming all over the place.  Officer Stayner would be held up and lionized as both a hero and victim of oppression.  There would be protests, perhaps even riots.  The police chief overseeing this travesty would lose his job.  Backpedaling would be the order of the day.

But none of this is happening.  Because the roles aren't reversed.

 

Officer Stayner was not fired.  There is no record of anyone firing Officer Stayner.  Hyperbole doesn't clarify your position.

And once again both situations should be condemned. They were both wrong.   I refuse to support the actions of EITHER officer.

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Pointing out disparate treatment of one group as compared to another isn't "pitting one group against another."  

Pointing out an instance of privileged treatment of a homosexual is not out of bounds.

Yes it is.  Both situations are wrong.  Do you want me to start publishing instances where gays are discriminated against and no action was taken?  Would that even out the score for you?  Is that what you are looking for?  Some score card where it is ok to discriminate with no repercussions as long as the other "group" can discriminate and not receive repercussions?

 

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Homosexuals do not get to demand "equality" in society, and then turn around and demand preferential treatment because they are gay (which, frankly, I think is what you are doing by scolding me for publicizing the SLC PD's preferential treatment of Officer Stayner).  

YES they do.  Homosexuals do get to demand "equality"  So do Mormons.  And that is the problem I have with your attitude.

 

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah, save it.  I have not done this.  

I respect homosexuals enough as a category of persons to hold them to the same standards as other categories.  I refuse to place them in sort of of privileged space where they are immune from criticism.

Excuse me???  When did I say they should be some special category that they are immune to criticism.  I thought I made it very clear that BOTH situations should be condemned.

 

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think Mr. Moutsos exhibited bigotry.  At all.  Officer Stayner did.

When one refused to do your job because it is a gay parade, you are exhibiting bigotry.  

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

At the end of the day, Officer Stayner has received privileged treatment for his publicly-expressed hostilities against Mormons, while (former) Officer Moutsos initially declined, and then later agreed, to participate in a Gay Pride parade, but his career was destroyed anyway.

And I condemned that behavior didn't I.

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Officer Stayner removed the FB post, yes.  Has he apologized?  Retracted his statement?  Sought to make amends toward or conciliation with the LDS Church and its members?  AFAIK, the answers are no, no and no.  And his career is moving ahead just fine, thank you.  With no repercussions whatsoever for publicly expressing hatred toward a large segment of the population he is sworn to protect and serve (and who help pay his salary).  Yeah, he's just a pea

Both officers regretted their actions and tried the best they could to rectify the situation.  

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, (former) Officer Moutsos has repeatedly publicly expressed respect and love for LGBT folks.  

Right.  The Mormon gets his career destroyed, and "the public should move on."  The gay guy gets privileged treatment because he is gay and because the targets of his publicly-expressed hatred are Mormon, with no adverse impact on his career whatsoever (a promotion is still in the works), and he has, AFAIK, never apologized or retracted his statement against the people he is sword to protect and serve, and "the public should move on."

Once again.  I condemned both officers and stated that in BOTH situations the public should move on.    There is no indication that either officer's career was adversely impacted.  

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Think about this situation if the roles were reversed.  If Officer Moutsos had publicly expressed hatred toward homosexuals, and as a result he receives zero adverse consequences, his promotion is allowed to go forward, and he continues to work as a "counselor" for other officers, including gay/lesbian officers.  If that happened, there would be screaming to beat the band.  Protests.  Perhaps even riots.  The police chief overseeing this travesty would lose his job.  Backpedaling would be the order of the day.

Now consider Officer Stayner essentially being fired because he declined (but later agreed) to participate in a pro-Mormon rally in which he is essentially compelled to engage in speech which is A) favorable to Mormons and their Church, and B) with which he privately disagrees.  Again, there would be screaming all over the place.  Officer Stayner would be held up and lionized as both a hero and victim of oppression.  There would be protests, perhaps even riots.  The police chief overseeing this travesty would lose his job.  Backpedaling would be the order of the day.

But none of this is happening.  Because the roles aren't reversed.  

Once again, you are pitting the two situations against each other.  And that is exactly what I feel is wrong.  Both situations should be condemned.  

 

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Would you, if the circumstances were reversed as described above, be telling us all to "move on?"  Just accept the status quo?  

Suck it up, LGBT folks!  Know your place! Respect my authoritah!  Injustice against you and yours doesn't matter.  Just "move on."

Yeah, no.  I don't think you'd be saying that.  At all.

So it makes me curious why you are saying that to us Mormons now.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

People should be accountable for their actions.  But people make mistakes, and when they try to correct those mistakes, we should applaud them for their desire to correct those mistakes.  Yes, I do move on when someone tries to correct their actions.  

Honestly I really don't have the heart to go on and on about this.  I am unwilling to defend either officer. You have selected two instances of bad behavior and are trying to say that one gets a pass and the other doesn't.  Gays get fired on a regular basis simply because they are gay.  Should I start putting up threads every time this happens to show bad behavior against gays??  Because I am more than happy to start posting this instances every time they come up.  If you want to pit one officer's actions and consequences against the other, then feel free.  I refuse to do so.  Perhaps you can join me and condemn discrimination and bigotry wherever it exists regardless of who it is directed at.

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

You completely missed my point and the reason I made the statement that I did.  When you compare one officer being disciplined against the other and feel we should decide which incident was more just or unjust, then you are pitting one person's actions against the others when BOTH of them should be condemned.  They both exhibited behavior that should be unacceptable in the police force that is sworn to protect the ENTIRE community.  Not just Mormons, not just gays, not just blacks, not just Jews.  Who you are should not be the basis of whether you show up for work or whether you post hatred on your Facebook page.  Do you understand this concept???

Kindly acquaint yourself with the facts before you comment on the Moutsos affair.

He DID NOT refuse "to show up for work." He arranged to trade shifts with another officer and asked the police chief to OK the arrangement. He DID NOT refuse to protect the community. Under the arrangement proposed, he would have provided traffic enforcement and public safety for the parade while the other officer took his place in doing the showy motorcycle choreography at the head of the parade.

Do you have me "on ignore" or something? I get the impression you are not reading my posts.
 

Quote

 

And once again both situations should be condemned. They were both wrong.   I refuse to support the actions of EITHER officer.

Yes it is.  Both situations are wrong.

 

See above.

Quote

When one refused to do your job because it is a gay parade, you are exhibiting bigotry.  

See above. Moutsos did not refuse to do his job. He requested to trade shifts with another officer. After the police chief went ballistic, Moutsos relented and said he would do the motorcycle show in the parade. But by then, Chief Burbank, playing the martinet, was determined to make a public example of Moutsos to the point of humiliating him with a false news release that he directed be publicized.

Quote

Both officers regretted their actions and tried the best they could to rectify the situation.  

Excuse me? Moutsos did not regret his action. He offered to defuse the situation by relenting and doing the motorcycle show after all, but by then, Burbank would have none of it. He wanted Moutsos's head on a platter, as it were, and he would accept nothing less.

Quote

Once again.  I condemned both officers and stated that in BOTH situations the public should move on.    There is no indication that either officer's career was adversely impacted.

Excuse me? Moutsos's career with SLPD was destroyed when he was pressured to resign. And his reputation was damaged by the false news release the department initially put out.

Again, please acquaint yourself with the facts.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ERMD]

22 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

 

Additionally, my 24-year old step-daughter, born and raised LDS, was just excommunicated on Sunday by her local bishopric after being repeatedly called and (in our opinion, harassed, due to his ignoring her repeated requests to be left alone--to stop calling, texting, and attempting to communicate with her) in to going in to see the bishop, despite her having moved to a new state, and despite never having met anyone in the local ward's boundaries and having not set foot in an LDS chapel in over 8 years.  She wasn't active... she wasn't vocal or participating in any anti-LDS activities... she was simply actively involved in a same-sex relationship with her fiancé.

And upon still trying to process all of this, I read--of all things--a thread claiming that gays (who have NO national protections in employment, and who, if they are inactive Latter-day Saints, are being systematically ostracized and excommunicated by the leadership of the LDS church) are over-privileged in this country, while Latter-day Saints are being oppressed in their employment.  In a nation where there are still no national legal protections from being fired simply for being gay.

 

Heterosexual couples, active or not, who are cohabiting outside of the bonds of marriage, as defined by the Lord, are subject to Church discipline as well.  She made a choice.  She is not a victim.

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Heterosexual couples, active or not, who are cohabiting outside of the bonds of marriage, as defined by the Lord, are subject to Church discipline as well.  She made a choice.  She is not a victim.

I've been in a lot of leadership positions, and I've never heard of any less-active member being contacted and excommunicated for cohabiting outside marriage. Yes, she obviously is living in a way that the church considers worthy of excommunication, but it seems awfully weird to actively seek out a less-active member for excommunication. 

[Daniel2]

25 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Heterosexual couples, active or not, who are cohabiting outside of the bonds of marriage, as defined by the Lord, are subject to Church discipline as well.  She made a choice.  She is not a victim.

As I recently said to another poster via PM...

As someone who's long been involved in the church, I know from personal experience that the LDS Church doesn't, as a matter of practice, search out/track down and excommunicate heterosexual individuals that have been inactive for years and have moved many times and across multiple states... Usually, the church leaves them alone unless they re-initiate contact (either positive or negative) with the church in some fashion.

While the church's policy itself isn't surprising, it WAS a surprise that the church leadership proactively sought out our looooong-gone-inactive daughter, who'd moved across several states, changed addresses multiple times, and hadn't had anything to do with the church for 6+ years and called her in (and refused to simply stop texting, calling, and stopping by her house) siimply to hold a church court to excommunicate her.  And unfortunately, she's one of a handful of long-gone-inactive friends we know who have received the same 'purge'-type treatment. 

It angered our daughter, who had previously had a "live and let live" attitude towards the church....  That is, she had no antagonistic feelings towards the church and was really very indifferent to the church in general... Even the policies, she didn't really care about, because she'd moved beyond it.  To have the church proactively seek her out and re-initiate contact only to, in her words, harass her and try to make her feel "less than"... well, it simply didn't sit well with her. 

And, as you've noted, the timing of the bishopric's actions----the day after a mass slaughter of gays and lesbians... it just felt wrong.  It definitely changed her perception of the church----and not for the better.

I understand you may feel (along with many other active members of the church) that such a "sifting of the wheat and the tares" may be a positive (or at least a preferable or necessary) thing.  For us, the actions of tracking down people of either long-standing indifference or (up-till-last-weekend) amicability, like our daughter and the handful of our other friends who've endured the same, and then harassing them by disrespecting their repeated requests to simply be left alone, and ultimately end up asking them to come meet with your leadership who end up verbally rebuking them, denigrating their relationships in the name of God, and end up excommunicating them from your church carry little redeeming value (pun intended...  ).

I don't know if that really helps our dialogue or not, given the divergence of our respective positions.  But I figured your comment was worth responding to.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Daniel2

[ERMD]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've been in a lot of leadership positions, and I've never heard of any less-active member being contacted and excommunicated for cohabiting outside marriage. Yes, she obviously is living in a way that the church considers worthy of excommunication, but it seems awfully weird to actively seek out a less-active member for excommunication. 

First, Church discipline is not equivalent to excommunication.

Second, just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Third, if you understood covenants and repentance, it would make sense.

[ERMD]

12 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

As I recently said to another poster via PM...

As someone who's long been involved in the church, I know from personal experience that the LDS Church doesn't, as a matter of practice, search out/track down and excommunicate heterosexual individuals that have been inactive for years and have moved many times and across multiple states... Usually, the church leaves them alone unless they re-initiate contact (either positive or negative) with the church in some fashion.

While the church's policy itself isn't surprising, it WAS a surprise that the church leadership proactively sought out our looooong-gone-inactive daughter, who'd moved across several states, changed addresses multiple times, and hadn't had anything to do with the church for 6+ years and called her in (and refused to simply stop texting, calling, and stopping by her house) siimply to hold a church court to excommunicate her.  And unfortunately, she's one of a handful of long-gone-inactive friends we know who have received the same 'purge'-type treatment. 

It angered our daughter, who had previously had a "live and let live" attitude towards the church....  That is, she had no antagonistic feelings towards the church and was really very indifferent to the church in general... Even the policies, she didn't really care about, because she'd moved beyond it.  To have the church proactively seek her out and re-initiate contact only to, in her words, harass her and try to make her feel "less than"... well, it simply didn't sit well with her. 

And, as you've noted, the timing of the bishopric's actions----the day after a mass slaughter of gays and lesbians... it just felt wrong.  It definitely changed her perception of the church----and not for the better.

I understand you may feel (along with many other active members of the church) that such a "sifting of the wheat and the tares" may be a positive (or at least a preferable or necessary) thing.  For us, the actions of tracking down people of either long-standing indifference or (up-till-last-weekend) amicability, like our daughter and the handful of our other friends who've endured the same, and then harassing them by disrespecting their repeated requests to simply be left alone, and ultimately end up asking them to come meet with your leadership who end up verbally rebuking them, denigrating their relationships in the name of God, and end up excommunicating them from your church carry little redeeming value (pun intended...  ).

I don't know if that really helps our dialogue or not, given the divergence of our respective positions.  But I figured your comment was worth responding to.

See above.

If you look at is a purge or a separating wheat from tares thing, then you are definitely missing the big picture.

[Daniel2]

4 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Third, if you understood covenants and repentance, it would make sense.

This has been brought up a couple times... that somehow, excommunication "makes it better" for the exercised member by holding them under a less severe status, or something along those lines.

I admit that I'm unfamiliar with any LDS scripture that outlines the practice of excommunication as a preferable status, or even the practice thereof.  Is there something in the D&C about excommunication and church counsels/courts....?