Bill Would Prevent LGBT Discrimination at Religious Schools

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

Why would christian people discriminate against gay people anyways? Would Jesus mock others? We may not be gay but that doesn't mean we need to make fun of others who are

Do you believe schools should be allowed to prohibit from attending those who insist on openly engaging in homosexual sexual behaviour because it is considered a sin in their doctrine or should they be forced to treat same sex and opposite sex relationships the same?  Not mocking, just having an honor code requiring such to attend?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

we've had SSM in Canada for ten years and they haven't made a whisper when it comes to our Church and since then the Church built 2 Temples with hopefully another one on the way, maybe things are different in the US.

What about schools?  Does the law require married student housing take both opposite sex and same sex couples?

[Duncan]

Just now, Calm said:

Do you believe schools should be allowed to prohibit from attending those who insist on openly engaging in homosexual sexual behaviour because it is considered a sin in their doctrine or should they be forced to treat same sex and opposite sex relationships the same?  Not mocking, just having an honor code requiring such to attend?

well, it's a mix now of religion and school-if it's a private school they can prohibit any behaviour (not people) they want but if it's a public school then no they shouldn't

[TheSkepticChristian]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe schools should be allowed to prohibit from attending those who insist on openly engaging in homosexual sexual behaviour 

I believe in religious freedom, I believe the government shouldn't force private religious schools to accept LGBT, but just as long as religions stay out of politics. If religions really want the government to stay out, they should follow their own advice first. 

 

Edited July 31, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Duncan]

Just now, Calm said:

What about schools?  Does the law require married student housing take both opposite sex and same sex couples?

As long as the married students are enrolled in the school then I could care less about their sexuality. We all live in neighborhoods with gay people, straight people, transgendered people, asexual people, we don't change our sexual colours because we interact with other people of other sexualities.

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Duncan said:

to us but maybe not all christian groups view it the same way we do

A number do.  BYU is not the only school with an Honor Code that limits romantic and sexual activity.

 

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

well, it's a mix now of religion and school-if it's a private school they can prohibit any behaviour (not people) they want but if it's a public school then no they shouldn't

This law would remove the distinction between private and public.  This would mean if opposite sex couples were allowed to attend the college, so would same sex.  If no same sex dating, no mixed gender dating.

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/03/the-lgbt-politics-of-christian-colleges/473373/

I assume it is not only Christian schools who include some who require no same sex dating, etc.  Some Muslim schools would, is there a Muslim college in the US yet?  I know of younger grades Muslim schools.

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, Duncan said:

so why would these schools want to enforce their values over others? isn't that the issue here? to me it's about getting what others have, not taking away from what others have. As I said to rodheadlee SSM and gay rights have been in place in Canada for a decade now and there hasn't been a peep from them or anyone about my right to worship God or get married in the Temple. In my city the Church is trying to build a Temple but the biggest opposition, if you believe High Priests is not from any gay rights group but from the Jewish Community (I doubt it and sometimes class sounded like Berlin in 1939)

Well, presumably those who don't accept the values wouldn't enroll in the school, right? It's a person's right not to enroll, but it's also the right of a church to set certain standards for enrollment.

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I believe in religious freedom, I believe the government shouldn't force private religious schools to accept LGBT, but just as long as religions stay out of politics. If religions really want the government to stay out, they should follow their own advice first. 

 

So you would relegate people of faith to second-class citizenry, then, by forbidding them to be part of the public policy debate. You don't get to do that. Not in the United States of America.

[TheSkepticChristian]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you would relegate people of faith to second-class citizenry, then, by forbidding them to be part of the public policy debate. You don't get to do that. Not in the United States of America.

Oh duck! I am not talking about people, I am talking about religious institutions. Religious institutions are not people. Our constitution protects religious freedom, so there is no need for religion in politics.  

Edited July 31, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, presumably those who don't accept the values wouldn't enroll in the school, right? It's a person's right not to enroll, but it's also the right of a church to set certain standards for enrollment.

true! the government isn't trying to change doctrine they appear to want gay students to attend or get benefits that other kids get

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Oh duck! I am not talking about people, I am talking about religious institutions. Religious institutions are not people. Our constitution protects religious freedom, so there is no need for religion in politics.  

A religious institution is a a group of people. People who have a right to pool their effectiveness in the political marketplace of ideas. By forbidding them from doing so, you would favor hindering the free exercise of religion, contrary to the First Amendment. Very un-American.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Anijen]

50 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I believe in religious freedom, I believe the government shouldn't force private religious schools to accept LGBT, but just as long as religions stay out of politics. If religions really want the government to stay out, they should follow their own advice first. 

 

Emphasis mine.

Why does this have to be? Separation of church and State is to keep govt  from mingling with, endorsing, or discriminating against religion. It is not to keep religions from voicing their fundamental right to protest, advocate, etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

true! the government isn't trying to change doctrine they appear to want gay students to attend or get benefits that other kids get

Does it have to force religious schools to provide it? Aren't there other options?

[Duncan]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Does it have to force religious schools to provide it? Aren't there other options?

we're mixing three areas here and seperating them is proving to be sticky, you have the Church, private/public and then the students and all have rights or a voice. In a way though students vote with their feet, if they don't like the school code they don't have to attend or stay enrolled and so if enough kids leave or the school has a dropped enrollment maybe they will accomodate?

[Anijen]

To say religions should not have or be allowed to voice their political views is a biased position to take. The First Amendment allows people and religions and basically any group to peaceably assemble and voice their opinion, to say otherwise is taking a biased stand. The separation of church and State forbids the govt, many people think it is for both [church and govt], it is not. 

"Congress [the govt] shall make no law respecting religion..."

 

Edited July 31, 2016 by Anijen

[Thinking]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Am I understanding this correctly. They can still discriminate, they just can't get the tax benefits and government loans if they choose to discriminate??

This article is very informative.

[TheSkepticChristian]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A religious institution is a a group of people. People who have a right to pool their effectiveness in the political marketplace of ideas. By forbidding them from doing so, you would favor prohibiting the free exercise of religion, contrary to the First Amendment. Very un-American.

I will try it one more time. My opinion and belief is 

1. Churches should stay out of politics. 

2.  People should keep their religion out of politics. 

Why? For example 

16 minutes ago, Anijen said:

It is not to keep religions from voicing their fundamental right to protest, advocate, etc.

Imagine if Jehovah's Witnesses influenced Congress and lawmakers to make blood transfusion illegal, how would you feel about that?   

Religions have a fundamental right to preach, but in my opinion religions need to stay out of politics. 

 

Edited July 31, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I believe in religious freedom, I believe the government shouldn't force private religious schools to accept LGBT, but just as long as religions stay out of politics. If religions really want the government to stay out, they should follow their own advice first. 

 

How differently would it look than today for religions to stay out of politics?

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

we're mixing three areas here and seperating them is proving to be sticky, you have the Church, private/public and then the students and all have rights or a voice. In a way though students vote with their feet, if they don't like the school code they don't have to attend or stay enrolled and so if enough kids leave or the school has a dropped enrollment maybe they will accomodate?

They are more than welcome to vote with their feet. In fact, that is the only acceptable solution.

But don't look to Church-sponsored schools to relax their standards, regardless of how many people elect to stay away. The demand for enrollment at BYU has long been far and away higher than the number of available enrollment slots.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I will try it one more time. My opinion and belief is 

1. Churches should stay out of politics. 

2.  People should keep their religion out of politics. 

 

We get it. You don't have to keep repeating yourself.

We just find your opinions on this point unsavory.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

They are more than welcome to vote with their feet. In fact, that is the only acceptable solution.

But don't look to Church-sponsored schools to relax their standards, regardless of how many people elect to stay away. The demand for enrollment at BYU has long been far and away higher than the number of available enrollment slots.

I don't! I never went to any of the BYU's and lacked the desire. I had a friend who got kicked out of BYU years ago for alleged gay encounters and surprise surprise he isn't active so yeah people vote with their feet in school and church and God sometimes. In speaking of attending BYU places like here ironically the public counsel is to stay and build up the kingdom here and yet the a lot of leaders regularly send their kids to the BYU's and pay for it, "you shouldn't go to BYU but we can". 

[TheSkepticChristian]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We get it. You don't have to keep repeating yourself.

We just find your opinions on this point unsavory.

it is funny that you didn't quote my example. You guys are ignoring my examples, no wonder why my opinion is unsavory. 

 

[strappinglad]

We have the experiences where a secular state has outlawed all religion from political influence. The results are not pretty. Contrary to populist opinion , the death toll from areligious rulers exceeds the death toll by religious rulers by a couple of orders of magnitude. That , in no way , excuses the battles fought over religion in the last 1000 years plus . Nevertheless, the Stalins and PolPots and Maos  and others of their ilk put the Popes and the Mohameds and Zealots to shame in the extent of destruction inflicted on humanity.

[Anijen]

15 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I will try it one more time. My opinion and belief is 

1. Churches should stay out of politics. 

2.  People should keep their religion out of politics. 

Why? For example  [Huckabee video]

There are arguments for both sides. However, I take the opposite opinion from yours, here's why;

• Old and New Testament shows that political leaders often had/or sought prophetic advisers..
• Church's can help reconciliation between divided political parties.
• Religious people are exhorted to pray for their country and its leaders
• Finally, religions are under attack and they need to be actively involved or they have the certain possibility of losing fundamental rights that were/are in the Bill of Rights. 

You can show a Huckleberry video that may strengthen your view, just as I can show many a politician whose stupidity would strengthen my view. 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Imagine if Jehovah's Witnesses influenced Congress and lawmakers to make blood transfusion illegal, how would you feel about that?    

 

Well now you are merging a medical/health issue with religion. Having said that I would be okay with religions having their liberty to try to advise the government anyway they want, even if it is stupid. Our govt. leaders obviously are not under any requirement to follow, implement, or heed that advice. There is a big difference there.

 

 

Quote

Religions have a fundamental right to preach, but in my opinion religions need to stay out of politics

I am thankful it is only your opinion.

It is my opinion that both should be separated, but allowance of advice from either side is acceptable. That is until the Savior returns, then I am all for a Monarchy with him as the King!

[TheSkepticChristian]

17 minutes ago, Anijen said:

There are arguments for both sides. However, I take the opposite opinion from yours, here's why;

• Old and New Testament shows that political leaders often had/or sought prophetic advisers..

Give me a break! You don't want to go there, for centuries many used the Bible to justify slavery. 

Bytheway, did you know that ronald reagan sough a fortuneteller for advice?  

17 minutes ago, Anijen said:

• Religious people are exhorted to pray for their country and its leaders

That is fine, that has nothing to do with religion in politics. 

17 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I would be okay with religions having their liberty to try to advise the government anyway they want, even if it is stupid. Our govt. leaders obviously are not under any requirement to follow, implement, or heed that advice. There is a big difference there.\

but religion does have a lot of influence in many countries and states. Recently our church changed the mind of two lawmakers in Utah, you don't think religion has power? 

That is why religion needs to keep out of politics! 

Edited July 31, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian