“Religious freedom is indeed under attack,” Elder Christofferson

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is fine as a religious belief, but unsupportable as a law of the state.

Laws of the state don't determine whether or not something is right, or wrong, though.  Just whether or not something is legal.

There are many things that are not right but are legal.

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

...we fight for liberty and freedom to live our lives according to the dictates of our conscious.  

I think you mean conscience, rather than conscious, but yeah I can see that you do that, and I am willing to fight your right to do that while at the same time fighting to live my life according to the dictates of my conscience and what God tells me is right. 

You seem to be willing to live with that, or die for that, and I am too.

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, Ahab said:

Laws of the state don't determine whether or not something is right, or wrong, though.  Just whether or not something is legal.

There are many things that are not right but are legal.

Actually they do. Articles of Faith #12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Never said otherwise.IE: The LDS believe that drinking alcohol is not right. But we don't have the legal authority to enforce that belief on others not of our faith.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Actually they do. Articles of Faith #12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Never said otherwise.IE: The LDS believe that drinking alcohol is not right. But we don't have the legal authority to enforce that belief on others not of our faith.

The Twelfth Article of Faith does not say that a law is right just because it's a law. It only says the law is to be obeyed so long as it's a law. I am perfectly free under the Twelfth Article of Faith to oppose a law and even try to get it repealed, even as I obey it. 

Ergo, Ahab is right: Laws of the state do not determine what is right or wrong, not in the broad moral or ethical sense. 

[Gray]

On 7/8/2016 at 4:51 PM, kllindley said:

Therefore you know better than LGBT Mormons what we think/want/need than we do, based on the stories you've heard from LGBT ex-mormons.  That's quite a privilege.

Not sure how that follows from what I said. 

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Twelfth Article of Faith does not say that a law is right just because it's a law. It only says the law is to be obeyed so long as it's a law. I am perfectly free under the Twelfth Article of Faith to oppose a law and even try to get it repealed, even as I obey it. 

Ergo, Ahab is right: Laws of the state do not determine what is right or wrong, not in the broad moral or ethical sense. 

Is there something about the word honoring you don't understand? Never said agree with, or that we can't/shouldn't work to change laws that we  don't agree with.

But we believe obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

 

Edited July 11, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Ahab]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Twelfth Article of Faith does not say that a law is right just because it's a law. It only says the law is to be obeyed so long as it's a law. I am perfectly free under the Twelfth Article of Faith to oppose a law and even try to get it repealed, even as I obey it. 

Ergo, Ahab is right: Laws of the state do not determine what is right or wrong, not in the broad moral or ethical sense. 

Right, except that the 12th AoF doesn't say anything about obeying laws of the land, just that we believe we are subject to them.

Like, when in Rome, we believe we are subject to the laws of Rome.

There are a lot of laws of men that I do not obey, though, and I usually feel it is right to not obey the laws that I do not obey, but I still believe I am subject to the legal authorities when I do not obey them.

I often think about how Joseph Smith was subject to many laws that were not right and how he still cooperated with the legal authorities that were there to enforce them when he broke them.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Is there something about the word honoring you don't understand? Never said agree with, or that we can't/shouldn't work to change laws that we  don't agree with.

But we believe obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

 

I understand that to mean the principle of law.  Like how I believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the idea that societies need laws to govern those societies. 

Not that I believe the laws of men are always worthy of honor or of being obeyed or sustained.

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I understand that to mean the principle of law.  Like how I believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the idea that societies need laws to govern those societies. 

Not that I believe the laws of men are always worthy of honor or of being obeyed or sustained.

ALL laws of men are always worthy of honor or of being obeyed or sustained until we change them.

[kllindley]

On 7/8/2016 at 6:17 PM, california boy said:

You are absolutely completely WRONG.  The Supreme Court of California ruled against Prop 22 in 2008 and stated in that ruling that gay couples have the civil right to marry in the state of California.  Prior to Prop 9, it was legal for gay couples to marry based on the rights established in the California Constitution.  So YES the church did in fact campaign against the civil rights of gay couples to marry.  

Where did I say it was unethical to pass laws informed by religious belief???  I only said that the church mounted a campaign to take away the civil rights of Americans.  And that is what is immoral.  To deny someone's constitutional rights because of religious belief, as every single federal and district court in this country including the Supreme Court of California before Prop 9 and the United States Supreme Court after prop 9 is immoral.  Shame on the church.  And shame on the church for continuing this behavior in Mexico and now Australia.  

Taking away the civil right to marry for gay couples in California was forcing them to follow the Mormon churches religious belief.  That is far different than laws such as murder, rape, theft etc that while they share religious ideas, they also share Greek, Roman and virtually every other civilized laws in the world.  We don't pass those type of moral laws because they are Christian values.  We pass them because they are universal moral values that even people who hold no religious belief generally follow.  Do you see the difference here?  Gay marriage is hardly a universally accepted moral belief.  In FACT as you know, the majority of Americans believe and support gay marriage.  Generally those that oppose it, do it on the basis of religious belief.

CB, 

I don't know whether this is just ignorance or intentional misrepresentation.  I think you are an intelligent person, and I also want to believe that you have integrity.  So I am confused.  Making something legal does not make something a civil right.  And a state supreme court ruling in California does not make something a civil right.  That takes a US Supreme Court ruling.  Which, guess what, you got it..  And the Church conceded right then and there.  I've already called for a CFR that the church has continued to fight SSM in the US following Oberfell.  

And if there is currently ongoing national discussion in Mexico and Australia about whether those countries are going to define SSM as a civil right, then the Church and it's members have every right and responsibility to participate in that decision making process.  Just because you claim something is already a civil right does not make it so. The LDS Church is not the only church opposed to legally promoting SSM.  

Also just because you claim that our laws are not based on Judeo-Christian values does not make it so.  History and anthropology do not support this claim. It doesn't take that much study to realize that most cultures around the world do not or have not subscribed to the same values.  I think you meant to say that "Opposition to gay marriage is hardly a universally accepted moral belief."  Which is true.  So is what you actually wrote.  While the majority of Americans do (now) support gay marriage, the same is not true on a global scale.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, kllindley said:

CB, 

I don't know whether this is just ignorance or intentional misrepresentation.  I think you are an intelligent person, and I also want to believe that you have integrity.  So I am confused.  Making something legal does not make something a civil right.  And a state supreme court ruling in California does not make something a civil right.  That takes a US Supreme Court ruling.  Which, guess what, you got it..  And the Church conceded right then and there.  I've already called for a CFR that the church has continued to fight SSM in the US following Oberfell.  

And if there is currently ongoing national discussion in Mexico and Australia about whether those countries are going to define SSM as a civil right, then the Church and it's members have every right and responsibility to participate in that decision making process.  Just because you claim something is already a civil right does not make it so. The LDS Church is not the only church opposed to legally promoting SSM.  

Also just because you claim that our laws are not based on Judeo-Christian values does not make it so.  History and anthropology do not support this claim. It doesn't take that much study to realize that most cultures around the world do not or have not subscribed to the same values.  I think you meant to say that "Opposition to gay marriage is hardly a universally accepted moral belief."  Which is true.  So is what you actually wrote.  While the majority of Americans do (now) support gay marriage, the same is not true on a global scale.

One thing that has come of this whole thing since California (and before) is taking our issues to the market place of ideas and letting the process run it's course is helpful.  It was very common in our country to see the majority of people oppose SSM.  But since the tables have flipped.  the people are the same but the market place of ideas presented to people a reasonable basis to change their views. The process will be repeated elsewhere, like it was in areas before the US. 

[kllindley]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

One thing that has come of this whole thing since California (and before) is taking our issues to the market place of ideas and letting the process run it's course is helpful.  It was very common in our country to see the majority of people oppose SSM.  But since the tables have flipped.  the people are the same but the market place of ideas presented to people a reasonable basis to change their views. The process will be repeated elsewhere, like it was in areas before the US. 

Which I think is fantastic.  I hope that this process results in increased kindness and acceptance for everyone the world over.  There are some who are trying to use the momentum to lash back at religious individuals, which is why I think the Church has been wise to shift the conversation to preserving religious freedom.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

CB, 

I don't know whether this is just ignorance or intentional misrepresentation.  I think you are an intelligent person, and I also want to believe that you have integrity.  So I am confused.  Making something legal does not make something a civil right.  And a state supreme court ruling in California does not make something a civil right.  That takes a US Supreme Court ruling.  Which, guess what, you got it..  And the Church conceded right then and there.  I've already called for a CFR that the church has continued to fight SSM in the US following Oberfell.  

And if there is currently ongoing national discussion in Mexico and Australia about whether those countries are going to define SSM as a civil right, then the Church and it's members have every right and responsibility to participate in that decision making process.  Just because you claim something is already a civil right does not make it so. The LDS Church is not the only church opposed to legally promoting SSM.  

Also just because you claim that our laws are not based on Judeo-Christian values does not make it so.  History and anthropology do not support this claim. It doesn't take that much study to realize that most cultures around the world do not or have not subscribed to the same values.  I think you meant to say that "Opposition to gay marriage is hardly a universally accepted moral belief."  Which is true.  So is what you actually wrote.  While the majority of Americans do (now) support gay marriage, the same is not true on a global scale.

You obviously didn't bother to read the ruling from the California Supreme Court on Prop 22.  In that ruling they SPECIFICALLY rule that gay marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT in the state of California under the constitution of California.  I am not the one claiming that gay Californian's had the civil right to marry before Prop 9, the Supreme Court of California ruled that it was a civil right for gays to marry.  Prop 9 TOOK AWAY that civil right from gay couples by amending the constitution of the state of California.  Do you understand NOW??  Do you understand that the church specifically went after the civil rights of gay couples in California affirmed by the California Supreme Court???  Yeah, not pretty is it.  But that is what happened.

The Supreme Court of the United States based their ruling on the civil rights guarenteed all citizens in the United States by the US constitution.  That over ruled the change to the California constitution that prop 9 created.  And in the process it affirmed the civil rights of ALL gays in the United States.

Just like in the United States, there have already been supreme court rulings in states in Mexico on this issue.  Gay marriage is already legal in some of the states of Mexico because those state supreme courts also affirmed that Mexicans like Americans have the civil right of equal protection under their state constitutions where it has been ruled upon.  And just like in America, if the vote goes against gay marriage, it will be challenged in the Mexican Supreme Court.  Wanta place bets on how they will rule??

I am sure the church read the ruling by the Supreme Court of California.  They knew that the Constitution of California guarenteed everyone civil rights including gay couples to marry.  There is absolutely no excuse or pretending that the church did not know they were working to take away those civil rights in the state of California.  It is shameful that any church would do that.  And since this is a Mormon discussion board, I am being very specific at what the church did.  So perhaps before you make another post claiming that the church did not take away a civil right of gay Californian's, you might want to read the ruling that this is all based on.  The ruling is against Prop 22, the Mormons first attempt to outlaw gay marriage.

I am not going to argue that our laws are not based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.  Many of them are.  What I said was that many of our laws are not unique to Judeo-Christian beliefs.  If that were true, we would be stoning sinners on a regular basis.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Which I think is fantastic.  I hope that this process results in increased kindness and acceptance for everyone the world over.  There are some who are trying to use the momentum to lash back at religious individuals, which is why I think the Church has been wise to shift the conversation to preserving religious freedom.  

Ah yes.  Religous freedom, the next attempt to discriminate against gays in the public marketplace.  Where places of business open to the public can decide which laws they want to obey and which laws they want to ignore based on their own closely held religious beliefs.  As if the Supreme Court of the United States is going to let religion decide whether it should have to follow the civil rights laws that have been in place for the past 50 years.  

Some states such as North Carolina may very well be successful in passing such discriminating laws.  Is all that is going to do is have the Supreme Court rule it unconstitutional across the United States all at once.  Does anyone really think the Supreme Court of the United States will allow religion to decide which discrimination laws it has to follow??  And if the church goes down that rabbit hole, it will only further harm the church and reinforce once again how anti gay the church is.   Given some of the statements by Elder Oaks, I think they know where this is headed.  In the next couple of years, it will not only be illegal for people to discriminate against gays in the work place and housing, but also in all businesses open to the public in the state of Utah.  

Maybe Scott will start his clock on this issue if anyone doubts that.

[Calm]

I don't see a requirement limiting civil rights to SC rulings or federal civil rights (I am assuming this is what you mean...constitutional rights as defined by the SC) here, though obviously federal civil rights are seen as the most important:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights

kllindley, would you please provide a reference supporting your claim.

This link refers to both state and federal civil rights.  Perhaps you just mean all state civil rights have to be first approved at the federal level as constitutuonal before they can legally be labeled civil rights.  If so, please document this claim.

https://oag.ca.gov/civil

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Ah yes.  Religous freedom, the next attempt to discriminate against gays in the public marketplace.  Where places of business open to the public can decide which laws they want to obey and which laws they want to ignore based on their own closely held religious beliefs.  As if the Supreme Court of the United States is going to let religion decide whether it should have to follow the civil rights laws that have been in place for the past 50 years.  

Some states such as North Carolina may very well be successful in passing such discriminating laws.  Is all that is going to do is have the Supreme Court rule it unconstitutional across the United States all at once.  Does anyone really think the Supreme Court of the United States will allow religion to decide which discrimination laws it has to follow??  And if the church goes down that rabbit hole, it will only further harm the church and reinforce once again how anti gay the church is.   Given some of the statements by Elder Oaks, I think they know where this is headed.  In the next couple of years, it will not only be illegal for people to discriminate against gays in the work place and housing, but also in all businesses open to the public in the state of Utah.  

Maybe Scott will start his clock on this issue if anyone doubts that.

Sure.  I think it's sad to see the push for religious freedom being defined as the right for religion to discriminate.  Pretty lame.  BUt I'm glad he acknowledged the good that's come from the Prop 8 debacle.  more and more are convinced by sound reasoning--the prevailing outcome of a marketplace of ideas. 

[Anijen]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

ALL laws of men are always worthy of honor or of being obeyed or sustained until we change them.

Emphasis mine.

I disagree wholeheartedly, (yes I read; "until we change them").

Sometimes a law needs to be disobeyed, just so they can be changed (otherwise the courts wouldn't hear them).

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You obviously didn't bother to read the ruling from the California Supreme Court on Prop 22.  In that ruling they SPECIFICALLY rule that gay marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT in the state of California under the constitution of California.  I am not the one claiming that gay Californian's had the civil right to marry before Prop 9, the Supreme Court of California ruled that it was a civil right for gays to marry.  Prop 9 TOOK AWAY that civil right from gay couples by amending the constitution of the state of California.  Do you understand NOW??  Do you understand that the church specifically went after the civil rights of gay couples in California affirmed by the California Supreme Court???  Yeah, not pretty is it.  But that is what happened.

The Supreme Court of the United States based their ruling on the civil rights guarenteed all citizens in the United States by the US constitution.  That over ruled the change to the California constitution that prop 9 created.  And in the process it affirmed the civil rights of ALL gays in the United States.

Just like in the United States, there have already been supreme court rulings in states in Mexico on this issue.  Gay marriage is already legal in some of the states of Mexico because those state supreme courts also affirmed that Mexicans like Americans have the civil right of equal protection under their state constitutions where it has been ruled upon.  And just like in America, if the vote goes against gay marriage, it will be challenged in the Mexican Supreme Court.  Wanta place bets on how they will rule??

I am sure the church read the ruling by the Supreme Court of California.  They knew that the Constitution of California guarenteed everyone civil rights including gay couples to marry.  There is absolutely no excuse or pretending that the church did not know they were working to take away those civil rights in the state of California.  It is shameful that any church would do that.  And since this is a Mormon discussion board, I am being very specific at what the church did.  So perhaps before you make another post claiming that the church did not take away a civil right of gay Californian's, you might want to read the ruling that this is all based on.  The ruling is against Prop 22, the Mormons first attempt to outlaw gay marriage.

I am not going to argue that our laws are not based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.  Many of them are.  What I said was that many of our laws are not unique to Judeo-Christian beliefs.  If that were true, we would be stoning sinners on a regular basis.

Whatever.  I read the actual majority opinion and the dissenting opinions as well.  http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/S147999.pdf   As a 4-3 ruling proves, the existence of a civil right to marry anyone was significantly debated.  Especially when the existence of that right was based on the fact that California had already created a Domestic Partnership that conferred all of the same rights upon same-sex couples.  I do grant that from the In re MARRIAGE CASES ruling until passing Prop 8 as well as after the ruling against Prop 8, that same sex marriage was declared a civil right in California by a majority ruling.  

I disagree with the narrative that the Church supporting Prop 8 "TOOK AWAY that civil right from gay couples."  Amending a constitution doesn't take away or deny civil rights.  It defines them.  Maybe you really don't get the difference.  Or you've simply decided a priori that the Church was wrong and can't let that go. But  Whatever.  You still haven't responded to my 2 previous CFRs.

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Whatever.  I read the actual majority opinion and the dissenting opinions as well.  http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/S147999.pdf   As a 4-3 ruling proves, the existence of a civil right to marry anyone was significantly debated.  Especially when the existence of that right was based on the fact that California had already created a Domestic Partnership that conferred all of the same rights upon same-sex couples.  I do grant that from the In re MARRIAGE CASES ruling until passing Prop 8 as well as after the ruling against Prop 8, that same sex marriage was declared a civil right in California by a majority ruling.  

I disagree with the narrative that the Church supporting Prop 8 "TOOK AWAY that civil right from gay couples."  Amending a constitution doesn't take away or deny civil rights.  It defines them.  Maybe you really don't get the difference.  Or you've simply decided a priori that the Church was wrong and can't let that go. But  Whatever.  You still haven't responded to my 2 previous CFRs.

 

From the California Supreme Court ruling

Quote

We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.5 

How can you POSSIBLY say that Prop 8 did not take away that civil right to marry.  It is in black and white.  The constitution of California guaranteed that basic right to marry. Prop 8 TOOK THAT RIGHT AWAY.  And do you know what the Mormon church claimed in trying to get prop 8 to pass?  That this proposition did not take away any civil rights from gay couples.  Unbelievable.  What you and the church will do to justify the injustice of their actions is beyond me.

What CFR are you asking for.  I must have missed them.  I would be glad to answer any CFR you make.  Just tell me the post number.  

[california boy]

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” – James Madison

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Is there something about the word honoring you don't understand? Never said agree with, or that we can't/shouldn't work to change laws that we  don't agree with.

But we believe obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

 

To me, in this context, the word "honor" refers to the broad concept of law as the means of protecting citizens and ensuring an orderly society in which they can thrive. It in no way implies that I have to "honor" an individual law that I oppose and, in fact, want to see repealed. That very notion is absurd and wrongheaded. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Ah yes.  Religous freedom, the next attempt to discriminate against gays in the public marketplace.  Where places of business open to the public can decide which laws they want to obey and which laws they want to ignore based on their own closely held religious beliefs.  As if the Supreme Court of the United States is going to let religion decide whether it should have to follow the civil rights laws that have been in place for the past 50 years.  

Some states such as North Carolina may very well be successful in passing such discriminating laws.  Is all that is going to do is have the Supreme Court rule it unconstitutional across the United States all at once.  Does anyone really think the Supreme Court of the United States will allow religion to decide which discrimination laws it has to follow??  And if the church goes down that rabbit hole, it will only further harm the church and reinforce once again how anti gay the church is.   Given some of the statements by Elder Oaks, I think they know where this is headed.  In the next couple of years, it will not only be illegal for people to discriminate against gays in the work place and housing, but also in all businesses open to the public in the state of Utah.  

Maybe Scott will start his clock on this issue if anyone doubts that.

Hate to have to break it to you, but religious liberty is a concept as old as the Constitution itself. Much older, in fact. You are the Johnny-come-lately if you are advocating the abridging of it. 

Where did we go wrong that we seem to have produced a generation of Americans with no sense of history and no appreciation for or recognition of the Bill of Rights or First Amendment freedoms. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” – James Madison

 

Since you don't provide any commentary with this quote it's hard to tell what your point is. But to me it seems to argue against -- not for -- the position you are taking. Madison is saying here that a person's religios beliefs or worship may not be used as an occasion for depriving him of his civil rights. So, arguably, a shop owner or an employee must not be compelled to provide services or goods to which he objects on religious or moral grounds. 

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hate to have to break it to you, but religious liberty is a concept as old as the Constitution itself. Much older, in fact. You are the Johnny-come-lately if you are advocating the abridging of it. 

Where did we go wrong that we seem to have produced a generation of Americans with no sense of history and no appreciation for or recognition of the Bill of Rights or First Amendment freedoms. 

We went wrong when we began to think we could use religion to break the civil rights laws and start to use our beliefs to discriminate against others in places of business open to the public.  No religion continues to be the fastest growing religion in this country and those that believe are scratching their heads wondering where we went wrong.  Really??

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Since you don't provide any commentary with this quote it's hard to tell what your point is. But to me it seems to argue against -- not for -- the position you are taking. Madison is saying here that a person's religios beliefs or worship may not be used as an occasion for depriving him of his civil rights. So, arguably, a shop owner or an employee must not be compelled to provide services or goods to which he objects on religious or moral grounds. 

The civil rights of NONE mean no one, whether they are religious or not.  That means religious belief can not be uses as an excuse to take away the civil rights of of Americans just because they are gay.  Yet that is exactly what the church did.  The church should have never worked to take away the civil rights of anyone including gay couples any more than another group should work to take away the civil rights of Mormons.  

I stand by Madison and Joseph Smith in affirming that every American has the right to worship how where and who they may.  They are also required to obey the laws of the land.  Religious belief does not give anyone the right to pick and choose what laws they want to follow.  As long as they obey the laws of the land they are free to follow any belief they want.  Those that try to do so will eventually loose that battle.  They have no legal grounds to do so.  The laws of this land ultimately will prevent them from discriminating against anyone in government positions and in businesses open to the public.  To think otherwise is to completely ignore the laws that have been in place for over 50 years.