Oaks- Religious Liberty

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

If that happens, we will know the First Amendment is effectively dead.  I would also anticipate a violent reaction to it.  Perhaps a second great civil war.

I think this is an over-reaction to giving a small minority the right to marry.  It seems to me that this is also similar to the arguments made against integration and other anti-discrimination laws.  The sky didn't fall as a result of minorities gaining rights.  People adapted to it then and will adapt to same-sex marriage.  Religions can still believe whatever they want.  They just might not have the political power they once did and that isn't a bad thing.  

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

There's that dead dog again.  I retract nothing.   My paper says what it says and my post says what it says.  I know the gay community wants to read Judge Walker's ruling in a way that makes it as inoffensive as possible to free speech, but that isn't possible.  I am sympathetic to your cause but I also see the threat to religion in his ruling.   He didn't have to get into all of that.   The Ninth Circuit didn't.

I am someone who believes in guarding the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution  with vigilance.  Like you, I certainly believe in freedom of religion and freedom of speech and take the protection of those rights very seriously as well as all the other rights guaranteed in the Constitution including equal protection.  When someone makes a claim like you did here:

Quote

Free religious speech is at risk in the United States.  The federal judge who struck down California's Proposition 8 cited as a major reason for his decision the fact that major religions backed Proposition 8, with their intolerant attitudes.  

 

I am quick to investigate that claim to see if in fact the statement is true.  As is often the case lately, there is no evidence of religious speech being at risk at all due to Judge Walkers ruling.  Not one bit.  I find this true with many of Elder Oak's claims as he sweeps across this country giving these speeches about how freedom of religion is in danger.  When I actually look into what he cites as examples, they often fall short of his clams, just like yours does.

IMO, you and Elder Oaks do your cause little good when citing examples that really don't hold up under scrutiny.  You have offered no evidence that Judge Walker in his ruling was putting religious speech at risk in the United States.  You have presented no evidence that he used religious backing as a basis for striking down Prop 8.  When you read what Judge Walker actually said about religious beliefs and traditions that you refer to, he is only saying that those beliefs are not a reason to deny someone their civil rights.  

If you choose to fault Judge Walker for that opinion, you have to also fault every federal and district court in this country that heard gay marriage cases for sharing that same opinion.  You are kinda on your own on this.  You have no support from the legal opinions that have been handed down by all of these courts including the Supreme Court of the United States.

I believe that free religious speech is an important topic to discuss.  I also believe that being able to substantiate such claims is important to bring out in the light of day.  I feel I have done so.  I have nothing further to say about your statement.

Edited September 15, 2016 by california boy

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I think this is an over-reaction to giving a small minority the right to marry.  It seems to me that this is also similar to the arguments made against integration and other anti-discrimination laws.  The sky didn't fall as a result of minorities gaining rights.  People adapted to it then and will adapt to same-sex marriage.  Religions can still believe whatever they want.  They just might not have the political power they once did and that isn't a bad thing.  

It is an extremely small minority of people and yet this minority was granted rights unheard of in thousands of years of social tradition even where religions were not the major influence.  It has turned the purpose and meaning of the family unit upside-down and inside-out to the point that family has no meaning at all.  

Yes, you said it correctly - religions and religious citizens may still believe whatever they want, but they must now shut-up and keep silent in the social square.  Their opinions and their faith will not merit them losing their jobs, their investments, the companies, their corporate positions, and their livelihood.  What is so strange is that this is just seen as the just merits of free society, but absolutely not any form of religious persecution or influence upon free speech for religious persons. What is the old hymn, "...makes reason stare."  Black will be called white and white will be called black.  This is what passes for social discourse and we dunderheads are supposed to tag along, silently, and smile benignly because the enlightened people are now running the show and their vision and logic is perfect. 

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I think this is an over-reaction to giving a small minority the right to marry.  It seems to me that this is also similar to the arguments made against integration and other anti-discrimination laws.  The sky didn't fall as a result of minorities gaining rights.  People adapted to it then and will adapt to same-sex marriage.  Religions can still believe whatever they want.  They just might not have the political power they once did and that isn't a bad thing. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]  

Thank you for providing us with your incredibly magnanimous reading of the relevant provision of the U.S. Constitution, but here's the thing: the First Amendment doesn't, or at least it's not supposed to, simply protect belief.

[Kenngo1969]

19 hours ago, california boy said:

... Your paper does not support your claim that Judge Walker limited religious speech, it only shows that he ignored it as a basis for his ruling.  And he was correct in doing so.  This was the CFR.  Your paper does not address that issue.

 

13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You tell 'em, California Boy!  You oughta know better what's in Bob Crockett's paper than he does!  I mean, just because he wrote it doesn't mean anything!  Silly Bob Crockett!  

 

 

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Thank you for supporting me in my CFR.  If someone makes a claim, then they should be able to back it up.  I am giving Bob Crockett that opportunity to defend his position.

With due respect, I've noticed that sometimes, your reading comprehension is held hostage to whatever agenda you happen to support.  

 

[Sleeper Cell]

8 hours ago, Shadrak said:

I wonder how civil discourse can be done. If different groups rights are at stake, how does one discuss them civilly, especially if one or more of the groups consider a loss of rights an existential threat? 

What does a "ceasefire in the culture wars" look like? Oaks has been calling for one for the last 6 months, as far as I can tell. Is the continued campaigning against SSM (such as  in Mexico) or November Policy what he means by a ceasefire? 

In other words, if the Church wants a cease fire in the culture wars, not only must it cease its external advocacy, but it must also change its internal church policies.  

And you wonder why some are worried about an existential threat to religious liberty?    

[Shadrak]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

It has turned the purpose and meaning of the family unit upside-down and inside-out to the point that family has no meaning at all. 

I'm sorry your family no longer has meaning, especially due to such an extremely small minority. Would it regain appropriate meaning if gay marriage were to end tomorrow?

[Shadrak]

1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said:

In other words, if the Church wants a cease fire in the culture wars, not only must it cease its external advocacy, but it must also change its internal church policies.  

And you wonder why some are worried about an existential threat to religious liberty?    

Well, yes. A ceasefire usually means stopping  hostile acts and attacks on the other side. Neither of these actions can be classified as such. Nor would this whole new Religious Freedom campaign, with firesides, websites, and instructions on how best maintain religious discrimination. 

Your right, the church doesn't have to change its policies and hopefully it won't have to change much, but implementing new hostile policies are not in keeping with the spirit of a ceasefire. It's Oaks who called for one (mostly because his side is losing) which is why I wonder what he thinks one should look like because the church does not seem to be encouraging one at the moment.

[James Tunney]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

It is an extremely small minority of people and yet this minority was granted rights unheard of in thousands of years of social tradition even where religions were not the major influence.  It has turned the purpose and meaning of the family unit upside-down and inside-out to the point that family has no meaning at all.  

Yes, you said it correctly - religions and religious citizens may still believe whatever they want, but they must now shut-up and keep silent in the social square.  Their opinions and their faith will not merit them losing their jobs, their investments, the companies, their corporate positions, and their livelihood.  What is so strange is that this is just seen as the just merits of free society, but absolutely not any form of religious persecution or influence upon free speech for religious persons. What is the old hymn, "...makes reason stare."  Black will be called white and white will be called black.  This is what passes for social discourse and we dunderheads are supposed to tag along, silently, and smile benignly because the enlightened people are now running the show and their vision and logic is perfect. 

Does granting marriage rights to a small minority really affect your marriage?  Just try to imagine that you never heard the hyperbole coming from religious leaders and ask yourself if somebody, that you probably don't even associate with, if their actions have any effect whatsoever on your marriage?  What does it matter?  And while your are at it, look up "wedge issue" and see if it applies to the issue of this thread.  I think you will see that it does and then realize that the "religious liberty" issue is simply politics disguised as religion.  Religious leaders are upset that they are losing control of the narrative.  Is that a bad thing?

[James Tunney]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Thank you for providing us with your incredibly magnanimous reading of the relevant provision of the U.S. Constitution, but here's the thing: the First Amendment doesn't, or at least it's not supposed to, simply protect belief.

You are right about the first amendment not simply protecting belief.  No one is saying religions cannot say what they want.  The first amendment still protects and should protect the right to say what you want in the public square.  However, the religious freedom movement seems to be more about religion losing it's privileged status.  Religious leaders are upset that society isn't listening to them as it did in the past.  They don't like being disagreed with and that is really the subtext of Oaks speech.  I think one can see this in spades by Oaks complaining about those who champion non-discrimination.  Since when is discrimination correct?  Should religion be allowed to discriminate?  Is that what this is about? 

[thesometimesaint]

On 9/13/2016 at 4:58 PM, Bob Crockett said:

You might want to read some good biographies of Jefferson.   He was anti-religion, anti-clerical, and the title of "Deist" doesn't really apply to him.  He did not believe that clergymen should hold public office or say anything in the public marketplace of political ideas.  The article I published on this subject, which I cite above, cites many major Jefferson sources.  I suggest Fawn Brodie's biography as she was the first to accurately assess the Sally Hemmings stuff.  Don't be tricked into right-wing sources which adopt him as their hero.  He was a left-wing radical and a major sympathizer with the atheistic French Revolution.  He was a major slaveholder who fought to uphold slavery and, of course, he abused his position by sleeping with his slaves.

No he was not anti-religion. He was against the mixing of Church and State. As exemplified by his talk at the Danbury Baptist Church

SEE https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Jefferson was a Deist

SEE https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs

I'm not a fan of right wing or left wing sources. If you want a better view of the American Revolution

SEE The Rights of Man, and Common Sense by Thomas Paine

Yes he was a major slave holder, as well most of the Founding Fathers and the first 18 Presidents of the US.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves

We paid a terrible price in the US Civil War for it.

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

With due respect, I've noticed that sometimes, your reading comprehension is held hostage to whatever agenda you happen to support.  

 

I guess sarcasm is too difficult of concept for you to handle. Thanks for your support.  

[Bob Crockett]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

I guess sarcasm is too difficult of concept for you to handle. Thanks for your support.  

I am one who supports your position and believes that Prop 8 took away the civil rights of gays to marry, and that as long as the government is in the business of marriage then gays ought to have that right.  I also think that conservatives ought to get over this issue as it doesn't really affect them or their marriages.  It never ceases to amaze me that LDS conservatives fail to realize that it was the Republican party and congressional conservatives who appointed evangelical pastors to come to Utah with government sinecures to stamp out Mormonism, confiscate their assets and put husbands and wives (well, one) in the federal pen over a marriage practice.  Catholics and Jews and Liberals condemned this. Oh yeah, I forgot:  Also, took from women of the right to vote, imposed a test oath on voters about their religious beliefs, sent surveyors to contest Mormon land claims made during the time Mexico owned the Great Basin.   We're headed in that direction again over BYU's Honor Code.

Having said that, so long as government is in the business of marriage, and it licenses pastors to perform marriage (a real conflict in my view), then religions have the right to lobby in the public marketplace of ideas as to what should and what should not constitute marriage. Legislation should not be criticized on the ground that a group, such as union, trade group or religion, advocated it.  

Edited September 15, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Sleeper Cell]

11 hours ago, Shadrak said:

Well, yes. A ceasefire usually means stopping  hostile acts and attacks on the other side. Neither of these actions can be classified as such. Nor would this whole new Religious Freedom campaign, with firesides, websites, and instructions on how best maintain religious discrimination. 

Your right, the church doesn't have to change its policies and hopefully it won't have to change much, but implementing new hostile policies are not in keeping with the spirit of a ceasefire. It's Oaks who called for one (mostly because his side is losing) which is why I wonder what he thinks one should look like because the church does not seem to be encouraging one at the moment.

In other words, your answer to Elder Oaks is: “you are losing.  So if you want a cease fire, you must surrender your religious liberty.”  Or is it your argument that “religious liberty” does not mean that a church has the right to decide who can and who cannot be a member of their own church?     

BTW, “the church doesn’t have to change its [internal] policies” and “hopefully, it won’t have to change much” are contradictory statements.  It either has to change its policies or it doesn’t.  And if it does, your use of the word “hopefully” leaves open the possibility that it may have to change quite a lot. 
 

[Sleeper Cell]

11 hours ago, James Tunney said:

You are right about the first amendment not simply protecting belief.  No one is saying religions cannot say what they want.  The first amendment still protects and should protect the right to say what you want in the public square.  However, the religious freedom movement seems to be more about religion losing it's privileged status.  Religious leaders are upset that society isn't listening to them as it did in the past.  They don't like being disagreed with and that is really the subtext of Oaks speech.  I think one can see this in spades by Oaks complaining about those who champion non-discrimination.  Since when is discrimination correct?  Should religion be allowed to discriminate?  Is that what this is about?

Uh, the first amendment is not simply about protecting the right of free expression, either.  It is about protecting the right of free exercise of religion.  

The subtext of Elder Oaks speech is that, as a religious leader,  he doesn’t like being disagreed with?  If any church in America is used to being disagreed with, it’s the Mormon Church.  

Since when is discrimination correct?  When it is not based on prejudice.  

Should religion be allowed to discriminate?  Beats me.  These days, the word “discrimination” is so often used as a polemical epithet, that it is becoming meaningless.  
 

[James Tunney]

3 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Uh, the first amendment is not simply about protecting the right of free expression, either.  It is about protecting the right of free exercise of religion.  

The subtext of Elder Oaks speech is that, as a religious leader,  he doesn’t like being disagreed with?  If any church in America is used to being disagreed with, it’s the Mormon Church.  

Since when is discrimination correct?  When it is not based on prejudice.  

Should religion be allowed to discriminate?  Beats me.  These days, the word “discrimination” is so often used as a polemical epithet, that it is becoming meaningless.  
 

I don't think anyone is trying to prevent any of the church's first amendment rights here. I think this is simply a case of people exercising their first amendment rights to disagree with the church's stance on LGTBQ issues and Oaks and his fellow leaders not liking it. Is there anything I'm missing here? Progressively people are not giving much credence to what religion has to say about anything and it looks like that is the real reason behind the "religious freedom" issue. Maybe the answer is to have religion stay out of these political wedge issues?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I am one who supports your position and believes that Prop 8 took away the civil rights of gays to marry, and that as long as the government is in the business of marriage then gays ought to have that right.  I also think that conservatives ought to get over this issue as it doesn't really affect them or their marriages.  It never ceases to amaze me that LDS conservatives fail to realize that it was the Republican party and congressional conservatives who appointed evangelical pastors to come to Utah with government sinecures to stamp out Mormonism, confiscate their assets and put husbands and wives (well, one) in the federal pen over a marriage practice.  Catholics and Jews and Liberals condemned this. Oh yeah, I forgot:  Also, took from women of the right to vote, imposed a test oath on voters about their religious beliefs, sent surveyors to contest Mormon land claims made during the time Mexico owned the Great Basin.   We're headed in that direction again over BYU's Honor Code.

Having said that, so long as government is in the business of marriage, and it licenses pastors to perform marriage (a real conflict in my view), then religions have the right to lobby in the public marketplace of ideas as to what should and what should not constitute marriage. Legislation should not be criticized on the ground that a group, such as union, trade group or religion, advocated it.  

Despite our technical disagreement with Judge Walkers verdict, you and I are exactly on the same page.  I have always been a strong advocate for the right of the church to campaign for prop 8 or any other issue they wish to speak out about in the public square.  While I strongly disagreed with the church on the issue they were speaking out for, even when in doing so it was denying gay couples of their civil rights, they still have every right to make such a political stand.  That is what the constitution guarantees.  

It does not however offer any protection against criticism for those views.  That is also part of free speech in this country.  Members should be perfectly ok with public protests against the church.  They should be perfectly ok when organizations like football leagues refuse to invite them into their conference.  They should be perfectly ok with people in the workplace pushing back against their views.  That is why we refer these issues as the public marketplace of ideas.  

The problem many church members are having is that since the Civil Rights Act was passed 50 years ago, most people are adamantly against discrimination of any group, even if the reason for that discrimination is religious beliefs.  I think Elder Oaks recognizes that it is an up hill battle to convince the American public that it is ok to discriminate because of religious beliefs.  In the end, I think he will fail.  But that doesn't mean he has every right to continue to press his ideas to the public.

Should someone be fired simply because they are Mormon?  No I am not saying that.  Any more than someone should be fired for being gay such as this incident that is in todays news.    http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-christian-rocker-trey-pearson-axed-from-joshua-fest-lineup-after-production-team-threatened-walk-out-169536/  It appears that Trey Pearson is not being allowed to perform because he was gay, but because he started advocating for the gay community.  Or at least I hope that is the reason.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Despite our technical disagreement with Judge Walkers verdict, you and I are exactly on the same page.  I have always been a strong advocate for the right of the church to campaign for prop 8 or any other issue they wish to speak out about in the public square.  While I strongly disagreed with the church on the issue they were speaking out for, even when in doing so it was denying gay couples of their civil rights, they still have every right to make such a political stand.  That is what the constitution guarantees.  

It does not however offer any protection against criticism for those views.  That is also part of free speech in this country.  Members should be perfectly ok with public protests against the church.  They should be perfectly ok when organizations like football leagues refuse to invite them into their conference.  They should be perfectly ok with people in the workplace pushing back against their views.  That is why we refer these issues as the public marketplace of ideas.  

The problem many church members are having is that since the Civil Rights Act was passed 50 years ago, most people are adamantly against discrimination of any group, even if the reason for that discrimination is religious beliefs.  I think Elder Oaks recognizes that it is an up hill battle to convince the American public that it is ok to discriminate because of religious beliefs.  In the end, I think he will fail.  But that doesn't mean he has every right to continue to press his ideas to the public.

Should someone be fired simply because they are Mormon?  No I am not saying that.  Any more than someone should be fired for being gay such as this incident that is in todays news.    http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-christian-rocker-trey-pearson-axed-from-joshua-fest-lineup-after-production-team-threatened-walk-out-169536/  It appears that Trey Pearson is not being allowed to perform because he was gay, but because he started advocating for the gay community.  Or at least I hope that is the reason.

 

Well I'm an odd duck libertarian.  People should be free to discriminate against people because they are Mormons or gay.  There should not be legislation against it.  However, according to studies I saw in law school from the U of Chicago, such persons are at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Well I'm an odd duck libertarian.  People should be free to discriminate against people because they are Mormons or gay.  There should not be legislation against it.  However, according to studies I saw in law school from the U of Chicago, such persons are at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.

In a perfect marketplace maybe. But a diner in the US South in the 1930s that chose not to discriminate against black people would be at a competitive disadvantage due to people refusing to patronize establishments that do not discriminate. You see the same effect in exclusive clubs and the like still today though they tend to focus more on being elitist rather then racist.

[Bob Crockett]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In a perfect marketplace maybe. But a diner in the US South in the 1930s that chose not to discriminate against black people would be at a competitive disadvantage due to people refusing to patronize establishments that do not discriminate. You see the same effect in exclusive clubs and the like still today though they tend to focus more on being elitist rather then racist.

 

 

 

 

People should be free to have exclusive clubs.  The Rosa Parks story involved public transportation.  Forced non-discrmination leads to reverse discrimination.  The Government can't be expected to get it right.   There still exist bigots at every turn.  I run into them all the time.  White bigots, anti-Semites etc and etc.  You can't legislate beliefs. It is a grossly offensive socialistic view that seeks to legislate such things. 

Before Mao, 20% of China was composed of hopeless opium addicts, thanks to the British government's gunboat policy protecting the opium trade.  Mao came in and eliminated addiction.  Thousands, hundreds of thousands of people died.  What's better?  Living under Mao, or living with a 20% addiction rate?

Islamic states execute homosexuals.  Great; no gays to bother you.   What's better?  Living in an Islamic state or living with a bunch of gays?

Edited September 15, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[The Nehor]

On 9/14/2016 at 8:52 AM, hope_for_things said:

But in what ways would this realistically happen?  It sounds like a slippery slope argument to me.  Think about this in the context of other religions that aren't as popular in the USA as other places in the world.  Hinduism, Buddhism, I haven't seen any attempts in the public space to not respect these religious views that certainly are far from majority views. 

That is because they have no real chance of having a political effect. They do not have the numbers. Mormons do in some areas. Christians do throughout the United States. Atheists do as well. Despite Muslims having no political power in terms of votes they are hated for their supposed attempts to implement Sharia Law. A mayor of a neighboring city is trying to make a name for themselves fighting the hypothetical threat that the tiny Muslim community here is going to bring in Sharia Law. There are idiots who eat the rhetoric up. I have seen attempts in public spaces to not respect those religious views.

On 9/14/2016 at 8:52 AM, hope_for_things said:

Are you talking about when a sports figure gives praises to God for an achievement, and how others ridicule those statements?  Is this the kind of social suppression you talk about, because I think you could make a case that atheists are socially ridiculed by the religious in the same ways.  

That is a low-level aspect but sure and yes, it happens to many groups. I wish we would socially shun the behavior that would beat on someone expressing a belief in God or a non-belief in God. Of course you can go too far the other way and people use that as a cover for abhorrent views. If I claim I am a Mormon and we should kill all those (insert cultural, ethnic, social, or religious group here) and then cry persecution when people tell me I am horrible I should be publicly mocked. And no, I do not think Prop 8 fits under that umbrella.

On 9/14/2016 at 8:52 AM, hope_for_things said:

Can you give some more examples where this actually is happening?  You can't make someone respect your POV in the free market of ideas.  What morality are you suggesting can't be legislated?  Many of our laws seem morally based, murder, theft, indecency, fraud, alcohol sales, gambling laws, etc.  In a democracy you have to have a majority agreement to legislate any laws, morally based or not.  Would you want minorities to be able to set laws based on their unique moral preferences?  

No, you can't make them respect a different point of view. We can, as a people, attempt to create a society where respect for a point of view is built in to our culture. I'm not optimistic but it is worth trying.

I do not want minorities or majorities setting laws based on their unique moral preferences. We have to legislate some but our government was designed to limit the tyranny of the majority. It is worth noting that Prop 8 did pass by a majority but was overturned on other grounds. I am not sure I agree with that specific decision but I am in favor of checks on the power of the majority.

[The Nehor]

Just now, Bob Crockett said:

People should be free to have exclusive clubs.  The Rosa Parks story involved public transportation.  Forced non-discrmination leads to reverse discrimination.  The Government can't be expected to get it right.   There still exists bigots at every turn.  I run into them all the time.  White bigots, anti-Semites etc and etc.  You can't legislate beliefs.

While the government is imperfect I am convinced it works better then the free hand of the market on reducing discrimination. And of course we have bigots and racists. Fear of the other is built into humanity. Suspicion of things that are different has survival value. Everyone is inherently racist to some degree. Our making the designation an epithet is counter-productive. It leads everyone to denying the charge rather then self-examination. We can use more of the "Lord, is it I?" approach to our conflicts in this arena.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Before Mao, 20% of China was composed of hopeless opium addicts, thanks to the British government's gunboat policy protecting the opium trade.  Mao came in and eliminated addiction.  Thousands, hundreds of thousands of people died.  What's better?  Living under Mao, or living with a 20% addiction rate?

Islamic states execute homosexuals.  Great; no gays to bother you.   What's better?  Living in an Islamic state or living with a bunch of gays?

I try not to get into the comparative merits of the equivalents of Shiz and Coriantumr.

[Shadrak]

7 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

In other words, your answer to Elder Oaks is: “you are losing.  So if you want a cease fire, you must surrender your religious liberty.”  Or is it your argument that “religious liberty” does not mean that a church has the right to decide who can and who cannot be a member of their own church?     

BTW, “the church doesn’t have to change its [internal] policies” and “hopefully, it won’t have to change much” are contradictory statements.  It either has to change its policies or it doesn’t.  And if it does, your use of the word “hopefully” leaves open the possibility that it may have to change quite a lot. 
 

My point is that Elder Oaks is being disingenuous using the term "ceasefire" as he has no intention of stopping the culture war from his side. I think he used the term as an attempted clever sound bite without ever intending to implement it. He's hoping that he'll sound like the magnanimous one in seeking an end to hostilities but not putting forth any substantive efforts from his side. 

Perhaps what he means by ceasefire is for the secularists to stop the push granting LGBT people federally protected status like race, religion, and sex are. Because once that is granted, many of these warnings from the church may come true, particularly what could happen at BYU. 

I'm not sure where you picked up from me that the church should give up all their religious liberties or can no longer control their membership. What I do think is that religious freedom is not carte blanche to practice every whim of religious belief. There are limits both within the law and within what's acceptable in society. As Oaks kept saying, non-discrimination is now a powerful force because it generally makes sense to have everyone, including minorities, on equal terms in the market, in education, in jobs, in the law. It's going to be tough to promote and defend religious discrimination outside of the chapel.

The last statement wasn't very clear, thanks for calling me out on it. I meant the church does not (present tense) now have to change its policies, because the law allows the policies. But in the future if/when laws change they hopefully won't (future tense) have to change too much to accommodate them. A small change would be something like not expelling a  BYU student for any homosexual expression. If straight students don't have to be celibate, gay students shouldn't either. The church wouldn't have to change its doctrines or religious practices with this kind of change.

[Shadrak]

4 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I don't think anyone is trying to prevent any of the church's first amendment rights here. I think this is simply a case of people exercising their first amendment rights to disagree with the church's stance on LGTBQ issues and Oaks and his fellow leaders not liking it. Is there anything I'm missing here? Progressively people are not giving much credence to what religion has to say about anything and it looks like that is the real reason behind the "religious freedom" issue. Maybe the answer is to have religion stay out of these political wedge issues?

As Sleeper Cell said, it's not speech that is at issue, it's religious practice, the free exercise of religion. I'm sure that the end game of secularists is to alter the current landscape of some religious practices. Particularly religious discrimination against LGBT people. While it's not there yet, it definitely could be soon and that could change that part of the first amendment. 

Maybe religion should get more involved in politics. As you said, it is no longer taken for granted that all religious ideals are good and given deference, thus it's losing its prominence. To maintain its voice, maybe more politicking is needed?