Mormons getting praise from liberals...

[bsjkki]

34 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not so much.

SEE http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-nationwide-marriage-equality

"Lesley Stahl: One of the groups that’s expressing fear are the LGBTQ group. You--

Donald Trump: And yet I mentioned them at the Republican National Convention. And--

Lesley Stahl: You did.

Donald Trump: Everybody said, “That was so great.” I have been, you know, I’ve been-a supporter.

Lesley Stahl: Well, I guess the issue for them is marriage equality. Do you support marriage equality?

Donald Trump: It-- it’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.

Lesley Stahl: So even if you appoint a judge that--

Donald Trump: It’s done. It-- you have-- these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And, I’m fine with that."

He may not agree with everything the HRC wants but he is not homophobic.     

I have hopes he can straddle the divide between lgbtq rights and protecting religious freedom. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/us/politics/donald-trump-gay-rights.html

It's just a hope. I could be wrong but I am willing to give him a chance based on his past actions.

 

[thesometimesaint]

Dred Scott was settled law too.

He's already shown his contempt for religious freedom in America. Ask the Khan family.

We need to take a page from Mitch McConnell';s playbook.  "Our top priority is to make him a one term president" .

[Daniel2]

11 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I have hopes he can straddle the divide between lgbtq rights and protecting religious freedom. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/us/politics/donald-trump-gay-rights.html

It's just a hope. I could be wrong but I am willing to give him a chance based on his past actions.

This question isn't limited to bsjkki, so everyone is welcome to answer this (and if this is too off-topic and needs it's own thread, we can open a different one, too), but I am genuinely curious...

What do most members of the LDS church believe WOULD be the appropriate way to "straddle the divide between LGBTQ rights and protecting religious freedom"?

From my perspective, I believe that when it comes to protecting against unjust discrimination, I believe sexual orientation should be treated the same way that race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age are all treated as per the Civil Rights Act. 

In other words, I actually AGREE with President-Elect Trump's (admittedly 16-years-old) comments from back in 2000 (he's flip-flopped on so many issues, it's unclear whether he still holds the following position today or not):

Quote

Trump Supported Amending The Civil Rights Act To Include A Ban On Discrimination Based On Sexual Orientation.

Asked by The Advocate about what Trump would do to combat anti-LGBTQ prejudice, Trump said,

“I like the idea of amending the Civil Rights Act to include a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. It would be simple. It would be straightforward. We don’t need to rewrite the laws currently on the books, although I do think we need to address hate-crimes legislation. But amending the Civil Rights Act would grant the same protection to gay people that we give to other Americans—it’s only fair"...[The Advocate, 2/15/2000 ]

There is already growing legal precedent that suggests discriminating against someone's sexual orientation is covered under discrimination based on sex...

Quote

Court rules sexual orientation is covered under federal sex discrimination law

by Tim Gould November 9, 2016

In a landmark decision, a federal district court has ruled that sexual orientation bias is a form of sex discrimination – and illegal under U.S. law.  

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that a federal court has denied a motion to dismiss a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC, ruling that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Last March 1, the  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the U.S. government’s first sex discrimination lawsuit based on sexual orientation, EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center. EEOC charged that a gay male employee was subjected to sex discrimination in the form of harassment because of his sexual orientation and then forced to quit his job rather than endure further harassment.

In response to EEOC’s lawsuit, Scott Medical Health Center filed a motion to dismiss the case.

Judge Cathy Bissoon, ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh, denied Scott Medical Health Center’s motion to dismiss the case. In its ruling, the court found that sexual orientation discrimination is a type of discrimination “because of sex,” which is barred by Title VII.

‘Sex stereotyping’ is the key component

Applying decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court finding that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination includes adverse treatment of workers based on “sex stereotypes” —  pre-conceived ideas of how a man or a woman should act or think — the federal court stated, “There is no more obvious form of sex stereotyping than making a determination that a person should conform to heterosexuality.”

The judge concluded, “That someone can be subjected to a barrage of insults, humiliation, hostility and/or changes to the terms and conditions of their employment, based upon nothing more than the aggressor’s view of what it means to be a man or a woman, is exactly the evil Title VII was designed to eradicate.”

While the federal court made a legal ruling in the case, to date there has been no trial or factual finding whether discrimination occurred.

The EEOC has previously concluded that harassment and other discrimination because of sexual orientation is prohibited sex discrimination. In July 2015, EEOC, in a federal sector decision, Baldwin v. Dep’t of Transp., determined that sexual orientation discrimination is, by its very nature, discrimination because of sex.

In that case, EEOC explained the reasons why Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination includes discrimination because of sexual orientation:

1. sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involves treating workers less favorably because of their sex because sexual orientation as a concept cannot be understood without reference to sex
2. sexual orientation discrimination is rooted in non-compliance with sex stereotypes and gender norms, and employment decisions based in such stereotypes and norms have long been found to be prohibited sex discrimination under Title VII, and
3. sexual orientation discrimination punishes workers because of their close personal association with members of a particular sex, such as marital and other personal relationships.

The take-home

Obviously, the bottom line for employers here is that there’s now a broader range of grounds for employees to file suit under sexual discrimination laws. It’d make sense to include sexual orientation in your anti-harassment and anti-discrimination for employees and managers.

 

Other rulings with the same conclusion have occurred over the last several months:

Based on Sex: The EEOC Rules That Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Sex Discrimination (from July 2015)

Judge rules sexual orientation discrimination falls under purview of landmark Title IX law (from Dec 2015)

I'm curious if treating sexual orientation discrimination the same as the other classes covered by the Civil Rights Act is something that most Latter-day Saints (and/or the institutional church itself) would object to...?

Edited November 14, 2016 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel:

I of course can not speak for the Church. Personally I am a live and let live type.

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

This question isn't limited to bsjkki, so everyone is welcome to answer this (and if this is too off-topic and needs it's own thread, we can open a different one, too), but I am genuinely curious...

What do most members of the LDS church believe WOULD be the appropriate way to "straddle the divide between LGBTQ rights and protecting religious freedom"?

From my perspective, I believe that when it comes to protecting against unjust discrimination, I believe sexual orientation should be treated the same way that race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age are all treated as per the Civil Rights Act. 

In other words, I actually AGREE with President-Elect Trump's (admittedly 16-years-old) comments from back in 2000 (he's flip-flopped on so many issues, it's unclear whether he still holds the following position today or not):

There is already growing legal precedent that suggests discriminating against someone's sexual orientation is covered under discrimination based on sex...

Other rulings with the same conclusion have occurred over the last several months:

Based on Sex: The EEOC Rules That Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Sex Discrimination (from July 2015)

Judge rules sexual orientation discrimination falls under purview of landmark Title IX law (from Dec 2015)

I'm curious if treating sexual orientation discrimination the same as the other classes covered by the Civil Rights Act is something that most Latter-day Saints (and/or the institutional church itself) would object to...?

What do you think of Utah's Anti Discrimination Law?  Is that a good bridge or not?  My simple take on it was it provided legal protections for lgbtq in housing and employment but at the same time carved out exemptions for the church. Do you believe there should be any exemptions ever for religion or none? Should the church have the right to not perform gay marriages or is that discriminatory and should the church be punished?  Should BYU lose the right for their students to receive federal aid because BYU is now considered discriminatory? Where is this line for you?  This goes back to this other thread. I want anti discrimination laws in the public square but also want the church to be able to set their own standards.  This is tough and where that line is drawn and all the hypothetical situations are hard to address. I still struggle with this issue--cognitive dissonance and it makes my head hurt.

 

[Daniel2]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

What do you think of Utah's Anti Discrimination Law?  Is that a good bridge or not?  My simple take on it was it provided legal protections for lgbtq in housing and employment but at the same time carved out exemptions for the church. Do you believe there should be any exemptions ever for religion or none? Should the church have the right to not perform gay marriages or is that discriminatory and should the church be punished?  Should BYU lose the right for their students to receive federal aid because BYU is now considered discriminatory? Where is this line for you?  This goes back to this other thread. I want anti discrimination laws in the public square but also want the church to be able to set their own standards.  This is tough and where that line is drawn and all the hypothetical situations are hard to address. I still struggle with this issue--cognitive dissonance and it makes my head hurt.

 

I agree with and support that Utah's anti-discrimination compromise:

• adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the state's already existing antidiscrimination law (prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing and employment)
• allows civil servants the opportunity to 'opt out' of civil marriages they feel violate their religious convictions as long as someone else is currently available to conduct the ceremony who is equally qualified and authorized (the key here, for me, is that such civil servants are still required to perform the civil marriage if no one else is available)
• protects religious groups and their affiliates from being forced to perform same-sex marriages
• protects people from fired or evicted for expressing their religious beliefs
• and the Boy Scouts of America can't be forced to allow LGBT troop leaders

So, I have no issue nor problems with those religious exemptions that were agreed upon in the above bill.

Utah's anti-discrimination laws tabled the issue of public accommodations, with the understanding that the current compromise didn't address that issue and eventually a separate law would have to address it somehow.

Yes, churches have (and will and would continue to have) the right to not perform ANY marriages which would violate their religious tenants.  That is not discriminatory (from a legal perspective) and no church should or will be punished for doing so.  In all honesty, this has NEVER been an issue and I don't believe it EVER will be.  Implications that it ever was under some kind of threat were, IMO, fear-mongering.  Interracial marriage has been legal for almost 50 years, and NO church has ever been forced to marry an interracial couple.  Mixed-Faith marriages have been legal for far longer than that (in fact, I couldn't even find data to suggest whether there was ever a time they were legally forbidden), but no Faith has ever been forced to marry mixed-Faith couples if said Faith forbids such mixed-Faith marriages (i.e. Catholicism). The same is true for non-procreative couples, atheist couples, couples where one person was married previously and is now divorced, etc.  The idea that churches or clergy would ever be forced to marry same-sex couples in opposition to the tenants of their Faith was a red herring based on false and unfounded fears.

Regarding your question of, "should BYU lose the right for their students to receive federal aid because BYU is now considered discriminatory?"  I would word this slightly differently, because I don't know that BYU, as an institution, has "a right" for it's students to receive federal aid...  I would word it by saying that students should have the right to spend any federal aid that they (personally, themselves) qualify for at whichever university they so desire, and that the government shouldn't be able to restrict such students from receiving personal aid merely because they attend a religious school.  That being said, I don't believe private universities that choose not to follow public law regarding discrimination should expect to receive general federal aid or grants (that is, money not being applied for and granted to specific students--but grants for said private university's general programs, building improvement, etc.)

Like you, I want anti discrimination laws in the public square and I want the church to be able to set their own standards.  

I don't believe it's as tough to identify where that line is drawn and I don't think the hypothetical situations are all that hard to address.... Meaning, I can't find any meaningful reason why private business owners, corporations, or even private universities should be able to treat sexual orientation differently than how the law intersects with protecting those other protected classes, as defined by the Civil Rights Act; that is, it should be treated the same as any prohibition of public accommodations and/or religious exemptions granted to any religion or religious institution based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age. 

After all, I haven't heard of anyone arguing against public accommodations laws prohibiting discrimination (or laws prohibiting public servants from marrying couples) based on "religious objections" to interracial marriage, or mixed-Faith marriages, despite the fact that some religions continue to forbid one or both of those.  No one seems to be decrying the fact that companies in the wedding industry can't discriminate against interracial couples or mixed-Faith couples or atheist couples or couples of any given religion or couples where one person is divorced, even if such business owners DO have "deeply held religious beliefs" to the contrary.

Now that I've all of your questions, will you answer mine?:

Do you object to treating sexual orientation discrimination the same as the other classes covered by the Civil Rights Act (those being race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age)?

If not, why do you feel that sexual orientation should be singled out for religious exemptions, when race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age don't qualify for religious exemptions?

Edited November 15, 2016 by Daniel2

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I agree with and support that Utah's anti-discrimination compromise:

• adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the state's already existing antidiscrimination law (prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing and employment)
• allows civil servants the opportunity to 'opt out' of civil marriages they feel violate their religious convictions as long as someone else is currently available to conduct the ceremony who is equally qualified and authorized (the key here, for me, is that such civil servants are still required to perform the civil marriage if no one else is available)
• protects religious groups and their affiliates from being forced to perform same-sex marriages
• protects people from fired or evicted for expressing their religious beliefs
• and the Boy Scouts of America can't be forced to allow LGBT troop leaders

So, I have no issue nor problems with those religious exemptions that were agreed upon in the above bill.

Utah's anti-discrimination laws tabled the issue of public accommodations, with the understanding that the current compromise didn't address that issue and eventually a separate law would have to address it somehow.

Yes, churches have (and will and would continue to have) the right to not perform ANY marriages which would violate their religious tenants.  That is not discriminatory and no church be punished.  In all honesty, this has NEVER been an issue and I don't believe it EVER will be.  Implications that it ever was under some kind of threat were, IMO, fear-mongering.  Interracial marriage has been legal for almost 50 years, and NO church has ever been forced to marry an interracial couple.  Mixed-Faith marriages have been legal for far longer than that (in fact, I couldn't even find data to suggest whether there was ever a time they were legally forbidden), but no Faith has ever been forced to marry mixed-Faith couples if said Faith forbids such mixed-Faith marriages (i.e. Catholicism). The same is true for non-procreative couples, atheist couples, couples where one person was married previously and is now divorced, etc.  The idea that churches or clergy would ever be forced to marry same-sex couples in opposition to the tenants of their Faith was a red herring based on false and unfounded fears.

Regarding your question of, "should BYU lose the right for their students to receive federal aid because BYU is now considered discriminatory?"  I would word this slightly differently, because I don't know that BYU, as an institution, has "a right" for it's students to receive federal aid...  I would word it by saying that students should have the right to spend any federal aid that they (personally, themselves) qualify for at whichever university they so desire, and that the government shouldn't be able to restrict such students from receiving personal aid merely because they attend a religious school.  That being said, I don't believe private universities that choose not to follow public law regarding discrimination should expect to receive general federal aid or grants (that is, money not being applied for and granted to specific students--but grants for said private university's general programs, building improvement, etc.)

Like you, I want anti discrimination laws in the public square and I want the church to be able to set their own standards.  

I don't believe it's as tough to identify where that line is drawn and I don't think the hypothetical situations are all that hard to address.... Meaning, I can't find any meaningful reason why private business owners, corporations, or even private universities should be able to treat sexual orientation differently than how the law intersects with protecting those other protected classes, as defined by the Civil Rights Act; that is, it should be treated the same as any prohibition of public accommodations and/or religious exemptions granted to any religion or religious institution based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age. 

After all, I haven't heard of anyone arguing against public accommodations laws prohibiting discrimination (or laws prohibiting public servants from marrying couples) based on "religious objections" to interracial marriage, or mixed-Faith marriages, despite the fact that some religions continue to forbid one or both of those.  No one seems to be decrying the fact that companies in the wedding industry can't discriminate against interracial couples or mixed-Faith couples or atheist couples or couples of any given religion or couples where one person is divorced, even if such business owners DO have "deeply held religious beliefs" to the contrary.

Now that I've all of your questions, will you answer mine?:

Do you object to treating sexual orientation discrimination the same as the other classes covered by the Civil Rights Act (those being race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age)?

If not, why do you feel that sexual orientation should be singled out for religious exemptions, when race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age don't qualify for religious exemptions?

We agree on this. (You are also a great writer...I envy you) The wedding industry is the only gray area left for disagreement between us of any kind. I have gone through the arguments and see both sides. Your two questions are the crux of the matter.  It gets away from legal arguments for me and gets personal.  I would not have any issue with going to a gay wedding or baking cake. Do I feel others, that have strong moral objections based on deeply held religious beliefs, should be compelled to provide services for a gay wedding or go out of business? I'm not sure. You stated you agree with this, "Allows civil servants the opportunity to 'opt out' of civil marriages they feel violate their religious convictions as long as someone else is currently available to conduct the ceremony who is equally qualified and authorized (the key here, for me, is that such civil servants are still required to perform the civil marriage if no one else is available)." Can that same right be extended to the wedding industry? Do we have to force people out of business because they don't want to participate in a gay wedding? Legally, unless a religious exemption for this is carved out, there is no argument. Comply or go out of business. If the services are available and offered elsewhere for an event (not store front service), do we have to use government to force compliance? 

For me it's not a question of serving a class of people but participating in an event. 

I am sure you have many arguments against this thinking and that is why I emphasized it's not a legal argument but a personal one.  It's also one I still question and ponder on.

 

 

 

 

[Daniel2]

On 11/14/2016 at 5:50 PM, bsjkki said:

We agree on this. (You are also a great writer...I envy you) The wedding industry is the only gray area left for disagreement between us of any kind. I have gone through the arguments and see both sides. Your two questions are the crux of the matter.  It gets away from legal arguments for me and gets personal.  I would not have any issue with going to a gay wedding or baking cake. Do I feel others, that have strong moral objections based on deeply held religious beliefs, should be compelled to provide services for a gay wedding or go out of business? I'm not sure. You stated you agree with this, "Allows civil servants the opportunity to 'opt out' of civil marriages they feel violate their religious convictions as long as someone else is currently available to conduct the ceremony who is equally qualified and authorized (the key here, for me, is that such civil servants are still required to perform the civil marriage if no one else is available)." Can that same right be extended to the wedding industry? Do we have to force people out of business because they don't want to participate in a gay wedding? Legally, unless a religious exemption for this is carved out, there is no argument. Comply or go out of business. If the services are available and offered elsewhere for an event (not store front service), do we have to use government to force compliance? 

For me it's not a question of serving a class of people but participating in an event. 

I am sure you have many arguments against this thinking and that is why I emphasized it's not a legal argument but a personal one.  It's also one I still question and ponder on.

 

Thanks for the compliment.  Any writing skills I possess are due to several amazing teachers I had starting in Fourth Grade… J

I can understand that the issue is personal beyond the legal.  I think anytime we’re facing trying to balance preventing discrimination vs. protecting personal liberties and livelihoods, that’s an understandably personal process that needs to be handled with care.

Without meaning to sound like a broken record, as I said before, it’s my belief that “sexual orientation” should be treated the same as any other protected class (race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age) of The Civil Rights Act.  With that end in mind, let me explain how I believe that would fairly apply to the question of individuals in the wedding industry:

When any of us ponders the question of, “Do I feel that individuals who have strong moral objections based on deeply-held religious beliefs should be compelled to provide services for a gay wedding or go out of business?,” I would hope that we could eliminate the “gay wedding” portion and substitute ANY reason in its stead.

My reasoning for that is to be sure we aren’t singling out ‘sexual orientation’ as THE central/defining question in trying to legally define the boundaries of religious liberty.  If we fail to pose the question of religious liberty in broader religious objections, we really aren’t speaking of “religious liberty” at all (because we’d be failing to take into consideration and allow religious objections to any other type of marital relationship). 

Another way of saying it is this: If we fail to pose the question in broader religious terms, what we’re really talking about is just allowing anyone to discriminate against same-gender couples in the name of religious liberty, but not allowing full religious liberty to refuse service to anyone else. Either that, or I am proposing that we need to acknowledge that, as far as public accommodations are concerned, religious liberty doesn't REALLY encompass an ability to refuse services to anyone based on anyone's "deeply held religious beliefs."

So, if we were to broaden the question, I would propose this question seems more appropriate:

Should businesses and/or employees who have strong religious objections to [fill in the blank with any given type of relationship] be legally compelled by their customers to either a) provide services for the wedding of said couple, or b) face lawsuits that could ultimately put them out of business?

In the above question, you can substitute ANY form of religious objections that a store owner or employee might have, such as religiously objecting to:

• Same-sex marriages
• Mixed-Faith marriages
• Interracial marriages
• Marriages between the disabled
• Intergenerational marriages (when differences of age can be counted in decades, but where both parties have still having reached the legal age of consent)
• Marriages of previously-divorced parties
• Marriages performed in the Church of Satan, Wiccan marriages, Jewish Marriages, LDS Marriages, Jehovah’s Witness Marriages, Catholic Marriages, Baptist Marriages, Atheist marriages, etc.

Currently, as I understand it, the ONLY item on the above list that isn’t legally protected would be “same-sex marriage.”

Meaning, a wedding industry business owner and/or employee can’t refuse to serve all the others on the list above without facing legal sanctions against them (fines, employee training programs, and other actions up to and including ultimately having to close their doors). 

So, in order to ensure that “religious liberty” is ACTUALLY “the ability for a business owner to decline to provide services based on their deeply-held religious objections,” and not just a front for legalizing discrimination against gays, I suggest we need to ask ourselves…

• Is it fair for such wedding industry business owners and employees to have to choose to either make a cake for people getting married in the Church of Satan or face potentially going out of business?
• Is it fair for such wedding industry business owners and employees to have to choose to either make a cake for an interracial couple’s wedding or face potentially going out of business?
• Is it fair for such wedding industry business owners and employees to have to choose to either make a cake for a couple in which one was previously divorced or face potentially going out of business?
• Is it fair for such wedding industry business owners and employees to have to choose to either make a cake for a disabled couple’s wedding or face potentially going out of business?
• Is it fair for such wedding industry business owners and employees to have to choose to either make a cake for a mixed-Faith couples’ wedding or face potentially going out of business?
• Is it fair for such wedding industry business owners and employees to have to choose to either make a cake for an LDS couple’s wedding or face potentially going out of business?

Were your answers all the same? Or did they differ?

Now, I have my own thoughts on how businesses like these should be treated, but my main point is that I can see no good reason why the U.S. government should single out and allow religious objections based on 'sexual orientation,' but legally prohibit religious objections (including fines up to potentially putting people out of business) to all the rest of the above... 

Does that make sense?

Or do you see things differently?

Edited November 16, 2016 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

To me it doesn't make any difference. If you make for sale to the public a product, or service, you have to sell it to the public.

[Daniel2]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Daniel2:

To me it doesn't make any difference. If you make for sale to the public a product, or service, you have to sell it to the public.

I always appreciate and love your even-handed approach to a broad variety of subjects, SS! 

[thesometimesaint]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[Daniel2]

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 5:50 PM, bsjkki said:

We agree on this. (You are also a great writer...I envy you) The wedding industry is the only gray area left for disagreement between us of any kind. I have gone through the arguments and see both sides. Your two questions are the crux of the matter.  It gets away from legal arguments for me and gets personal.  I would not have any issue with going to a gay wedding or baking cake. Do I feel others, that have strong moral objections based on deeply held religious beliefs, should be compelled to provide services for a gay wedding or go out of business? I'm not sure. You stated you agree with this, "Allows civil servants the opportunity to 'opt out' of civil marriages they feel violate their religious convictions as long as someone else is currently available to conduct the ceremony who is equally qualified and authorized (the key here, for me, is that such civil servants are still required to perform the civil marriage if no one else is available)." Can that same right be extended to the wedding industry? Do we have to force people out of business because they don't want to participate in a gay wedding? Legally, unless a religious exemption for this is carved out, there is no argument. Comply or go out of business. If the services are available and offered elsewhere for an event (not store front service), do we have to use government to force compliance? 

For me it's not a question of serving a class of people but participating in an event. 

I am sure you have many arguments against this thinking and that is why I emphasized it's not a legal argument but a personal one.  It's also one I still question and ponder on.

 

 

 

 

Bumping the thread in the hopes to hear more from bsjkki...

Edited November 16, 2016 by Daniel2

[bsjkki]

On 11/14/2016 at 3:33 PM, Daniel2 said:

I agree with and support that Utah's anti-discrimination compromise:

• adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the state's already existing antidiscrimination law (prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing and employment)
• allows civil servants the opportunity to 'opt out' of civil marriages they feel violate their religious convictions as long as someone else is currently available to conduct the ceremony who is equally qualified and authorized (the key here, for me, is that such civil servants are still required to perform the civil marriage if no one else is available)
• protects religious groups and their affiliates from being forced to perform same-sex marriages
• protects people from fired or evicted for expressing their religious beliefs
• and the Boy Scouts of America can't be forced to allow LGBT troop leaders

 

By supporting Utah's anti-discrimination compromise, are you not already carving out exceptions? If any of these exemptions were used for race, I would find them objectionable. Are you not admitting race and sexual orientation are different? I do feel it is different to refuse to sell or serve store front services to some and not others but find forcing someone to participate in an event they find objectionable by force of law violates religious freedom rights. Is there no difference between selling a cake off the shelf to anyone versus making custom cakes for events?  Do religious freedom cases only pertain to institutions or individuals? Do people have the right to act in ways I would find objectionable or abhorrent? As culture shifts, do we need to punish those not keeping up with progressive ideals? Am I a bigot because while I have no issue with bathroom use for transgenders, I do not want transgenders with male parts walking around naked in female locker rooms in front of my female children? Is my sister-in-law backwards because she no longer goes to her gym because she feels uncomfortable changing in front of two biological males. Does the pharmacist who owns his own store, have to provide every drug fda approved or can he refuse to sell any drug he doesn't like and let the market decide whether he succeeds or fails in his business model? I think I am more 'live and let live' than some progressives. 

On the other hand, I don't want people discriminated against. I don't want my gay friends denied housing or employment because of their sexual orientation or to be refused service in stores.  I am troubled by the church's past Priesthood ban. I found the Nov. policy deeply discouraging. I was happy the Scouts changed their policy on gay youth but don't think they should be forced to have gay leaders. (I am one who wishes the church would just get out of scouting altogether.) I know many who think I am too progressive and others who would consider me bigoted. I think most people are just doing their best to figure this all out and also stay true to their personal beliefs. Living in a free society is messy. I also know in 10 years I could think differently on the issues because in the last 10 years I have changed my views on many things. 

As to all your questions, part of me wishes in all the circumstances, business owners would make their choices and their customers would be the ones to decide whether they stay in business for those choices. I think I am a libertarian at heart.

Thanks for the discussion. I am open to learning and that is why I participate on this board. I want to see issues through differing perspectives. 

[thesometimesaint]

You give up certain rights whenever you make for sale any product or service to the public. Say, for example, I own a grocery store, and I don't like green beans. There is no law that requires me to carry and sell green beans. But if I carry and offer them for sale, I can not legally refuse to sell them to you.

[Daniel2]

21 hours ago, bsjkki said:

By supporting Utah's anti-discrimination compromise, are you not already carving out exceptions? If any of these exemptions were used for race, I would find them objectionable. Are you not admitting race and sexual orientation are different?

Interesting.  I have some thoughts of my own that I'm happy to share, but first, in the interest of ensuring clear communication and making sure I am understanding you before moving forward, would you mind answering the following three questions?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe the Utah Compromise allows a civil servant, based on his/her personal objections to marriage which would violate said civil servant's personal religious beliefs, to opt out of performing a civil marriage (as long as another civil servant were available to serve the couple) ONLY in circumstances involving same-sex couples' marriages... Is that correct?

And, if I have the above correct, it appears you're saying you don't find it objectionable that such "religiously-motivated exceptions" (allowing civil servants to opt out due to personal religious beliefs) are limited only to objections to same-sex marriages... Do I also have that right?

And finally, if both of the above are correct, it appears that you're saying that if civil servants were allowed to opt out of performing a marriage if said civil servant's religious objections were based on objecting to an interracial marriage, you would object to such exemptions... Is that accurate?

Edited November 18, 2016 by Daniel2

[Jeanne]

Just now, Daniel2 said:

Interesting.  I have some thoughts of my own that I'm happy to share, but first, in the interest of ensuring clear communication and demonstrating understanding before moving forward, I'd like to ensure I'm understand you correctly.  Would you mind answering the following three questions, to see if I'm understanding you correctly?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe the Utah Compromise allows a civil servant, based on his/her personal objections to any marriage which would violate said civil servant's personal religious beliefs, to opt out of performing a civil marriage ONLY in circumstances involving same-sex couples' marriages... Is that correct?

And, if I have the above correct, it appears you're saying you don't find it objectionable that such "religiously-motivated exceptions" (allowing civil servants to opt out due to personal religious beliefs) are limited only to objections to homosexual (or same-sex) marriages... Do I also have that right?

And finally, if both of the above are correct, it appears that you're saying that if civil servants were allowed to opt out of performing a marriage if said civil servant's religious objections were based on objecting to an interracial marriage, you would object to such exemptions... Is that right?

Oooo...good questions.  I am anxious for his reply and yours.

[Daniel2]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

You give up certain rights whenever you make for sale any product or service to the public. Say, for example, I own a grocery store, and I don't like green beans. There is no law that requires me to carry and sell green beans. But if I carry and offer them for sale, I can not legally refuse to sell them to you.

Great insights, SS.  I agree... though many people don't.

Based on the recent discussions centering around religious liberty clashing with providing goods or services to same-sex weddings, my experiences seem to be indicating that when it comes to same-sex couples, many people are adopting a new stance that businesses should be able to "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" (an erroneous concept that's muddled by the generic signs posted by many businesses saying just that.  Obviously, even though business owners ARE free to post any sign they want due to their freedom of speech, from a legal perspective they actually DON'T have any such right to refuse service 'to anyone').

Many seem to be appealing to a libertarian sense that business owners should be able to refuse services, but seem to have a blind spot in only feeling good about allowing discrimination against same-sex weddings, without realizing they're logic feels more uncomfortable (and a lot less tolerant) when applying the same principle to other religions, or divergent races, etc.

From my perspective, it seems that if we were to really allow religious business owners to refuse to serve anyone because of said business owner's "deeply held religious beliefs," we'd actually be ENABLING religious discrimination by allowing people to discriminate against individuals from minority religions that the majority doesn't agree with, like, or is hostile to.