“Religious freedom is indeed under attack,” Elder Christofferson

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

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??

What you seem steadfastly determined to ignore -- if you ever learned it in the first place -- is that religious liberty is itself a civil right, one that is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I know of no Bill of Rights provision that holds sacrosanct the right of individuals to engage in homosexual behavior and call it marriage -- or that requires others to honor that choice. It may be the law of the land now, but it's not part of the Constitution.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.

No law of the land as of yet grants absolute pre-eminence of gay rights over other rights, such as religious liberty. I understand you are predicting that one day will be the case, but it hasn't happened yet.

As I understand it, the much hailed "Utah compromise" has set a standard in finding a balance between anti-discrimination laws and guarantees of personal freedom.

[california boy]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What you seem steadfastly determined to ignore -- if you ever learned it in the first place -- is that religious liberty is itself a civil right, one that is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I know of no Bill of Rights provision that holds sacrosanct the right of individuals to engage in homosexual behavior and call it marriage -- or that requires others to honor that choice. It may be the law of the land now, but it's not part of the Constitution.

Of course it is a civil right.  But civil rights does not give anyone the ability to pick and choose what laws they choose to follow and what laws the want to disobey.  Do you really believe otherwise?

Oh please.  Read the Supreme Court ruling.  It is pretty clear what the civil rights of gay couples to marry is based upon.  An opinion shared by every single federal and district court in this country.  Few laws have such a broad consensus as the laws that this decision was based upon.  The number of Supreme Court decisions where this kind of consensus happens is not that common.

You may have a different legal opinion, but last time I checked, you are not a Supreme Court justice.   You are not even a federal judge.   Your own personal interpretation of how you want to twist the constitution is irrelevant to law in this country.  You are welcome to continue to have that belief, but it is not the law.

Edited July 12, 2016 by california boy

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No law of the land as of yet grants absolute pre-eminence of gay rights over other rights, such as religious liberty. I understand you are predicting that one day will be the case, but it hasn't happened yet.

As I understand it, the much hailed "Utah compromise" has set a standard in finding a balance between anti-discrimination laws and guarantees of personal freedom.

I totally agree with that statement.  And I have never said that gay rights takes absolutely pre=eminence over other laws.  Show me where it has anywhere in this country.  What I have said is that religious beliefs does not give someone the ability to pick and choose what laws they will obey.

The Utah compromise is a start in the right direction.  But there are other issues that were put aside for the time being.  Mark my word Scott, within the next 5 years, even in Utah, government employees and businesses open to the public will NOT be able to discriminate against gay couples or ANYONE else.  You thought that gay marriage would not happen in Utah at least as fast as it did.  Evidently you will be surprised again if you think discrimination against gays or anyone else will be allowed in the public square.   Want to start a clock??

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

I totally agree with that statement.  And I have never said that gay rights takes absolutely pre=eminence over other laws.  Show me where it has anywhere in this country.  What I have said is that religious beliefs does not give someone the ability to pick and choose what laws they will obey.

The Utah compromise is a start in the right direction.  But there are other issues that were put aside for the time being.  Mark my word Scott, within the next 5 years, even in Utah, government employees and businesses open to the public will NOT be able to discriminate against gay couples or ANYONE else.  You thought that gay marriage would not happen in Utah at least as fast as it did.  Evidently you will be surprised again if you think discrimination against gays or anyone else will be allowed in the public square.   Want to start a clock??

I never said anyone has a right to "pick and choose what laws they obey," though I assert they absolutely have the right to oppose and even seek the repeal of laws with which they disagree.

I'm not making any predictions, as I quite a while ago lost confidence in the wisdom of the federal judiciary of this country. (Certain of its recent decisions may even be symptomatic of the prophesied spread of evil in the last days.)

But my sense of right and wrong, justice and fairness remains what it is.

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never said anyone has a right to "pick and choose what laws they obey," though I assert they absolutely have the right to oppose and even seek the repeal of laws with which they disagree.

I'm not making any predictions, as I quite a while ago lost confidence in the wisdom of the federal judiciary of this country. (Certain of its recent decisions may even be symptomatic of the prophesied spread of evil in the last days.)

But my sense of right and wrong, justice and fairness remains what it is.

Then we are in agreement.  I assume you agree that the Colorado baker, Washington baker or the New Mexico photographer, wedding venues, and all the other businesses open to the public had no right to break the civil rights laws of those states by refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple.  That is all I am saying.

[USU78]

18 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.

So  ...  the people have no redress ever against foolish judicial adventurism. When the judicial socialist tinkerers speak, the thinking has been done and can never be redone  ...  especially when it is to the alleged benefit of the 1.5%.

[thesometimesaint]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What you seem steadfastly determined to ignore -- if you ever learned it in the first place -- is that religious liberty is itself a civil right, one that is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I know of no Bill of Rights provision that holds sacrosanct the right of individuals to engage in homosexual behavior and call it marriage -- or that requires others to honor that choice. It may be the law of the land now, but it's not part of the Constitution.

I know of no Bill of Rights provisions that mention marriage at all.

Edited July 12, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

So  ...  the people have no redress ever against foolish judicial adventurism. When the judicial socialist tinkerers speak, the thinking has been done and can never be redone  ...  especially when it is to the alleged benefit of the 1.5%.

Please don't go there

[california boy]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

So  ...  the people have no redress ever against foolish judicial adventurism. When the judicial socialist tinkerers speak, the thinking has been done and can never be redone  ...  especially when it is to the alleged benefit of the 1.5%.

Civil rights are guarenteed by the 14th amendment of the constitution.  Read the legal rulings.  There are a lot of rulings on this issue for you to read since every single Federal and district court that heard this caee ruled in favor of the civil rights of gays..  In order to call this foolish judicial adventurism, you have to be calling every single federal and district court in the country as being foolish judicial adventurism.  Remember, this is not just Supreme Court justices that recognize the rights guarenteed in the constitution.

Of course you have recourse if you disagree with those rights.  You can ammend the constitution, something some have considered doing.  It all comes down to how much you want to deny civil rights to gay couples.

Edited July 12, 2016 by california boy

[USU78]

59 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Please don't go there

And why not??

[USU78]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

Of course you have recourse if you disagree with those rights.  You can amend the Constitution

Uh  ...  Californian's did.

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And why not??

Bush v Gore for one.

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Uh  ...  Californian's did.

Yes thanks to the Mormon Church.  Fortunately civil rights are also guaranteed under the Federal constitution which is exactly were the gay couples that were denied their civil rights by the state of California's new amendment appealed their case to.  The federal ruling applies to all 50 states.  That federal constitution can also be amended if you can get enough people willing to discriminate against gays.  So how much do you want to deny gay American's their civil rights?  Perhaps the Mormon church will ask all of it's members to give of their time and resources to pass a new federal amendment, once again taking away the civil rights of all Americans that are gay.  

I think this time around, it is going to be a bit more difficult to spin the kind of lies that were used in the Prop 8 campaign.  You can't scare people as much this time around.  We have had 8 years to examine the FACTS and toss out all the scare tactics.  

Edited July 12, 2016 by california boy

[kllindley]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

Civil rights are guarenteed by the 14th amendment of the constitution.  Read the legal rulings.  There are a lot of rulings on this issue for you to read since every single Federal and district court that heard this caee ruled in favor of the civil rights of gays..  In order to call this foolish judicial adventurism, you have to be calling every single federal and district court in the country as being foolish judicial adventurism.  Remember, this is not just Supreme Court justices that recognize the rights guarenteed in the constitution.

Of course you have recourse if you disagree with those rights.  You can ammend the constitution, something some have considered doing.  It all comes down to how much you want to deny civil rights to gay couples.

You keep saying "Read the legal rulings."  Do you know what dissenting opinions are?  They are part of the ruling.  I acknowledged that a majority ruling meant that SSM is now considered a civil right (and was following In re: Marriage Cases).  Can you acknowledge that, at least in California and SCOTUS, a significant majority of Justices disagreed?  

We keep using the term "Civil Right."  Maybe we are speaking past each other. What does a Civil Right mean to you?  

Edited July 12, 2016 by kllindley
correct typo - "significant minority"

[thesometimesaint]

SEE 14th Amendment

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[kllindley]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes thanks to the Mormon Church.

Another CFR. 

PS.  The other two were to your claims that the Church has fought against SSM in the US post-Oberfell

[Anijen]

10 hours 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. 

Not only are you correct in your interpretation of Madison's quote, in that very same speech he [Madison] adds;  "...nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed." (See debate in the House June 8, 1789, p.440-468) Emphasis mine.

[USU78]

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

Evil Mormon Church. Participating in public debate. Refusing to be ruled by the Herdentiermoral [this is 78, not cb]

Edited July 12, 2016 by USU78

[USU78]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Bush v Gore for one.

Sore loser?

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Not only are you correct in your interpretation of Madison's quote, in that very same speech he [Madison] adds;  "...nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed." (See debate in the House June 8, 1789, p.440-468) Emphasis mine.

And if your conscience compels you to break the law?

[Anijen]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

... and all the other businesses open to the public had no right to break the civil rights laws of those states by refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple.  That is all I am saying.

Actually sometimes breaking the law is the only way to give standing to a person so that it can come before the court system. This is especially so when the statute in question is a bad law. I disagree with you wholeheartedly. It is my opinion that SSM is an abomination and should be fought just as hard as the LGBTQ fight for their rights.

I do not agree with laws favoring the forcing of people to go against their consciences, e.g. bakers/photographers being fined for choosing not to bake a cake or take a photo.

The U.S. is becoming a nanny state, now making laws applying to our thoughts and beliefs. There is a difference in enforcing laws that are violated and enforcing laws that try to compel us how to think and what the government wants us to believe to be acceptable. If we choose differently then we are regarded as haters, bigots, etc and then fined if we act upon those beliefs.

Being fined is being compelled. Being fined $120K  in my opinion in some circumstances is worse than being incarcerated.

[Anijen]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

And if your conscience compels you to break the law?

Then you break the law. 

Examples.

1. SSM couples get married before it was legal. To them it was a bad law so they broke it. In doing so some were charged (IOW gave them standing to sue). I am advocating the same disobedience shown by proponents of SSM for those against SSM to disobey the laws because of their religious beliefs. Irony that it is good for the SSM believing person, but it is wrong for a religious person. Can you say double standard?

2. Fugitive Slave Act, this act required runaway slaves to be returned to their "owners." This took a very bloody civil war and the enactment of the 13th Amendment to bring an end to this.

Just because there is a law (a bad law) we do not have to always obey and in fact incumbent upon some to disobey those laws to get those laws changed.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

And if your conscience compels you to break the law?

Perhaps the law ought to be scrutinized and repealed or altered.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Then you break the law. 

Examples.

1. SSM couples get married before it was legal. To them it was a bad law so they broke it. In doing so some were charged (IOW gave them standing to sue). I am advocating the same disobedience shown by proponents of SSM for those against SSM to disobey the laws because of their religious beliefs. Irony that it is good for the SSM believing person, but it is wrong for a religious person. Can you say double standard?

2. Fugitive Slave Act, this act required runaway slaves to be returned to their "owners." This took a very bloody civil war and the enactment of the 13th Amendment to bring an end to this.

Just because there is a law (a bad law) we do not have to always obey and in fact incumbent upon some to disobey those laws to get those laws changed.

Okay. But is it reasonable for such people to face legal consequences for religiously motivated law breaking? For example, some couples refuse to provide medical treatment for their children, based on religious beliefs. Should they be protected from legal consequences if it results in the death of their child?