BYU now a target for LGBT groups

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

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.

Oh it'll come, just look back when the Church sported racism in it's teaching.  but what can you do?  other's have a right to stand up to discrimination.  If you truly think discriminating against gay students by either kicking them out or forcing them to not like who they like, is a principle worth offending others for, then stick to it, I guess.  But rest assured others will take issue with BYU for doing it. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

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.

Yes, they can choose to remain independent.  Just as the church felt that gay couples in California could continue to not have their marriages legally recognized.

Why is it wrong for LGBT groups to campaign against the church joining an athletic conference and it is okay for the church to campaign against marriage rights for LGBT persons?

p.s.  If the church is someday dis-incorporated, can't we take comfort in the same counsel we gave to gay couples (that they can still act married they just can't have it legally recognized)?  The church can still act like a corporation, it just won't be legally recognized as such.

[bluebell]

1 hour 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.

No it's not.  

When you say that it's a matter of policy that BYU doesn't want gay students, be prepared to produce the actual policy or retract your statement.  I didn't ask for a CFR before because I didn't feel that doing so would accomplish anything good.  But maybe that's what needs to happen so that you can see the difference between your personal interpretation of their policy and the policy itself.

Quote

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?

BYU was created to provide an academic environment which supported specific moral choices.  Discrimination which supports the reason for a university's creation doesn't seem that big of a deal to me.  I would feel the same about any religious institution, even one that wouldn't let mormons in.  

But the Big 12 is about sports.  If they don't want to let volleyball players in, that makes sense.  But trying to keep someone out because of a religious conviction seems retaliatory to me since religious convictions have nothing to do with goal/mission/existence of the Big 12.

 

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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

Well, the church leaders have said that it was because God said that's what the church needed to do.  

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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

I don't think Jesus would think it was okay..kind of a bad thing.  This does not discriminate BYU football players..they can still play not matter what and in fact I wish they would let BYU athletics put their two cents worth in for what is important to them. I am a huge football fan...and though I am routing for the Utes all the time, I love it when a BYU player or any of our players get into the NFL and getting into the Big 12 really helps!

Edited August 9, 2016 by Jeanne

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.

You would probably be surprised by how quickly that can change, historically speaking.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

I don't think Jesus would think it was okay..kind of a bad thing.  This does not discriminate BYU football players..they can still play not matter what and in fact I wish they would let BYU athletics put their two cents worth in for what is important to them.

I don't think Jesus cares about football, except as it impacts the courses of the lives of His children.  But Jesus discriminated at times, so at the very least we know that it can't ALWAYS be bad.

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't care about football, but wouldn't it would be a pretty scandal if a big 12 school didn't allow black students to attend? What's the difference between that and BYU's policy?

Most schools are public, and therefore have to abide by law pertaining the public including nonestablishment of religion. Private schools are there as an alternative for those who want to worship in a religion of their choice. Are they now going to force a private baptist institution or SDA institution to accept Catholics for example? There are many private institutions which discriminate. The masons are a male fraternity which doesn't allow women. There are female sororities which don't allow men. There are churches which don't allow members of other churches to be a member. There are some churches, such as the LDS church, who do not allow members to remain members while professing sin. That is the difference. If states want to give their citizens the right to conduct in certain types of sin, they shouldn't expect all private organizations to follow suit. After all there is a reason there are private organizations. The LDS church is not a business from which Gay people have a right to expect service either. They have no right to force acceptance. The LDS church is an organization which firmly believes the homosexual lifestyle is against the design of God and is a sin. If those who experience SSA cannot accept that, they are free to worship elsewhere, rather than to somehow force a religious institution to accept their sinful lifestyle. If they want to try to live within the bounds set by God, I believe the church should extend every helping hand to them to help them in this goal. Those who choose fornication, adultery, etc I think should face the same expectations. 

In fact it can reasonably be argued that an attempt to force certain activities to be accepted by a church is to interfere with the establishment of religion in violation of the establishment clause of the constitution which states that governments should not pass laws recognizing a specific religion. To the extent that the gay lifestyle is a religious choice, it would certainly seem to fall inside this parameter.

Edited August 9, 2016 by RevTestament

[USU78]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

 

A couple of thoughts:

I enjoy a nice irony  ...  especially with sauteed muchrooms  ...  but haven't seen one in a bit.  Did you shoot one this morning?

Your argument is incoherent:  if the impermissible thing is acting on homosexual urges, then how is denying admission based upon that "acting on" not a behavior-based "discrimination?"

Just because you call a dog a cat doesn't mean you can litter-box train him.  Accordingly, what you and other irrational persons "consider" or "see," especially when what you/they consider/see is something that is a tendentious lie, doesn't matter a bit.  It is the behavior and not the status that is the determiner.  And "orientation" works only as a predictor of impermissible behavior.

You forgot Q.

If "LGBT advocacy groups" desire to make themselves the Beast requiring all to carry/wear its sign in order to engage in commerce, it's certainly no skin off my nose  ...  except to the extent I choose to point out the gross immorality of bullying people into financial ruin for having the temerity of refusing to comply.

I refuse to comply.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No it's not.  

When you say that it's a matter of policy that BYU doesn't want gay students, be prepared to produce the actual policy or retract your statement.  I didn't ask for a CFR before because I didn't feel that doing so would accomplish anything good.  But maybe that's what needs to happen so that you can see the difference between your personal interpretation of their policy and the policy itself.

Without trying to defend Rockpond's claim, I would suggest that some gay students, no doubt, feel quite welcome at BYU while others do not.  But I think the concern if it has any affect as to the expansion decision will come down to the policy--where in straight students can do something with the preferred suitor or suit-ee of his/her choice but a gay student would not be able to do the same. 

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

BYU was created to provide an academic environment which supported specific moral choices.  Discrimination which supports the reason for a university's creation doesn't seem that big of a deal to me.  I would feel the same about any religious institution, even one that wouldn't let mormons in.  

But the Big 12 is about sports.  If they don't want to let volleyball players in, that makes sense.  But trying to keep someone out because of a religious conviction seems retaliatory to me since religious convictions have nothing to do with goal/mission/existence of the Big 12.

 

It might be somewhat because of the religious convictions but it'll come down to whether or not the practice of those convictions feels like unfair treatment to a certain minority of people.  Defining motivation in something like this is way too tough, I'd say.  Best to just stick to the facts in question, which happen to be the policy, how's it's practiced and implemented, and whether those involved feel welcome or discriminated against. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You would probably be surprised by how quickly that can change, historically speaking.

You act as if you have information that I do not.  Why not share? 

[Jeanne]

I see a a not to far future of a generation of LDS kids that won't want to go to BYU.  The mindset is changing.

[Daniel2]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No it's not.  

When you say that it's a matter of policy that BYU doesn't want gay students, be prepared to produce the actual policy or retract your statement. 

I imagine some feel this would be adequate evidence [Edit: the link won't post here... apparently, some sites are blocked from linking here...?  Didn't realize that. Interesting.  You can Google the quote below if you'd like the source.]:

Quote

In 1965, then BYU president Ernest Wilkinson told the entire studentbody, "We [at BYU] do not intend to admit to our campus any homosexuals. If any of you have this tendency and have not completely abandoned it, may I suggest that you leave the university immediately after this assembly; and if you will be honest enough to let us know the reason, we will voluntarily refund your tuition. We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence."

While written thirty years ago, this is still the prevailing attitude at BYU regarding Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual people.

Many interpret Elder Bednar's recent comments that "there are no homosexual members of the church" as reflective of a similar attitude.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No it's not.  

When you say that it's a matter of policy that BYU doesn't want gay students, be prepared to produce the actual policy or retract your statement.  I didn't ask for a CFR before because I didn't feel that doing so would accomplish anything good.  But maybe that's what needs to happen so that you can see the difference between your personal interpretation of their policy and the policy itself.

BYU was created to provide an academic environment which supported specific moral choices.  Discrimination which supports the reason for a university's creation doesn't seem that big of a deal to me.  I would feel the same about any religious institution, even one that wouldn't let mormons in.  

But the Big 12 is about sports.  If they don't want to let volleyball players in, that makes sense.  But trying to keep someone out because of a religious conviction seems retaliatory to me since religious convictions have nothing to do with goal/mission/existence of the Big 12.

 

And if the Big 12 listens to these LGBT advocacy groups and decides that inclusiveness, regardless of sexual orientation, is important.  Then it will be okay to deny entrance to BYU?

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

A couple of thoughts:

I enjoy a nice irony  ...  especially with sauteed muchrooms  ...  but haven't seen one in a bit.  Did you shoot one this morning?

Your argument is incoherent:  if the impermissible thing is acting on homosexual urges, then how is denying admission based upon that "acting on" not a behavior-based "discrimination?"

Just because you call a dog a cat doesn't mean you can litter-box train him.  Accordingly, what you and other irrational persons "consider" or "see," especially when what you/they consider/see is something that is a tendentious lie, doesn't matter a bit.  It is the behavior and not the status that is the determiner.  And "orientation" works only as a predictor of impermissible behavior.

You forgot Q.

If "LGBT advocacy groups" desire to make themselves the Beast requiring all to carry/wear its sign in order to engage in commerce, it's certainly no skin off my nose  ...  except to the extent I choose to point out the gross immorality of bullying people into financial ruin for having the temerity of refusing to comply.

I refuse to comply.

bullying into financial ruin?  is that where BYU is headed here?  I didn't realize the conspiracy was so malicious.  Theory?  I think not.  This broad-brushed approach to "LGBT advocacy groups is well stated...or maybe it's a bit far-fetched. 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Well, the church leaders have said that it was because God said that's what the church needed to do.  

So if the LGBT advocacy groups believe that their campaign against BYU is in line with what God wants, than it is okay?

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, rongo said:

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.

Can you walk me through the sequence of events that starts from football teams boycotting BYU games to disincorporating the church affiliated with BYU?

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

 

I don't agree when gay people or conservative Mormons are bullied. But no one is being bullied by this. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You act as if you have information that I do not.  Why not share? 

I have a degree in history, so maybe I'm just more aware of how bad things can quickly get?    It took me three years of straight history classes (because my minor is also in history) to get the tiny bit of information that i have (which is just enough to cause trouble, usually).  It would be difficult to share that in a couple of sentences.  

I'm not special though.  It's all out there available to anyone who's interested in it. I find it absolutely fascinating! 

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

A couple of thoughts:

I enjoy a nice irony  ...  especially with sauteed muchrooms  ...  but haven't seen one in a bit.  Did you shoot one this morning?

Your argument is incoherent:  if the impermissible thing is acting on homosexual urges, then how is denying admission based upon that "acting on" not a behavior-based "discrimination?"

Just because you call a dog a cat doesn't mean you can litter-box train him.  Accordingly, what you and other irrational persons "consider" or "see," especially when what you/they consider/see is something that is a tendentious lie, doesn't matter a bit.  It is the behavior and not the status that is the determiner.  And "orientation" works only as a predictor of impermissible behavior.

You forgot Q.

If "LGBT advocacy groups" desire to make themselves the Beast requiring all to carry/wear its sign in order to engage in commerce, it's certainly no skin off my nose  ...  except to the extent I choose to point out the gross immorality of bullying people into financial ruin for having the temerity of refusing to comply.

I refuse to comply.

If the act is permissible under one sexual orientation but not under the other sexual orientation than it is not the act that is being discriminated against.

Since the LDS Church made themselves "the Beast" demanding that all comply with their definition of marriage,  I guess they ought to support other organizations doing the supporting their own beliefs and values in a similar fashion.

And you still didn't answer my question.  After my repeated attempts, I gather that you've realized you don't have a coherent answer.  Good day.

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No it's not.  

When you say that it's a matter of policy that BYU doesn't want gay students, be prepared to produce the actual policy or retract your statement.  I didn't ask for a CFR before because I didn't feel that doing so would accomplish anything good.  But maybe that's what needs to happen so that you can see the difference between your personal interpretation of their policy and the policy itself.

BYU was created to provide an academic environment which supported specific moral choices.  Discrimination which supports the reason for a university's creation doesn't seem that big of a deal to me.  I would feel the same about any religious institution, even one that wouldn't let mormons in.  

But the Big 12 is about sports.  If they don't want to let volleyball players in, that makes sense.  But trying to keep someone out because of a religious conviction seems retaliatory to me since religious convictions have nothing to do with goal/mission/existence of the Big 12.

 

The Big 12 has an appendix in their handbook saying they are opposed to sexism, racism and homophobia. 

 

http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/pdfs/handbook/ConferenceHandbook.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=10410

 

APPENDIX III POLICY ON DIVERSITY

Consistent with NCAA Constitution 2.7, the Conference and its Member Institutions are committed to cultural diversity, promoting respect and sensitivity to the dignity of every person and fostering participation of all in competition, administration and governance. It is the obligation of each Member Institution to refrain from discrimination prohibited by federal and state law, and to demonstrate a commitment to fair and equitable treatment of all student-athletes and athletics department personnel. Consistent with this fundamental philosophy, the Conference shall: 1. Encourage its Member Institutions to increase the representation of ethnic and gender minorities in athletics department leadership positions. In that regard, Member Institutions shall be encouraged to promote the hiring of ethnic and gender minority coaches and administrators, and to make full use of NCAA enhancement programs. 2. Establish internship and scholarship programs to enhance employment opportunities for ethnic and gender minorities in athletics administration. 3. Support diversity at Member Institutions and enrich the understanding between its staff members and the Member Institution’s community through sponsorship of symposiums, workshops, and clinics. 4. Encourage an atmosphere throughout the Conference among staff and student athletes that demonstrates respect and support for each individual. As such, within the context of Conference events, the Conference will not tolerate disparaging comments, remarks, or jokes about any group of people including racist, sexist, or homophobic comments, remarks, or jokes.

 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Many feel this would be adequate evidence:

Many interpret Elder Bednar's recent comments that "there are no homosexual members of the church" as reflective of a similar attitude.

Many feel that a policy from 42 years ago is adequate evidence of BYU's policy for today?  Really??  Some people's definition of 'adequate evidence' is pretty sad.  42 years ago BYU required women to wear dresses.  It must be a huge shock for those people when they show up on campus and see all those women in pants....  

BYU policies change.  Hopefully sincere people won't be confused by policies from almost half a century ago but will know that they need to check out what the current policies are.

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Most schools are public, and therefore have to abide by law pertaining the public including nonestablishment of religion. Private schools are there as an alternative for those who want to worship in a religion of their choice. Are they now going to force a private baptist institution or SDA institution to accept Catholics for example? There are many private institutions which discriminate. The masons are a male fraternity which doesn't allow women. There are female sororities which don't allow men. There are churches which don't allow members of other churches to be a member. There are some churches, such as the LDS church, who do not allow members to remain members while professing sin. That is the difference. If states want to give their citizens the right to conduct in certain types of sin, they shouldn't expect all private organizations to follow suit. After all there is a reason there are private organizations. The LDS church is not a business from which Gay people have a right to expect service either. They have no right to force acceptance. The LDS church is an organization which firmly believes the homosexual lifestyle is against the design of God and is a sin. If those who experience SSA cannot accept that, they are free to worship elsewhere, rather than to somehow force a religious institution to accept their sinful lifestyle. If they want to try to live within the bounds set by God, I believe the church should extend every helping hand to them to help them in this goal. Those who choose fornication, adultery, etc I think should face the same expectations. 

In fact it can reasonably be argued that an attempt to force certain activities to be accepted by a church is to interfere with the establishment of religion in violation of the establishment clause of the constitution which states that governments should not pass laws recognizing a specific religion. To the extent that the gay lifestyle is a religious choice, it would certainly seem to fall inside this parameter.

Sure, the church has a right to turn gay people and their children away. But does the Big 12 have the right to turn away football teams from schools with discriminatory policies? You make it sound like they have to accept BYU as a member team, otherwise they're infringing upon Mormons' religious freedom in some undefinable way. How does that work? 

Can the government pass laws against human sacrifice without running afoul of the religious rights of Moloch worshipers? And more importantly, is the Big 12 a government agency now?

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

The Big 12 has an appendix in their handbook saying they are opposed to sexism, racism and homophobia. 

 

http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/pdfs/handbook/ConferenceHandbook.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=10410

 

APPENDIX III POLICY ON DIVERSITY

Consistent with NCAA Constitution 2.7, the Conference and its Member Institutions are committed to cultural diversity, promoting respect and sensitivity to the dignity of every person and fostering participation of all in competition, administration and governance. It is the obligation of each Member Institution to refrain from discrimination prohibited by federal and state law, and to demonstrate a commitment to fair and equitable treatment of all student-athletes and athletics department personnel. Consistent with this fundamental philosophy, the Conference shall: 1. Encourage its Member Institutions to increase the representation of ethnic and gender minorities in athletics department leadership positions. In that regard, Member Institutions shall be encouraged to promote the hiring of ethnic and gender minority coaches and administrators, and to make full use of NCAA enhancement programs. 2. Establish internship and scholarship programs to enhance employment opportunities for ethnic and gender minorities in athletics administration. 3. Support diversity at Member Institutions and enrich the understanding between its staff members and the Member Institution’s community through sponsorship of symposiums, workshops, and clinics. 4. Encourage an atmosphere throughout the Conference among staff and student athletes that demonstrates respect and support for each individual. As such, within the context of Conference events, the Conference will not tolerate disparaging comments, remarks, or jokes about any group of people including racist, sexist, or homophobic comments, remarks, or jokes.

 

To be fair, it is saying the conference will not tolerate...homophobic comments, which can differ from homophobia itself.  Homophobic comments, sadly, probably are made at some of the schools in the conference in some way, sexist ones too. Not sure that would work to exclude BYU based on that.  It might be that such comments aren't as prevalent at BYU.  I honestly wouldn't doubt it. 

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have a degree in history, so maybe I'm just more aware of how bad things can quickly get?    It took me three years of straight history classes (because my minor is also in history) to get the tiny bit of information that i have (which is just enough to cause trouble, usually).  It would be difficult to share that in a couple of sentences.  

I'm not special though.  It's all out there available to anyone who's interested in it. I find it absolutely fascinating! 

Ok.  I"ll just trust you, then.