BYU now a target for LGBT groups

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

I don't think so.  We should each be held accountable for what we do whether right or wrong.  If I do something well in a work environment, I should be held accountable for it, just as if I do something wrong.  But, whether BYU's discrimination is bad or not, is relative, depending on who's doing the judgment.  If a substantial group finds it wrong, well, BYU needs to be ready and willing to accept that someone is going to take issue with it.  if say, BYU didn't allow toddlers to play football, well, then no one is going to raise a fuss for such discrimination, so BYU is ok there. 

Quote

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.

Again, BYU can continue to discriminate in this case and nothing will happen.  The only issue in consideration here is whether BYU should be considered for Big12 expansion.  There is a substantial group that is contesting consideration of BYU because of BYU's discrimination.  Thus BYU isn't going to suffer anything.  It'll just be left out, kind of like some children are left out of the Church. 

Keep in mind, the Big 12 might see BYU as bringing in money and attention and may eat any back lash for inviting BYU.  But we will see. 

Edited August 9, 2016 by stemelbow

[bluebell]

Just now, rockpond said:

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

If someone actually ever did campaign for such a reason then that would be a good example.  I don't know anyone who supported prop. 8 who campaigned for that reason (and that's certainly not why the church started the campaign), but perhaps you do.  People sometimes miss the mark.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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...

Yeah they could invite Notre Dame and all the Catholic colleges too.

Edited August 9, 2016 by rodheadlee

[USU78]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This may get BYU in, if they don't.  There's still hope BYU fans.

In reality, yBu never had much of a shot:  their wholly-owned TV demands are more of an impediment than anything else.  Word coming out of the last round of talks 3-4 years ago was they just weren't a good fit, and the religious schools were not in their corner.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

But, whether BYU's discrimination is bad or not, is relative, depending on who's doing the judgment.  If a substantial group finds it wrong, well, BYU needs to be ready and willing to accept that someone is going to take issue with it.  if say, BYU didn't allow toddlers to play football, well, then no one is going to raise a fuss for such discrimination, so BYU is ok there. 

So, if someone said to you, "whether or not being Jewish is bad or not is relative, depending on who's doing the judgement.  If a substantial group finds being Jewish wrong, well, Jews need to be ready and willing to accept that someone is going to take issue with it."  you'd find that a perfectly reasonable attitude?

This what i'm talking about.  I really don't care about BYU sports at all.  What i care about is the precedent that it sets, which says that if you don't agree with me, it's morally o.k. to bully you until you do what i want you to do.  It's morally o.k. to make minority groups suffer if the beliefs of that minority group are unpopular.

It's a dangerous way to think.  History shows us that it leads to trouble.  

 

[USU78]

56 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.

Not that hard  ... 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

In reality, yBu never had much of a shot:  their wholly-owned TV demands are more of an impediment than anything else.  Word coming out of the last round of talks 3-4 years ago was they just weren't a good fit, and the religious schools were not in their corner.

In some circles they are front in center in terms of deserving of membership in a P5 conference--all based on the fan support and their history as a football program.  But sure, there are other considerations that will go into this.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So, if someone said to you, "whether or not being Jewish is bad or not is relative, depending on who's doing the judgement.  If a substantial group finds being Jewish wrong, well, Jews need to be ready and willing to accept that someone is going to take issue with it."  you'd find that a perfectly reasonable attitude?

This what i'm talking about.  I really don't care about BYU sports at all.  What i care about is the precedent that it sets, which says that if you don't agree with me, it's morally o.k. to bully you until you do what i want you to do.  It's morally o.k. to make minority groups suffer if the beliefs of that minority group are unpopular.

It's a dangerous way to think.  History shows us that it leads to trouble.  

 

Gay people are often the target of actual bullying. You can't bully an institution in quite the same way. BYU is not a person. 

[USU78]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

You keep using that word.  I don't think that word means what you think it means.

To "discriminate" based upon behavior is an entirely different animal than discriminating based upon race/ethnicity.  If I look at little Johnnie and see he's black, I cannot legally deny him admission to my educational institution solely on that basis.  If my charter documents prohibit admission solely on the basis of a behavior, say, then it is not discrimination when a person who has engaged in/is engaging in the behavior is not admitted.  Doesn't matter what the behavior is.  Same thing with beliefs:  I cannot be expected to be admitted to Yeshiva Rabbinical University if I'm a goyische Mormon:  and why would I want to be?  Yeshiva isn't discriminating impermissibly to deny me entrance where I'm no serious candidate for the rabbinate.

USU "Now watch everybody, he's going to move the goalposts" 78

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

So, if someone said to you, "whether or not being Jewish is bad or not is relative, depending on who's doing the judgement.  If a substantial group finds being Jewish wrong, well, Jews need to be ready and willing to accept that someone is going to take issue with it."  you'd find that a perfectly reasonable attitude?

Sure.  if someone seems wrong to others, and in that wrongness offends others, than that one might need to expect that others are going to take issue with him/her.  So take your example of a jewish person.  if that Jewish person thinks all Mormons should not be allowed in his neighborhood by virtue of them being Mormon, well, that'd most likely be something most others would find wrong.  If this said jewish person had a deli, for instance, and was open to receiving all customers except Mormons, well his discrimination might influence other patrons, even other jews to not patronize his deli.   Why would not the general possible patronage get to decide if they should patronize his deli or not? 

 

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

This what i'm talking about.  I really don't care about BYU sports at all.  What i care about is the precedent that it sets, which says that if you don't agree with me, it's morally o.k. to bully you until you do what i want you to do.  It's morally o.k. to make minority groups suffer if the beliefs of that minority group are unpopular.

It's a dangerous way to think.  History shows us that it leads to trouble.  

 

Certainly in general.  But if the minority groups are discriminating against others, then those others and their supporters have just as much right to find ways to express their disgust, maybe even try and influence policy makers to suggest the discriminators are not helpful to the whole.  In this case, BYU being the discriminators, are getting a response from others to suggest BYU is not good for the Big12. 

I support such healthy activity. 

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

That's probably true.  One of the worst things about our society now is that we have adopted a "my way or the highway" mentality.  It used to be that the saying "I may not agree with a thing you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it" was how our society defined itself.  

The new mantra is "It is my moral duty to do all in my legal power to eliminate those voices and perspectives that don't agree with me."

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's probably true.  One of the worst things about our society now is that we have adopted a "my way or the highway" mentality.  It used to be that the saying "I may not agree with a thing you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it" was how our society defined itself.  

The new mantra is "It is my moral duty to do all in my legal power to eliminate those voices and perspectives that don't agree with me."

I disagree that our society has done away with people seeing it a right for others to disagree.  Fighting to the death doesn't really factor in because such freedom is not threatened, as I see it.

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If someone actually ever did campaign for such a reason then that would be a good example.  I don't know anyone who supported prop. 8 who campaigned for that reason (and that's certainly not why the church started the campaign), but perhaps you do.  People sometimes miss the mark.

It's not?  Than what was the reason the Church campaigned for Prop 8?

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's probably true.  One of the worst things about our society now is that we have adopted a "my way or the highway" mentality.  It used to be that the saying "I may not agree with a thing you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it" was how our society defined itself.  

The new mantra is "It is my moral duty to do all in my legal power to eliminate those voices and perspectives that don't agree with me."

Doubt it. The first sentiment may have been the ideal but it was never common practice or how we defined ourself. Abolitionists for example were largely unwilling to fight to the death to defend the opinions of slaveholders. McCarthy seemed singularly unwilling to sacrifice his life to defend the right to opinions favoring communism or socialism.

[rongo]

But what about all of the people who insisted that there will never be attempts to force the Church to change its doctrines, policies, and practices? Those who mock the "slippery slope" argument? Those who mock "LGBT juggernaut" concerns? Those who mock the concern that government will sanction the Church (a la OD1) and use indirect pressure (as opposed to "at gunpoint" pressure) to force change within the Church?

I would say that this pressure on the Big12 indicates the indirect pressure that can be brought to bear. I hope that BYU doesn't cave in to the pressure.

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You keep using that word.  I don't think that word means what you think it means.

To "discriminate" based upon behavior is an entirely different animal than discriminating based upon race/ethnicity.  If I look at little Johnnie and see he's black, I cannot legally deny him admission to my educational institution solely on that basis.  If my charter documents prohibit admission solely on the basis of a behavior, say, then it is not discrimination when a person who has engaged in/is engaging in the behavior is not admitted.  Doesn't matter what the behavior is.  Same thing with beliefs:  I cannot be expected to be admitted to Yeshiva Rabbinical University if I'm a goyische Mormon:  and why would I want to be?  Yeshiva isn't discriminating impermissibly to deny me entrance where I'm no serious candidate for the rabbinate.

USU "Now watch everybody, he's going to move the goalposts" 78

BYU is all in favor of dating, kissing, hand-holding, courtship, and marriage.  It's promoted.  Unless you are a gay couple, then it will get you expelled.  You consider that discrimination based on behavior.  I (along with much of the world, I'd guess) consider it discrimination based on one's orientation.

Either way, why is it wrong for LGBT advocacy groups to campaign against BYU joining an athletic conference?  Regardless of how you prefer to rationalize discrimination.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

But what about all of the people who insisted that there will never be attempts to force the Church to change its doctrines, policies, and practices? Those who mock the "slippery slope" argument? Those who mock "LGBT juggernaut" concerns? Those who mock the concern that government will sanction the Church (a la OD1) and use indirect pressure (as opposed to "at gunpoint" pressure) to force change within the Church?

I would say that this pressure on the Big12 indicates the indirect pressure that can be brought to bear. I hope that BYU doesn't cave in to the pressure.

The Church isn't being forced to change anything.  It's an athletic conference... there are those out there promoting BYU's entrance and those promoting its denial.

[bluebell]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Why would not the general possible patronage get to decide if they should patronize his deli or not? 

I think they should be able to decide that.  But should someone start up a marketing campaign with the goal to put that person out of business because the owner didn't agree with Mormonism, gave money to campaigns which didn't support Mormon agendas, or wanted to hire Jews instead of Mormons?  Absolutely not. 

Quote

 

Certainly in general.  But if the minority groups are discriminating against others, then those others and their supporters have just as much right to find ways to express their disgust, maybe even try and influence policy makers to suggest the discriminators are not helpful to the whole.  In this case, BYU being the discriminators, are getting a response from others to suggest BYU is not good for the Big12. 

I support such healthy activity. 

 

I'm sure you do.  So did all those people back in the 1940s who supported discrimination against Jews.  The hard part is knowing whether we support something because it's right, or whether we support it because we agree with it.

That's why i asked earlier, how do we know where the line is?  How do we make sure we aren't committing the sins of the past, just in a more currenlty acceptable manner?

[Daniel2]

1 hour 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?

From what I understand, the sports programs at BYU generate a HUGE amount of revenue for the school. 

There's a financial benefit to having them to such a degree that doing away with them in favor of purely academic pursuits wouldn't be cost effective for a university like BYU.

BTW, as a late-1990's graduate of BYU-Provo myself, I never felt that the pressure tactics used to bring about racial equality were unjust or unfair... As some born just barely before the ban was rescinded and raised in a Primary setting entirely unaware of it's existence, I was confused, ashamed, and embarrassed when I found out as a teen about the (by then defunct) former priesthood and temple ban.  Further, I was immensely glad to know by then that the church now accepted blacks on equal grounds in all matters, and felt that the social pressure exerted on BYU and it's sports programs were pressure on the just side of the moral arc of the universe.  I expect future generations of Latter-day Saints may feel the same, once the church inevitably (from my perspective) changes it's stance on same-sex relationships.

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

BYU is all in favor of dating, kissing, hand-holding, courtship, and marriage.  It's promoted.  Unless you are a gay couple, then it will get you expelled.  You consider that discrimination based on behavior.  I (along with much of the world, I'd guess) consider it discrimination based on one's orientation.

Either way, why is it wrong for LGBT advocacy groups to campaign against BYU joining an athletic conference?  Regardless of how you prefer to rationalize discrimination.

We're still talking about behavior.  And, BTW, thanks for fulfilling my prophecy about changing goalposts:  orientation is a predictor of behavior only (to the extent it is anything), but never and not a determiner of behavior.  If the ownership entity behind yBu believed as you do, then orientation would indeed be the basis for non-admission.  It is not, and, thus, anybody may be admitted upon qualification.  Mormons, you see, have a higher view of the humanity of those suffering from SSA than apologists like rockpond.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I think they should be able to decide that.  But should someone start up a marketing campaign with the goal to put that person out of business because the owner didn't agree with Mormonism, gave money to campaigns which didn't support Mormon agendas, or wanted to hire Jews instead of Mormons?  Absolutely not. 

Well that's an extreme analogy.  BYU is not going out of business and it doesn't appear that the letter wants to put BYU out of business.  if it did, I'd be opposed to the letter.  But the letter seems only concerned about BYU joining a conference. 

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I'm sure you do.  So did all those people back in the 1940s who supported discrimination against Jews.  The hard part is knowing whether we support something because it's right, or whether we support it because we agree with it.

That's why i asked earlier, how do we know where the line is?  How do we make sure we aren't committing the sins of the past, just in a more currenlty acceptable manner?

Pretty easy.  To discriminate on the basis of race, bad.  To discriminate on the basis of religion, bad.  To discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, bad.  It might depend on context and environment in some cases, but it works as a general rule. 

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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...

Once the social pressure manifests in membership and financial losses, I believe that the LDS Church and BYU will both change.

However, they will not characterize the change as "caving to societal pressure," they will characterize it as a long-promised day of joy and rejoicing in which the Lord extends the blessings of His gospel (and fidelity to one's spouse) to all his children, regardless of sexual orientation or spousal gender.

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The Church isn't being forced to change anything.  It's an athletic conference... there are those out there promoting BYU's entrance and those promoting its denial.

Not yet. This is only the beginning, and this is how it starts. Yes, BYU can still choose to remain independent, but what about when the LGBT pressure is on all teams scheduled to play BYU as an independent?

I think where this is heading (not immediately) is the disincorporation of the Church (a la OD1). That wasn't at the point of a gun, yet.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

Gay people are often the target of actual bullying. You can't bully an institution in quite the same way. BYU is not a person. 

I don't agree when gay people are the target of bullies either.

 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

We're still talking about behavior.  And, BTW, thanks for fulfilling my prophecy about changing goalposts:  orientation is a predictor of behavior only (to the extent it is anything), but never and not a determiner of behavior.  If the ownership entity behind yBu believed as you do, then orientation would indeed be the basis for non-admission.  It is not, and, thus, anybody may be admitted upon qualification.  Mormons, you see, have a higher view of the humanity of those suffering from SSA than apologists like rockpond.

That's rich... a "higher view of the humanity of those suffering from SSA".  I wonder if you even get the irony of that statement.

I haven't changed the goal posts and you still haven't answered my question.

You consider BYU's policy to be discrimination based on behavior.  I, and many others, see it as discrimination based on orientation.

But, your (and the Church's) rationalizations aside:  Why is it wrong for LGBT advocacy groups to campaign against BYU joining an athletic conference?