Oaks- Religious Liberty

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Which may be why the proponents of “marriage equality”  choose to paint their opponents as “pro-discrimination,” rather than “pro-liberty.”  

Wasn’t there a time when liberals generally defined freedom in terms of “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins?” (IIRC, this was pretty much accepted by most everybody else).  Now, it seems that “your right to swing your fist ends when my nose gets out of joint.”   No need to demonstrate that the particular instance of  “discrimination” (a.k.a.  exercise of one’s freedom)  has done real harm to anyone.  Not even a recognition of the possibility that it may be a matter of two conflicting rights, with the “right” of not suffering discrimination outweighing someone else’s right to religious liberty,  When it comes to religious liberty and discrimination, all that seems necessary is for a member of a “protected class” to say they are offended, and that particular religious liberty is redefined out of existence.  

BTW, could you give me an example of a  “Part 2”  religious activity (other than speech) which you believe is protected by the first amendment?

Those against marriage equality were pro discrimination since there is NOTHING about gay marriage that changes your right to believe in your definition of marriage.  It was only about excluding others to practice their beliefs and demand their rights.  That is why those supporting Prop 8 are pro discrimination.

An example of the second is you can belong to any private group including a religious school and practice your beliefs any way you want including not allowing gays to be a part of those groups.  BSA would be a good example of that.  They were affirmed their right to discriminate by the U. S. Supreme Court.  They decided on their own to be more like Christ and be more inclusive in who they let into their organization all on their own without governmental force.  Good for them.  This is what we are seeing more and more of.

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

Those against marriage equality were pro discrimination since there is NOTHING about gay marriage that changes your right to believe in your definition of marriage.  It was only about excluding others to practice their beliefs and demand their rights.  That is why those supporting Prop 8 are pro discrimination.

An example of the second is you can belong to any private group including a religious school and practice your beliefs any way you want including not allowing gays to be a part of those groups.  BSA would be a good example of that.  They were affirmed their right to discriminate by the U. S. Supreme Court.  They decided on their own to be more like Christ and be more inclusive in who they let into their organization all on their own without governmental force.  Good for them.  This is what we are seeing more and more of.

Sheer poppycockery! Prop 8 supporters did not seek the reversal of anti-discrimination law; reinstating a rescinded constitutional amendment is not rescinding an anti-discrimination law.

Arrant tommyrot! The U.S. Supreme Court did not waive anti-discrimination law, rather held up the constitutional right for a private organization to exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints." (freedom of association). That has nothing to do with waiving anti-discrimination law.

I think you need to stick with the proper terminology for the argument at hand, rather than irrationalizing the issues with misleading terminology. Such shrillness neither furthers the dialogue nor changes the history, and only disingenuously co-opts the true meaning of words in their proper legal context.

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Sheer poppycockery! Prop 8 supporters did not seek the reversal of anti-discrimination law; reinstating a rescinded constitutional amendment is not rescinding an anti-discrimination law.

 

Arrant tommyrot! The U.S. Supreme Court did not waive anti-discrimination law, rather held up the constitutional right for a private organization to exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints." (freedom of association). That has nothing to do with waiving anti-discrimination law.

 

I think you need to stick with the proper terminology for the argument at hand, rather than irrationalizing the issues with misleading terminology. Such shrillness neither furthers the dialogue nor changes the history, and only disingenuously co-opts the true meaning of words in their proper legal context.

 

 

 I never said Prop 8 supporters sought to reverse the anti-discrimination law.

I never said the U.S Supreme Court waived anti-discrimination law when it ruled on BSA.  I actually agree and support the right of BSA and other private organizations including religious schools to discriminate.  Just don't expect to have any right to federal funding.

I think you probably need to stick to what I actually said. 

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Those against marriage equality were pro discrimination since there is NOTHING about gay marriage that changes your right to believe in your definition of marriage.  It was only about excluding others to practice their beliefs and demand their rights.  That is why those supporting Prop 8 are pro discrimination.

An example of the second is you can belong to any private group including a religious school and practice your beliefs any way you want including not allowing gays to be a part of those groups.  BSA would be a good example of that.  They were affirmed their right to discriminate by the U. S. Supreme Court.  They decided on their own to be more like Christ and be more inclusive in who they let into their organization all on their own without governmental force.  Good for them.  This is what we are seeing more and more of.

Another good example is the LDS church before 1978.  For a hundred and forty plus years we were allowed to exercise our religious right to discriminate all we wanted.  The federal government did not interfere with our religious right to be bigots and racists. We were free to believe and discriminate all we wanted.  Black people could not hold our priesthood, or be leaders in our church or even attend our temple. The government didn't step in to stop this. It was pressure from society at large that cause a change in our doctrine.  History is repeating itself. The government is not censoring us.  It is society in general.  People are becoming more accepting and embrace inclusion of others. Its kind of like most people are trying to follow the golden rule. I sometimes wish our leadership would take the lead on civil rights instead of being dragged along kicking and streaming.

[Shadrak]

10 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Which may be why the proponents of “marriage equality”  choose to paint their opponents as “pro-discrimination,” rather than “pro-liberty.”  

Wasn’t there a time when liberals generally defined freedom in terms of “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins?” (IIRC, this was pretty much accepted by most everybody else).  Now, it seems that “your right to swing your fist ends when my nose gets out of joint.”   No need to demonstrate that the particular instance of  “discrimination” (a.k.a.  exercise of one’s freedom)  has done real harm to anyone.  Not even a recognition of the possibility that it may be a matter of two conflicting rights, with the “right” of not suffering discrimination outweighing someone else’s right to religious liberty,  When it comes to religious liberty and discrimination, all that seems necessary is for a member of a “protected class” to say they are offended, and that particular religious liberty is redefined out of existence.  

BTW, could you give me an example of a  “Part 2”  religious activity (other than speech) which you believe is protected by the first amendment?

 

The irony of your comment is lost on you. Taking away or not granting marriage equality or any other LGBT rights, if I understand you correctly, is not discrimination but a big win for liberty. It's not swinging a big legal, discriminatory fist at the nose of another, which is indeed doing real harm to someone in the public square only because you object to them on religious grounds. It's not imaginary, it's not just uncomfortable language, but tangible, detrimental effects. If I understand you right, there can be no check on religious practice in the public square because it it the one right that trumps all others. Which is ridiculous if we are to live in a pluralistic society. So no, I do not think your position is in any way "pro-liberty" and is accurately described as "pro-discrimination." 

 As for examples, how about reasonable accomodation for religious dress, time off for religious holidays, an honor code that reflects religious tenets but it cannot include discrimination against those the law intends to protect. It's not that difficult.

[Shadrak]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Another good example is the LDS church before 1978.  For a hundred and forty plus years we were allowed to exercise our religious right to discriminate all we wanted.  The federal government did not interfere with our religious right to be bigots and racists. We were free to believe and discriminate all we wanted.  Black people could not hold our priesthood, or be leaders in our church or even attend our temple. The government didn't step in to stop this. It was pressure from society at large that cause a change in our doctrine.  History is repeating itself. The government is not censoring us.  It is society in general.  People are becoming more accepting and embrace inclusion of others. Its kind of like most people are trying to follow the golden rule. I sometimes wish our leadership would take the lead on civil rights instead of being dragged along kicking and streaming.

I wonder if a better example may be polygamy. The government did force an end to polygamy. The church changed practice to accommodate the law. But before the change, the church taught that eternal salvation was dependent on polygamy and that the church could not function without it. Yet here we are, a change was made in practice but not doctrine and the church survived.

The church could do something similar with LGBT issues if the time came when society and the law no longer tolerates this type of discrimination. It will be especially acute in the places where religious practice and the public square intersect, like universities or charities that rely on federal money and must deal with the public at large where it's expected similar rules apply between all parties. Within the more insular walls of the chapel religious discrimination will still be very strong and allowed.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

 I never said Prop 8 supporters sought to reverse the anti-discrimination law.

I never said the U.S Supreme Court waived anti-discrimination law when it ruled on BSA.  I actually agree and support the right of BSA and other private organizations including religious schools to discriminate.  Just don't expect to have any right to federal funding.

I think you probably need to stick to what I actually said. 

Ah so. That is why it is better for you to represent Prop 8 support in terms of reinstating "constitutional definition" instead of "pro-discrimination" and to say "exercise the freedom of assembly" instead of "discriminate." Until you start using more accurate wording, I'll never really know what you're trying to say.

Edited September 19, 2016 by CV75

[california boy]

56 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Ah so. That is why it is better for you to represent Prop 8 support in terms of reinstating "constitutional definition" instead of "pro-discrimination" and to say "exercise the freedom of assembly" instead of "discriminate." Until you start using more accurate wording, I'll never really know what you're trying to say.

While I clearly did not state that those supporting Prop 8 were trying to change the Civil Rights Act, let me make this perfectly clear.  Supporting Prop 8 was supporting discrimination.  

Here is a little test for you.  Switch who Prop 8 was directed at.  If Prop 8 was about taking away the constitutional right for Mormons to marry simply because they were Mormon.  And if people were claiming they were denying Mormons the right to marry based on their religious beliefs, would you call that discrimination against Mormons?  Do you think for one moment the church would have fought to pass such a proposition directed at preventing their marriages?

There are other rights guaranteed in the Constitution.  One of those is the Equal Protection Clause.  That is just as real of right as Freedom of Religion.  Since gay marriage did not effect your freedom to practice your religion, then there was NO reason to deny gay couples their equal protection under the Constitution.  And that is why every single court that heard gay marriage case ruled in favor of gay marriage.  That is why those who supported Prop 8 are accused of supporting discrimination.  

The church wanted to pass a law that would discriminate against the right of gay couples to marry simply because they were gay.  It had NO effect pm the rights of Mormons to believe marriage is between a man and a woman.  And that is what is so shameful for what the church did in supporting discrimination against gay couples by working to pass Prop 8.  Now, all over the world, the Mormon church is known as THAT church that worked to pass a law that discriminates against gays.  Live with it. The church deserves every bit of that reputation just like the church deserves every bit of its racist reputation against blacks.  Do you see a pattern here?  Because others certainly do.

Edited September 19, 2016 by california boy

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

Here is a little test for you.

For your test to mean anything, Prop 8 would have had to have been about restoring a rescinded definition of marriage as constituting only non-Mormon spouses. That’s simply cra-cra, but in any case doesn’t constitute discrimination.

[CV75]

[Shadrak]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

For your test to mean anything, Prop 8 would have had to have been about restoring a rescinded definition of marriage as constituting only non-Mormon spouses. That’s simply cra-cra, but in any case doesn’t constitute discrimination.

 

 

It seems you're misunderstanding what Prop 8 did. Gay marriage was constitutionally protected in CA prior to passage of Prop 8, just like mormons marrying is. Thus Prop 8 recinded a protected right, it was never about restoring anything. You'd have to imagine a future Prop 10 that said mormons can no longer marry because... whatever reason you choose. Simply their right to marry was taken away by popular vote. You wouldn't consider imaginary Prop 10 discriminatory? 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Shadrak said:

It seems you're misunderstanding what Prop 8 did. Gay marriage was constitutionally protected in CA prior to passage of Prop 8, just like mormons marrying is. Thus Prop 8 recinded a protected right, it was never about restoring anything. You'd have to imagine a future Prop 10 that said mormons can no longer marry because... whatever reason you choose. Simply their right to marry was taken away by popular vote. You wouldn't consider imaginary Prop 10 discriminatory? 

The eternal sunshine of the truncated memory.

Proposition 22 law restricting marriage to opposite-sex partners passed in March 2000. It was constitutionally protected for eight years until it was ruled unconstitutional by California Supreme Court in May 2008. The Prop 8 state constitutional amendment passed November 2008, rescinding the decision that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional, reinstating the constitutional protection of opposite-sex restrictions. We all know the circus that ensued after its passage.

The constitutional amendment which reinstates a previously constitutionally-supported restricting legislation is not discriminatory. There is no anti-discrimination law against such action or the passage of restrictive laws. These actions don’t meet anti-discrimination criteria.

The voiding of Mayor Nesom's actions in 2004 doesn't count as marriage being constitutionally or legislatively granted and then being taken away.

An imaginary Prop 10 is unworkable because Mormons (or the members of any religion in the USA) were never singled out as a group granted the right to marry.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

For your test to mean anything, Prop 8 would have had to have been about restoring a rescinded definition of marriage as constituting only non-Mormon spouses. That’s simply cra-cra, but in any case doesn’t constitute discrimination.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Shadrak said:

It seems you're misunderstanding what Prop 8 did. Gay marriage was constitutionally protected in CA prior to passage of Prop 8, just like mormons marrying is. Thus Prop 8 recinded a protected right, it was never about restoring anything. You'd have to imagine a future Prop 10 that said mormons can no longer marry because... whatever reason you choose. Simply their right to marry was taken away by popular vote. You wouldn't consider imaginary Prop 10 discriminatory? 

EXACTLY.  When I read answers like yours, I wonder if Mormons even knew what they were supporting.  I think it is one of those sheep things.  If the leaders of the church tell us to do something then it must automatically be right, we shouldn't find out what they are asking us to do.   We should just obey without question.  I get it.  That is all part of the Mormon culture.  When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.  The prophet will never lead us astray. etc.  That still doesn't excuse the church for it's actions.

 I can certainly understand why you would like to move on to another subject.  Sorry if we are BORING you with the facts.  I am sure it is much  easier to just forget it ever happened.  But what happens the next time the church leaders call on all members to give of their time and money to discriminate against some other constitutional right.  Will you just follow along because the whole thing is a bit of a bore for you and you can't be bothered learning what it is all about?  

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

EXACTLY.  When I read answers like yours, I wonder if Mormons even knew what they were supporting.  I think it is one of those sheep things.  If the leaders of the church tell us to do something then it must automatically be right, we shouldn't find out what they are asking us to do.   We should just obey without question.  I get it.  That is all part of the Mormon culture.  When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.  The prophet will never lead us astray. etc.  That still doesn't excuse the church for it's actions.

 I can certainly understand why you would like to move on to another subject.  Sorry if we are BORING you with the facts.  I am sure it is much  easier to just forget it ever happened.  But what happens the next time the church leaders call on all members to give of their time and money to discriminate against some other constitutional right.  Will you just follow along because the whole thing is a bit of a bore for you and you can't be bothered learning what it is all about?  

The eternal sunshine of the truncated memory.

Proposition 22 law restricting marriage to opposite-sex partners passed in March 2000. It was constitutionally protected for eight years until it was ruled unconstitutional by California Supreme Court in May 2008. The Prop 8 state constitutional amendment passed November 2008, rescinding the decision that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional, reinstating the constitutional protection of opposite-sex restrictions. We all know the circus that ensued after its passage.

The constitutional amendment which reinstates a previously constitutionally-supported restricting legislation is not discriminatory. There is no anti-discrimination law against such action or the passage of restrictive laws. These actions don’t meet anti-discrimination criteria.

The voiding of Mayor Nesom's actions in 2004 doesn't count as marriage being constitutionally or legislatively granted and then being taken away.

An imaginary Prop 10 is unworkable because Mormons (or the members of any religion in the USA) were never singled out as a group granted the right to marry.

Facts are certainly not boring. The persistent abuse of the word "discriminatory" to misrepresent fact in this conversation is! And silly thought experiments that betray an ignorance of the facts in the first place!

[Shadrak]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The eternal sunshine of the truncated memory.

 

Proposition 22 law restricting marriage to opposite-sex partners passed in March 2000. It was constitutionally protected for eight years until it was ruled unconstitutional by California Supreme Court in May 2008. The Prop 8 state constitutional amendment passed November 2008, rescinding the decision that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional, reinstating the constitutional protection of opposite-sex restrictions. We all know the circus that ensued after its passage.

 

The constitutional amendment which reinstates a previously constitutionally-supported restricting legislation is not discriminatory. There is no anti-discrimination law against such action or the passage of restrictive laws. These actions don’t meet anti-discrimination criteria.

 

The voiding of Mayor Nesom's actions in 2004 doesn't count as marriage being constitutionally or legislatively granted and then being taken away.

An imaginary Prop 10 is unworkable because Mormons (or the members of any religion in the USA) were never singled out as a group granted the right to marry.

I think you're mistaken about Prop 22, a state statute. It was not "constitutionally protected" because it was struck down as an unconstitutional law when challenged in state courts. So Prop 8 was initiated to amend the state constitution in an attempt to take a constitutionally protected right away, gay marriage. 

State courts affirmed Prop 8 but ultimately federal courts did not. When put to the test, banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. There really is no other argument to make about it now. 

Imaginary Prop 10 would be just like Prop 8, a majority taking away a constitutionally protected right from a minority because...they don't like them, which is not a rational basis. That seems discriminatory to me.

[Shadrak]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

EXACTLY.  When I read answers like yours, I wonder if Mormons even knew what they were supporting.  I think it is one of those sheep things.  If the leaders of the church tell us to do something then it must automatically be right, we shouldn't find out what they are asking us to do.   We should just obey without question.  I get it.  That is all part of the Mormon culture.  When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.  The prophet will never lead us astray. etc.  That still doesn't excuse the church for it's actions.

 I can certainly understand why you would like to move on to another subject.  Sorry if we are BORING you with the facts.  I am sure it is much  easier to just forget it ever happened.  But what happens the next time the church leaders call on all members to give of their time and money to discriminate against some other constitutional right.  Will you just follow along because the whole thing is a bit of a bore for you and you can't be bothered learning what it is all about?  

I can tell you that I didn't know. Church leaders said do this to defend the church so I did without much further thought, other than how to make arguments that defend the church and make sense to me. Not much thought that the church might be wrong. Why create conflict within myself? 

What did I think about the No on H8 campaign? Being called a bigot? Being told Prop 8 was taking away rights? The same thing I thought when confronted with any kind of anti-Mormon stance, like lack of DNA or historical evidence for the BoM. The church has declared its position (which is always right), I'll defend it to the best of my ability, and these other folks just don't understand the church with the faith and blessing of following prophets. Plus, doesn't the persecution validate the church's position? 

I totally agree with you that the next time most members will go along with whatever church leaders tell them. No critiquing or questing the underlying validity of the church's position, but good obedience. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The eternal sunshine of the truncated memory.

Proposition 22 law restricting marriage to opposite-sex partners passed in March 2000. It was constitutionally protected for eight years until it was ruled unconstitutional by California Supreme Court in May 2008. The Prop 8 state constitutional amendment passed November 2008, rescinding the decision that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional, reinstating the constitutional protection of opposite-sex restrictions. We all know the circus that ensued after its passage.

 

When was Prop 22 constitutionally protected? State laws are not people, they don't have constitutional rights. This is not coherent. 

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, Shadrak said:

I think you're mistaken about Prop 22, a state statute. It was not "constitutionally protected" because it was struck down as an unconstitutional law when challenged in state courts. So Prop 8 was initiated to amend the state constitution in an attempt to take a constitutionally protected right away, gay marriage. 

State courts affirmed Prop 8 but ultimately federal courts did not. When put to the test, banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. There really is no other argument to make about it now. 

Imaginary Prop 10 would be just like Prop 8, a majority taking away a constitutionally protected right from a minority because...they don't like them, which is not a rational basis. That seems discriminatory to me.

Now you’re just repeating things, which loses my interest pretty quickly.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

When was Prop 22 constitutionally protected? State laws are not people, they don't have constitutional rights. This is not coherent. 

Good point (I guess...) it was held as constitutional for eight years, and the voters enjoyed constitutional protection of their decision during that time.

[Shadrak]

Just now, CV75 said:

Now you’re just repeating things, which loses my interest pretty quickly.

I wouldn't have to repeat myself if you'd get things right the first time.

[CV75]

Just now, Shadrak said:

I wouldn't have to repeat myself if you'd get things right the first time.

Or maybe if you didn't have to convince yourself so badly and shield yourself from facts LOL

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Good point (I guess...) it was held as constitutional for eight years, and the voters enjoyed constitutional protection of their decision during that time.

It was simply a law that was passed. The first and only time it underwent judicial review for its constitutionality, it failed that review. 

Furthermore, at no point did the law give any voters additional constitutional protection. 

[Shadrak]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Or maybe if you didn't have to convince yourself so badly and shield yourself from facts LOL

What facts? The fact that Prop 22 was declared unconstitutional? The fact that gay marriage is constitutional?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The eternal sunshine of the truncated memory.

Proposition 22 law restricting marriage to opposite-sex partners passed in March 2000. It was constitutionally protected for eight years until it was ruled unconstitutional by California Supreme Court in May 2008. The Prop 8 state constitutional amendment passed November 2008, rescinding the decision that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional, reinstating the constitutional protection of opposite-sex restrictions. We all know the circus that ensued after its passage.

The constitutional amendment which reinstates a previously constitutionally-supported restricting legislation is not discriminatory. There is no anti-discrimination law against such action or the passage of restrictive laws. These actions don’t meet anti-discrimination criteria.

The voiding of Mayor Nesom's actions in 2004 doesn't count as marriage being constitutionally or legislatively granted and then being taken away.

An imaginary Prop 10 is unworkable because Mormons (or the members of any religion in the USA) were never singled out as a group granted the right to marry.

Facts are certainly not boring. The persistent abuse of the word "discriminatory" to misrepresent fact in this conversation is! And silly thought experiments that betray an ignorance of the facts in the first place!

CV you have such a distorted view of what actually happened.  CFR Prop 22 was EVER declared constitutionally correct.  EVER.  It was not.  Yes it takes time for these cases to be challenged and to work their way through the judicial process.  I wish it was faster.  But the California Supreme Court ruling on Prop 22 was the FIRST and only time that proposition was brought before that court.  They ruled as you know that it was unconstitutional.  Hence Prop 8 sought to CHANGE the Constitution of California.  Prop 8 was then challenged in FEDERAL court under the Federal constitution.  The US Supreme Court ruled against the right of those that defended Prop 8 as having any standing.  And as you know, the US Supreme Court later ruled that any state law banning gay marriage was against the civil rights guaranteed EVERYONE in the Constitution.  Prop 22 was never ruled as constitutional and was never constitutionally supported.  Quite the opposite of what you stated.  Where are you getting this information from.  Hence a CFR.  Please answer it or retract your statement.

Now concerning Gavin Newsom.  You also have that completely WRONG.  Gavin Newsom and other city officials began issuing marriage licenses in San Francisco on February 12. 2004.   The next day it was challenged in court.  On February 20, 2004, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger asked for a judicial resolution on the issue.  Six months later, the California Supreme court ruled that the mayor exceeded his authority and ruled against Gavin Newsom and the city of San Francisco.  It is important to remember that they DID NOT rule against gay marriage.  They only ruled against the city of San Francisco from exceeding their authority.  

Following that decision, San Francisco filed a suit in Superior Court, claiming that prohibiting gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.  The California Supreme Court ruled on THAT on May 15, 2006 upholding the city of San Francisco and declaring that Prop 22 was unconstitutional and gay couples did indeed have a right to marry under the Constitution of California.  Gay marriage was legal in the state of California.  

When Prop 8 was being voted on, gay couples did indeed have every legal right to marry based on the California Constitution.  

Now to go back to the imaginary prop 10.  Would it be discrimination against Mormon couples if a proposition was passed prohibiting them from marrying even though the State of California had already ruled that Mormons have a right to marry?

 I am more than happy to offer any documentation on anything that I have said.  So now you have the facts.  Does that make ANY difference to you?  Or do you really believe that the church should go around trying to take away the constitutionally protected civil rights of any minority it disagrees with?  Would you have a problem with the church trying to pass a law prohibiting Jehovah Witneses from baptizing because the church leaders think their baptisms are not a real baptism, even though Jehovah Witneses have a legal right to baptize also guaranteed to them by the constitution.  Would you have a problem if the church tried passing a proposition not allowing Blacks to marry even though they have that legal right guaranteed them in the constitution?  What if the prophet told you to support such propositions?  Would  you consider a proposition preventing Blacks from marrying to be discrimination?

 

[Sleeper Cell]

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Shadrak said:

The irony of your comment is lost on you. Taking away or not granting marriage equality or any other LGBT rights, if I understand you correctly, is not discrimination but a big win for liberty. It's not swinging a big legal, discriminatory fist at the nose of another, which is indeed doing real harm to someone in the public square only because you object to them on religious grounds. It's not imaginary, it's not just uncomfortable language, but tangible, detrimental effects. If I understand you right, there can be no check on religious practice in the public square because it it the one right that trumps all others. Which is ridiculous if we are to live in a pluralistic society. So no, I do not think your position is in any way "pro-liberty" and is accurately described as "pro-discrimination." 

 As for examples, how about reasonable accomodation for religious dress, time off for religious holidays, an honor code that reflects religious tenets but it cannot include discrimination against those the law intends to protect. It's not that difficult.

I was not aware that I had ever suggested that legalizing gay marriage, per se, infringed on anybody’s liberty.  Not quite sure what you mean by “marriage equality.”  

So a religious school can have a faith-based honor code, but only as long as its provisions are acceptable to the  government (i e., acceptable to whoever is control of the government at the time)?  Sure, its not that difficult -- but that’s not liberty.  

BYU students have voluntarily agreed to follow BYU’s  honor code.  That’s liberty. True, it is a condition of enrollment, but students are not forced to attend BYU.  It is not like those who do chose to attend didn’t have other alternatives.  There are thousands of secular schools which accept gay marriage. For that matter, they could have chosen one of the many religious schools whose faith-based rules were  more to their liking.   

Aren’t whatever “tangible, detrimental effects” a few BYU students might suffer in regard to the honor code, really their own fault -- a consequence of  making a personal choice  to voluntarily give their word and then making another personal choice to break their promise?   

Free to choose. Isn’t that the essence of liberty?  And, isn’t that, more or less, the essence of “pluralism?”  

BTW, since when did a private religious school become part of the public square