BYU now a target for LGBT groups

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

At best it reflects a misunderstanding of the role of special constitutional protections for the freedom of religion in relation to anti-discrimination laws for protected classes that are deemed to be constitutional.

How so?  Can you clarify/articulate what is being misunderstood?

From a constitutional perspective, do you see this pressure as the same or similar type of pressure that was used against schools that continued to advocate and uphold discriminatory policies based on race...?  Or do you believe it to be different?

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good point. I was curious so I looked up Baylor's policy. BYU is not alone in its discrimination against LGBT. Looks like at least Baylor is in the same boat. But is the argument for LGBT discrimination supposed to be "But the other kids are doing it"?

So it seems like you'd be arguing for the LGBT activist groups to also target Baylor, right? It would be consistent and I wouldn't oppose them.

I'm not arguing for anything. I was curious as to what their policy was. It's funny how it's called discrimination when it involves religious people attempting to live their religion the way they see fit. The way I see it the Mormons and the Baptist are the ones being discriminated against.

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, Sky said:

I realize that the LGBTQ community is upset with the LDS Church in many ways.  I acknowledge their hurt.  But this seems taking it too far.  It reeks of religious discrimination and pressure to conform to societal norms.  BYU is ultimately a private institution owned by a religious organization that opposes same-gender sexual relationships on religious grounds.   

Now it looks like this could cost BYU its sports program.

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2016/08/08/sources-big-12-presidents-growing-uneasy-byu-expansion-candidate-honor-codelgbt-issues

Edited to add this article:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17251009/big-12-urged-lgbt-advocacy-groups-not-admit-byu-expansion-school  

Since the Church felt it was fine to campaign against LGBT marriage rights, they ought to support the LGBT community's right to campaign against BYU being brought into a sports conference.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Since the Church felt it was fine to campaign against LGBT marriage rights, they ought to support the LGBT community's right to campaign against BYU being brought into a sports conference.

I agree.. can't have it both ways.

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

There are no other schools to compete with.  Granted there may be exceptions like Baylor but the only other schools that might be as strict as BYU on these issues are small, may not carry sports programs, and would not be able to complete at the highest level of college football and other sports.  If BYU continues as it is, and continues with sports, the sports programs will probably become less impactful.  Football is one thing but in other sports BYU is top notch--think volleyball for instance. 

Maybe BYU can form an all religion conference starting with Oral Roberts University...oh wait they hate Mormon's.  On second thought how about an all Mormon conference...BYU can play BYU-Idaho and then the next week play BYU-Hawaii and the next week start all over until they've played each other 3 times each...yup problem solved...I'm sure ESPN is salivating right now for those TV broadcast rights...

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Sky said:

BYU spokesperson Carri Jenkins said, "BYU welcomes as full members of the university community all whose conduct meets university standards. We are very clear and open about our honor code, which all students understand and commit to when they apply for admission. One's stated sexual orientation is not an issue."

See: http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17251009/big-12-urged-lgbt-advocacy-groups-not-admit-byu-expansion-school

So, essentially the "you can be gay but you just can't act gay" position of BYU may not be tenable in the long-term.  

 

 

Here I tend to respectfully disagree, Sky.

I think students are treated equally if the policy is that people can be homosexual or heterosexual, but acting out sexually according to whatever your orientation is can get you thrown out of school.

I want to add that I do NOT think the Church is being fair by saying that gay people have to remain celibate and cannot act out sexually even within marriage and remain a member.

But I don't see a problem with the BYU policy as written as it applies to single students.

[thatjimguy]

You know, President Hinckley eliminated the sports program (real competition sports anyway) at BYU-Idaho. Maybe it's time to do the same at BYU proper instead of making it an issue?

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, thatjimguy said:

You know, President Hinckley eliminated the sports program (real competition sports anyway) at BYU-Idaho. Maybe it's time to do the same at BYU proper instead of making it an issue?

You are right.

This is an excellent opportunity for the LDS Church to show the strength of its convictions.

[Johnnie Cake]

45 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Agreed, Gray.

In fact, the actions described in the OP are EXACTLY the route that we have been anticipating (and predicting) would eventually happen in our discussions here for the last several years.  It's long been predicted that social pressure for LGBT equality would continue to mirror the exact same pressure that was exerted on schools and sports programs in favor of the racial equality of the civil rights movement.  So, surely, this shouldn't come as a surprise or shock to anyone.

I fully expect BYU NOT to cave to this societal pressure... they will abandon sports before they give a scintilla of ground to the LGBQT movement...

Another angle that the church could take would be to just make their Honor Code equal for all students by banning "any physical contact" between students.  Ban hand holding, kissing, arms around shoulders and for good measure they could throw in flirting, eye contact, googling, spooning or any signs of affection between students

 

Edited August 9, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Here I tend to respectfully disagree, Sky.

I think students are treated equally if the policy is that people can be homosexual or heterosexual, but acting out sexually according to whatever your orientation is can get you thrown out of school.

I want to add that I do NOT think the Church is being fair by saying that gay people have to remain celibate and cannot act out sexually even within marriage and remain a member.

But I don't see a problem with the BYU policy as written as it applies to single students.

I would agree if the policy treated students equally but heterosexual students are allowed to date, hold hands, kiss, etc.  Homosexual students risk expulsion for doing those things.

As with Church policy, so goes BYU:  celibacy is the standard for gay members/students, dating/courtship/marriage is the standard for straight members/students.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

BYU and the Church are entitled to their respective Standards and Honor Code...no one is taking those away from them.  But what they are not immune from are the consequences of their honor code.  Society has moved on, BYU and the church have chosen not to and that's just fine...they don't need to...but its kind of silly for BYU to believe that there won't be consequences for holding to a standard that society has rejected.

This way of thinking-that whatever society says is right is right and people should either conform to what society dictates or rightly suffer-seems dangerous.

It's not that many years ago when people in the US said the same thing about Jews.  That they were entitled to their beliefs and no one was taking that away from them, but that they had to live with the consequences of those beliefs.  Was it silly of Jews to believe they should be allowed to hold beliefs that society had rejected without negative consequences?

Where do we draw the line?  How do we make sure that we aren't doing what was essentially done to the Jews (and other groups in history that held minority beliefs in a majority rules culture) when we as a society refuse to allow dissenting beliefs to exist without making them suffer for disagreeing with us?

It's a hard question to answer.

Edited August 9, 2016 by bluebell

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This way of thinking-that whatever society says is right is right and people should either conform to what society dictates or rightly suffer-seems dangerous.

It's not that many years ago when people in the US said the same thing about Jews.  That they were entitled to their beliefs and no one was taking that away from them, but that they had to live with the consequences of those beliefs.  Was it silly of Jews to believe they should be allowed to hold beliefs that society had rejected without negative consequences?

Where do we draw the line?  How do we make sure that we aren't doing what was essentially done to the Jews (and other groups in history that held minority beliefs in a majority rules culture) when we as a society refuse to allow dissenting beliefs to exist without making them suffer for disagreeing with us?

It's a hard question to answer.

If it is okay for BYU, as a matter of policy, to say that they don't want gay students.  Why is it not okay for a gays to say that they don't want BYU in their athletic conference?

[jbarm]

Wait, rockpond, the Big 12 is a 'gay' athletic conference?  When did this happen?

You should inform Baylor and TCU immediately.  Inform Gordon Gee, president of West Virginia University (and active LDS member).  They should be informed! (sarcasm off)

Extending your logic, you shouldn't see any problem with a private business noting that you are LDS and then asking you to sign a document stating that your renounce any offensive beliefs you have in order to belong to that organization.

They have a right to associate with people who agree with them correct?  Or bake cakes (wait, that argument is only for oppressed and popular minorities).

BTW, one of the leaders of the groups opposed to BYU's entrance into the B12 happens to be a lesbian, formerly LDS, attorney who previously was the head of the ACLU in Utah.

jb

Edited August 9, 2016 by jbarm

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This way of thinking-that whatever society says is right is right and people should either conform to what society dictates or rightly suffer-seems dangerous.

It's not that many years ago when people in the US said the same thing about Jews.  That they were entitled to their beliefs and no one was taking that away from them, but that they had to live with the consequences of those beliefs.  Was it silly of Jews to believe they should be allowed to hold beliefs that society had rejected without negative consequences?

Where do we draw the line?  How do we make sure that we aren't doing what was essentially done to the Jews (and other groups in history that held minority beliefs in a majority rules culture) when we as a society refuse to allow dissenting beliefs to exist without making them suffer for disagreeing with us?

It's a hard question to answer.

Is it really suffering to say BYU's feetball team can't be a part of a new conference?  I thought the suffering happened due to BYU's policy as the school discriminated against innocent kids. 

I don't see anyone saying whatever society says is right is right.  But I do see people suggesting that BYU's discrimination can happen, if they so choose, but that doesn't mean other's have no right to hold BYU accountable for it's discrimination. 

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If it is okay for BYU, as a matter of policy, to say that they don't want gay students.  Why is it not okay for a gays to say that they don't want BYU in their athletic conference?

Well obviously because BYU somehow is suffering because others are not letting them into their conference.

This may all be moot though, because BYU could still get invited to be in the Big12.  We will see. 

Edited August 9, 2016 by stemelbow

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

How so?  Can you clarify/articulate what is being misunderstood?

From a constitutional perspective, do you see this pressure as the same or similar type of pressure that was used against schools that continued to advocate and uphold discriminatory policies based on race...?  Or do you believe it to be different?

I see a difference between direct pressure against private educational institutions and pressure against private sports institutions to in turn apply pressure against private religious educational institutions.

With the call for racial integration in schools, the government recognized its legally fundamental interest in removing racial discrimination in its subsidized (tax-exempt) schools over protecting their religious freedom. In this OP case, legal discrimination due to an honor code hasn’t been established. I think they key difference is that race is not a behavior, but sexual activity is.

So at best, there also appears to be a misunderstanding between superficial physical characteristics, personal capacity and identity, and religious behavior. But if the focus is pressure, that doesn't matter, does it?

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Is it really suffering to say BYU's feetball team can't be a part of a new conference?  I thought the suffering happened due to BYU's policy as the school discriminated against innocent kids. 

I don't see anyone saying whatever society says is right is right.  But I do see people suggesting that BYU's discrimination can happen, if they so choose, but that doesn't mean other's have no right to hold BYU accountable for it's discrimination. 

Well, is discrimination always a bad thing?  Is it always wrong to discriminate?

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Well, is discrimination always a bad thing?  Is it always wrong to discriminate?

no.  But why do you think there is somehow suffering on BYU's part if other's are offended by BYU"s discrimination? 

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If it is okay for BYU, as a matter of policy, to say that they don't want gay students.  Why is it not okay for a gays to say that they don't want BYU in their athletic conference?

Besides the fact that it's not BYU policy to say they don't want gay students, I didn't know the athletic conference was a gay organization, created in part to uphold specific lifestyle choices.  If it is, then yes, they should be able to set their own standards which cater to gay students and discriminate against schools which don't also cater to them.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, jbarm said:

Wait, rockpond, the Big 12 is a 'gay' athletic conference?  When did this happen?

You should inform Baylor and TCU immediately.  Inform Gordon Gee, president of West Virginia University (and active LDS member).  They should be informed! (sarcasm off)

Extending your logic, you shouldn't see any problem with a private business noting that you are LDS and then asking you to sign a document stating that your renounce any offensive beliefs you have in order to belong to that organization.

They have a right to associate with people who agree with them correct?  Or bake cakes (wait, that argument is only for oppressed and popular minorities).

BTW, one of the leaders of the groups opposed to BYU's entrance into the B12 happens to be a lesbian, formerly LDS, attorney who previously was the head of the ACLU in Utah.

jb

I don't think a private business should discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation.  I don't think that an educational institution, even one owned by a church, should either.  But I am also opposed to any laws telling them that they can't.  They should have the freedom to discriminate.

The question I posed was not about MY beliefs, it was about the institutional Church's beliefs and policies.  Why is it okay for the Church to advocate for discrimination against LGBT persons but it is not okay for LGBT persons to advocate for discrimination against the Church?

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, jbarm said:

Wait, rockpond, the Big 12 is a 'gay' athletic conference?  When did this happen?

You should inform Baylor and TCU immediately.  Inform Gordon Gee, president of West Virginia University (and active LDS member).  They should be informed! (sarcasm off)

Extending your logic, you shouldn't see any problem with a private business noting that you are LDS and then asking you to sign a documenti stating that your renounce any offensive beliefs you have in order to belong to that organization.

They have a right to associate with people who agree with them correct?  Or bake cakes (wait, that argument is only for oppressed and popular minorities).

BTW, one of the leaders of the groups opposed to BYU's entrance into the B12 happens to be a lesbian, formerly LDS, attorney who previously was the head of the ACLU in Utah.

jb

Is the Big 12 a straights only athletic conference? 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Besides the fact that it's not BYU policy to say they don't want gay students, I didn't know the athletic conference was a gay organization, created in part to uphold specific lifestyle choices.  If it is, then yes, they should be able to set their own standards which cater to gay students and discriminate against schools which don't also cater to them.

Saying that you can be gay but can't act gay is akin to saying that they don't want gay students.

So your position is that it is okay for BYU to discriminate because it was created to uphold specific lifestyle choices but the Big 12 conference wasn't so it shouldn't be allowed to discriminate?

p.s.  I don't think anyone is asking to be catered to.  They are just asking to not be discriminated against.  That's a significant difference.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Besides the fact that it's not BYU policy to say they don't want gay students, I didn't know the athletic conference was a gay organization, created in part to uphold specific lifestyle choices.  If it is, then yes, they should be able to set their own standards which cater to gay students and discriminate against schools which don't also cater to them.

It'd be impossible, I think these days, to find sexual orientation discrimination as credible when it comes to big orgs.  Churches, or a Church might be an exception, though.  It might be that the conference ends up not taking into account BYU's policy and invites them anyway, accepting the social backlash in the process.  Chances are though, the conference doesn't want to have to deal with people's protests of bigotry.  In this way the conference decision makers might be wise to exclude BYU, precisely because the conference might lose credibility to the larger org--NCAA.  No organization or corporation need be a "gay organization" in order to support anti-discrimination policies. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

no.  But why do you think there is somehow suffering on BYU's part if other's are offended by BYU"s discrimination? 

If discrimination isn't always bad, then why does BYU need to be held accountable for it?  Usually we are only held accountable for things that we do which are wrong.

To answer your question, no one will suffer because someone is offended.  The suffering happens when we create negative consequences in order to make someone pay for offending us.  It's the "agree with me or i will make you sorry that you don't" justification for certain actions which leads to suffering.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The suffering happens when we create negative consequences in order to make someone pay for offending us. 

You mean like campaigning against someone's right to marry the person they love because it offends you?