Emerging Skirmishes along the "Religious Freedom" vs "LGBT Civil Rights" as related to Mormonism

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I agree.  There is nothing here to indicate his personal approval of the SSM.d  These are merely another group of individuals who want to have a photograph taken of their activities.

He can have a policy that he rents only to married couples.  He has to get used to the idea that it only becomes a "hedonistic pit stop" when unmarried single individuals co-habit the room.  I agree what happens between a married couple is none of his business.  He should treat them with respect as any other customer.

He may tell them upfront, "I personally strongly disapprove of same sex marriage and the gay life style, but I will treat you with the same courtesy as I do any of my customers."   This will make it clear that he is not encouraging them to recommend his establishment to his friends as "gay friendly".

For which if I was a gay person, I would reply...gees...don't want to put out...Or....they could say..that is okay..we don't need your approval; we just need a cake!

Edited December 23, 2016 by Jeanne

[LittleNipper]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

I agree.  There is nothing here to indicate his personal approval of the SSM.d  These are merely another group of individuals who want to have a photograph taken of their activities.

He can have a policy that he rents only to married couples.  He has to get used to the idea that it only becomes a "hedonistic pit stop" when unmarried single individuals co-habit the room.  I agree what happens between a married couple is none of his business.  He should treat them with respect as any other customer.

He may tell them upfront, "I personally strongly disapprove of same sex marriage and the gay life style, but I will treat you with the same courtesy as I do any of my customers."   This will make it clear that he is not encouraging them to recommend his establishment to his friends as "gay friendly".

I think that the pendulum is about to swing to the right once again. And this is the reason for all the hysteria among the Liberal fraternity. 

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I think that the pendulum is about to swing to the right once again. And this is the reason for all the hysteria among the Liberal fraternity. 

If I am a waiter, I am bound to serve the customer alcohol if they order it.  Eventually the whole thing will settle down to pragmatic solutions.

[Kenngo1969]

On 12/22/2016 at 9:37 PM, california boy said:

Let's be clear on the Obergefell v. Hodges   ruling.  EVERY SINGLE federal and district court ruled in favor of the constitutionally protected right for gay couples to marry.  

Huh.  News to me.  If that's the case, one wonders how Obergefell v. Hodges got to the United States Supreme Court then, because if lower courts are unanimous, the Supreme Court rarely (if ever) feels the need to intervene in the matter under consideration.

Quote

This even includes LDS judges ruling in favor of gay marriage.

If that's the case, while I'm more than willing to defer to your apparently superior knowledge as to judges religious leanings, I do wonder how you know that. 

 

Quote

I remind you that even the judicial courts in Utah ruled in favor of gay couples right to marry.

One of them did, but it was a federal court, not a state one.  Prior to Obergefell v. Hodges, the question of whether to allow gay marriage in any given jurisdiction was a state matter rather than a federal one.

Quote

It is not an attack on religion.  

I say it is, you say it isn't.  Agree to disagree, I suppose.

Quote

I might also add that the vast majority of the country agrees with this ruling, even other Christians.

As President David O. McKay is reputed to have once said, Right is right even if nobody listens to it, believes it, or does it, and wrong is wrong even if everybody listens to it, believes it, or does it. 

Quote

You are right about one thing.  If it was up to churches to rule on gay marriage, then it would probably fail.  But in this country, it is the Constitution that guarantees rights, not churches.

As though churches and their adherents don't have any rights under the Constitution.  Sadly, you're correct: given the trajectory of courts' treatment of the First Amendment's "Free" Exercise clause, such "free" exercise is quickly coming to mean "The right to 'exercise' one's religion 'freely' ... within the walls one's holy place on one's holy day."

Quote

 It is every judges sworn duty to uphold those rights no matter what their personal religious views are.  They have done just that. I personally would not want to live in a country  where religious leaders make the laws.  I wish more Americans felt that way.

Reasonable minds can hold perfectly principled, well-reasoned disagreements about rights.  Those who have penned and joined the minority opinions opposing the majority opinions you so extol have done exactly  that.  I hope they continue to do so.

 

[Yirgacheffe]

11 hours ago, cdowis said:

He can have a policy that he rents only to married couples

How does he work this policy, do you have to have a copy of your marriage certificate to stay?  I know a lot of married couples (actually everyone I know, parents grandparents, siblings co-workers and on and on) who would never think to have proof of their married state along with them on vacation.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

How does he work this policy, do you have to have a copy of your marriage certificate to stay?  I know a lot of married couples (actually everyone I know, parents grandparents, siblings co-workers and on and on) who would never think to have proof of their married state along with them on vacation.

He would simply inform them of the policy.

Edited December 24, 2016 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Hmmm Papers Please.

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Huh.  News to me.  If that's the case, one wonders how Obergefell v. Hodges got to the United States Supreme Court then, because if lower courts are unanimous, the Supreme Court rarely (if ever) feels the need to intervene in the matter under consideration.

If that's the case, while I'm more than willing to defer to your apparently superior knowledge as to judges religious leanings, I do wonder how you know that. 

 

One of them did, but it was a federal court, not a state one.  Prior to Obergefell v. Hodges, the question of whether to allow gay marriage in any given jurisdiction was a state matter rather than a federal one.

I say it is, you say it isn't.  Agree to disagree, I suppose.

As President David O. McKay is reputed to have once said, Right is right even if nobody listens to it, believes it, or does it, and wrong is wrong even if everybody listens to it, believes it, or does it. 

As though churches and their adherents don't have any rights under the Constitution.  Sadly, you're correct: given the trajectory of courts' treatment of the First Amendment's "Free" Exercise clause, such "free" exercise is quickly coming to mean "The right to 'exercise' one's religion 'freely' ... within the walls one's holy place on one's holy day."

Reasonable minds can hold perfectly principled, well-reasoned disagreements about rights.  Those who have penned and joined the minority opinions opposing the majority opinions you so extol have done exactly  that.  I hope they continue to do so.

 

I think you are from New Zealand, is that right?  Maybe I could explain a little about our judicial system.  While states individually had passed laws against gay marriage, federal law supersedes state law.  That is why the cases were brought before the federal courts.  

There are 94 district courts in America as well as 3 territorial courts.  There are 13 appellate courts that preside over these district courts.  In every one of these 13 appellate circuits, starting wth the 9th circuit which California is under, a lawsuit was filed against states that had enacted laws against gay marriage.  It has to first start at the district level.  Virtually all of those district level courts ruled in favor of gay marriage.  Each state who had laws against gay marriage appealed those district decisions to one of the 13 appellate courts.  Virtually all of the 13 appellate courts also all ruled in favor of gay marriage.  Those rulings were also challenged, so the Supreme Court decided to hear the case.  And as you know the Supreme Court also ruled in favor of gay marriage.  There is little disagreement in the legal system that gays have the constitutional right to marry mostly based on the rights outlined in the 14 amendment.  If you want to understand why all of these courts ruled in favor of gay marriage and what specific laws in the U.S. Constitution guarantee them that right, read the opinions.  They are not that hard to follow.

You are right.  The Supreme Court did not have to rule on this issue when all of the other appellate courts had ruled in favor of gay marriage, but they still had the option to pick up the challenge to those appellate courts to make this decision perfectly clear.  In the future, someone can not challenge this decision on a appellate level and win.  They have to challenge it in the Supreme Court and win.  It makes it way more difficult to ever be challenged again.  

I don't know the religion of all of the judges that ruled in favor of gay marriage, but I do know that Judge Kimball who is a member of the 10th circuit ruled in favor of gay marriage and is Mormon because it was widely noted at the time he made his ruling.  You can look up his resume if you like.  It is not that hard to find out for yourself.

I hope that clarifies things for you.  And I hope that you now realize that gay marriage was not just some wild judicial verdict by just 5 justices that sit on the Supreme Court.  It is really hard to argue the rights of gay couples when every single court that heard a gay marriage case ruled in favor of gay marriage.  THIS IS NOT A CASE OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.  There is too much law supporting that decision and too many judges that also ruled in favor of gay marriage.  And none that ruled against it.  

[LittleNipper]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you are from New Zealand, is that right?  Maybe I could explain a little about our judicial system.  While states individually had passed laws against gay marriage, federal law supersedes state law.  That is why the cases were brought before the federal courts.  

There are 94 district courts in America as well as 3 territorial courts.  There are 13 appellate courts that preside over these district courts.  In every one of these 13 appellate circuits, starting wth the 9th circuit which California is under, a lawsuit was filed against states that had enacted laws against gay marriage.  It has to first start at the district level.  Virtually all of those district level courts ruled in favor of gay marriage.  Each state who had laws against gay marriage appealed those district decisions to one of the 13 appellate courts.  Virtually all of the 13 appellate courts also all ruled in favor of gay marriage.  Those rulings were also challenged, so the Supreme Court decided to hear the case.  And as you know the Supreme Court also ruled in favor of gay marriage.  There is little disagreement in the legal system that gays have the constitutional right to marry mostly based on the rights outlined in the 14 amendment.  If you want to understand why all of these courts ruled in favor of gay marriage and what specific laws in the U.S. Constitution guarantee them that right, read the opinions.  They are not that hard to follow.

You are right.  The Supreme Court did not have to rule on this issue when all of the other appellate courts had ruled in favor of gay marriage, but they still had the option to pick up the challenge to those appellate courts to make this decision perfectly clear.  In the future, someone can not challenge this decision on a appellate level and win.  They have to challenge it in the Supreme Court and win.  It makes it way more difficult to ever be challenged again.  

I don't know the religion of all of the judges that ruled in favor of gay marriage, but I do know that Judge Kimball who is a member of the 10th circuit ruled in favor of gay marriage and is Mormon because it was widely noted at the time he made his ruling.  You can look up his resume if you like.  It is not that hard to find out for yourself.

I hope that clarifies things for you.  And I hope that you now realize that gay marriage was not just some wild judicial verdict by just 5 justices that sit on the Supreme Court.  It is really hard to argue the rights of gay couples when every single court that heard a gay marriage case ruled in favor of gay marriage.  THIS IS NOT A CASE OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.  There is too much law supporting that decision and too many judges that also ruled in favor of gay marriage.  And none that ruled against it.  

The simple fact is that 60 years ago, homosexuality was still considered by nearly everyone as a psychological disorder including those on the Supreme Court. It is a case of social activism as there is no Amendment in the Constitution defining marriage because thousands of years of history define marriage as only between males and females for the important purpose of begetting an heir.

There was an Amendment adopted giving women the right to vote in Federal elections. Up to that time the Constitution was understood to be for and about males due to thousands of years of history that defined males as the head of the household, the bread winner, and the land owner, and such being the case only they had the right to vote. The Amendment changed all that.

The simple fact is that Mormon or not, these career judges are afraid to ruin their reputations going against a seemingly popular consensus, and as such are no different than the Pharisees and Sadducees of the time of Jesus Christ.  They figure that it is not their battle and they don't want to the odd man out...  

The next issue on the horizon will most likely be polygamy. And that maybe where some Mormons are again heading. I'd like to see how the courts will be able to prevent men marrying as many wives as they can handle, when they cannot say no to homosexual marriage. And there is history where men and even today where an individual can have more than one wife. I see nothing in the Constitution limiting the number of times an individual can divorce and remarry, and I don't see how if there becomes a fashion trend of multiple spouses how the courts with wimps for judges would be willing to interfere with the next rung down the ladder.... It might hurt their reputation.

Edited December 25, 2016 by LittleNipper

[thesometimesaint]

16 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

The simple fact is that 60 years ago, homosexuality was still considered by nearly everyone as a psychological disorder including those on the Supreme Court. It is a case of social activism as there is no Amendment in the Constitution defining marriage because thousands of years of history define marriage as only between males and females for the important purpose of begetting an heir.

There was an Amendment adopted giving women the right to vote in Federal elections. Up to that time the Constitution was understood to be for and about males due to thousands of years of history that defined males as the head of the household, the bread winner, and the land owner, and such being the case only they had the right to vote. The Amendment changed all that.

The simple fact is that Mormon or not, these career judges are afraid to ruin their reputations going against a seemingly popular consensus, and as such are no different than the Pharisees and Sadducees of the time of Jesus Christ.  They figure that it is not their battle and they don't want to the odd man out...  

Up to 50 years ago blacks marrying whites was a crime against nature punishable by law. The general public has no authority or is knowledgeable enough about psychological disorders to have a informed opinion on it. Joe the plumber probably isn't your first choice for doing open heart surgery on you. The Constitution is silent on a great many things. But one thing it is clear about that all people born or naturalized here are entitled to equal protections of the law.

[LittleNipper]

How do I know this? Look at the trend. A man makes candles. He finds that he is having trouble getting liability insurance. The problem is that along with candles in jar form, he also makes tapers. The Insurance Companies said, "Tapers are a serious liability." "How so?", asked the candle maker. The answer he received was an "modern day" eye opener. It seems that most fires are started as a result of leaving taper candles unattended. If someone's house burns down as a result of leaving a taper candle burning unattended there maybe a lawsuit filed placing the blame on the candle maker. Of course if the candle is manufactured in China the candle manufacturer can stick his thumb to his nose and wiggle his fingers at the US court system, and there is little they can or will do. This is because TODAY judges do not have the guts to throw a case out of court because today one doesn't have to prove intent. And we have been going down this road for about 50 years. It will only get worse unless people take a stand and say enough is enough. 

Edited December 25, 2016 by LittleNipper

[thesometimesaint]

No more blacks marrying whites. Wouldn't want to rile up the bigots would we?

[LittleNipper]

21 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Up to 50 years ago blacks marrying whites was a crime against nature punishable by law. The general public has no authority or is knowledgeable enough about psychological disorders to have a informed opinion on it. Joe the plumber probably isn't your first choice for doing open heart surgery on you. The Constitution is silent on a great many things. But one thing it is clear about that all people born or naturalized here are entitled to equal protections of the law.

Including prostitutes, pimps, child molesters, animal abusers, drug dealers, and drivers under the influence? Once they serve their time are they then back to square one, or do they carry a black mark for the rest of their lives that sets them apart and limits job opportunities. Is that equal protection for them? And if such is true for them, what makes homosexuality any different? I mean 40 or 50 year old guys hitting on college guys trying to pay off tuition isn't akin to taking an undue advantage to gain sexual pleasure is it?  And would everyone agree that the 40 something is no more mature than the 19, 20 or 21 year old or not be seen as having an undue advantage over the younger?  

Edited December 25, 2016 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

No more blacks marrying whites. Wouldn't want to rile up the bigots would we?

And it took a very long time to deal with the Southern Democrat bigots. And of course false presumptions regarding evolution had to be studied...

Edited December 25, 2016 by LittleNipper

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Including prostitutes, pimps, child molesters, animal abusers, drug dealers, and drivers under the influence? Once they serve their time are they then back to square one, or do they carry a black mark for the rest of their lives that sets them apart and limits job opportunities. Is that equal protection for them? And if such is true for them, what makes homosexuality any different? I mean 40 year old guys hitting on college guys trying to pay off tuition isn't akin to taking an undue advantage to gain sexual pleasure is it.  And would everyone agree that the 40 something is no more mature than the 19, 20 or 21 year old or not be seen as having an undue advantage over the younger?  

All those and more are guaranteed the equal protections of the law.

SEE 14th Amendment.

[LittleNipper]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

All those and more are guaranteed the equal protections of the law.

SEE 14th Amendment.

And what illegal excuse (according to your premise) do they give a former child molester who decides what he needs to do is work at a day care center with kids --- as to why they didn't hire him?

 

Edited December 25, 2016 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

Not all ideas are equal in concept. Not all moral opinions are of equal consequence. Not all sexual activity is either sincere nor equally productive.  Not all forms of "love" are blessed by GOD. Show me where homosexual relations have ever been blessed by GOD.

Edited December 25, 2016 by LittleNipper

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

And it took a very long time to deal with the Southern Democrat bigots. And of course false presumptions regarding evolution had to be studied...

SEE Southern Strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[thesometimesaint]

7 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

And what illegal excuse (according to your premise) do they give a former child molester who decides what he needs to do is work at a day care center with kids --- as to why they didn't hire him?

 

That is not what Equal Protection under the law means.

SEE http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/equal+protection+of+the+law

[thesometimesaint]

7 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Not all ideas are equal in concept. Not all moral opinions are of equal consequence. Not all sexual activity is either sincere nor equally productive.  Not all forms of "love" are blessed by GOD. Show me where homosexual relations have ever been blessed by GOD.

Keep your religion out of my government, and I'll keep my government out of your religion. BTW There plenty of God fearing Christians who are homosexual.

[california boy]

14 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

The simple fact is that 60 years ago, homosexuality was still considered by nearly everyone as a psychological disorder including those on the Supreme Court. It is a case of social activism as there is no Amendment in the Constitution defining marriage because thousands of years of history define marriage as only between males and females for the important purpose of begetting an heir.

There was an Amendment adopted giving women the right to vote in Federal elections. Up to that time the Constitution was understood to be for and about males due to thousands of years of history that defined males as the head of the household, the bread winner, and the land owner, and such being the case only they had the right to vote. The Amendment changed all that.

The simple fact is that Mormon or not, these career judges are afraid to ruin their reputations going against a seemingly popular consensus, and as such are no different than the Pharisees and Sadducees of the time of Jesus Christ.  They figure that it is not their battle and they don't want to the odd man out...  

The next issue on the horizon will most likely be polygamy. And that maybe where some Mormons are again heading. I'd like to see how the courts will be able to prevent men marrying as many wives as they can handle, when they cannot say no to homosexual marriage. And there is history where men and even today where an individual can have more than one wife. I see nothing in the Constitution limiting the number of times an individual can divorce and remarry, and I don't see how if there becomes a fashion trend of multiple spouses how the courts with wimps for judges would be willing to interfere with the next rung down the ladder.... It might hurt their reputation.

60 years ago, Mormons believe that a dark skin was a curse from God.  60 years ago Mormons did not allow blacks into their temples or ordain them to the priesthood solely because of their skin color.  60 years ago Mormons believed that Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth.  60 years ago Mormons believed that there was a flood that completely covered the earth and every man, woman, child and every animal not on Noah.s ark was destroyed.  60 years ago, Mormons believed the earth was only 6,000 years old.  60 years ago Mormons believed that the Book of Abraham was translated directly from the writings of Abraham himself.  60 years ago, Mormons believed that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by looking at gold plates.  And a few decades before that Mormons believed that a person could not get to the Celestial kingdom unless he had multiple wives.

Just because people once believed something does not mean that people will always hold that belief or that those beliefs were correct.  Science is responsible for a lot of changes in ideas that were held for centuries as true.  Are all those scientists just yielding to social pressure because they don't want to be the odd man out?  Are all those scientists no different than the Pharisees and Sadducees of the time of Jesus Christ?

There are some that still believe the things that I listed above.  They are willing to deny science and even physical evidence in order to hang on to their religious beliefs.  And that is fine.  Just like it is fine for you to hang on to your beliefs about homosexuality.  Quite frankly, I could care less what you think of homosexuality any more than I could care what you think about any of the other things I listed above.  Why would I be surprised that you reject current understanding of homosexuality.  I have  a feeling that you believe a lot of things that are not based on scientific facts and false history.  Why should your beliefs and many other Mormon's beliefs on homosexuality be any different?  

Edited December 25, 2016 by california boy

[LittleNipper]

10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Keep your religion out of my government, and I'll keep my government out of your religion. BTW There plenty of God fearing Christians who are homosexual.

They should fear God. Maybe they will be scared straight!

What we don't need are atheists in the government --- they are far too religious...

Edited December 26, 2016 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

60 years ago, Mormons believe that a dark skin was a curse from God.  60 years ago Mormons did not allow blacks into their temples or ordain them to the priesthood solely because of their skin color.  60 years ago Mormons believed that Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth.  60 years ago Mormons believed that there was a flood that completely covered the earth and every man, woman, child and every animal not on Noah.s ark was destroyed.  60 years ago, Mormons believed the earth was only 6,000 years old.  60 years ago Mormons believed that the Book of Abraham was translated directly from the writings of Abraham himself.  60 years ago, Mormons believed that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by looking at gold plates.  And a few decades before that Mormons believed that a person could not get to the Celestial kingdom unless he had multiple wives.

Just because people once believed something does not mean that people will always hold that belief or that those beliefs were correct.  Science is responsible for a lot of changes in ideas that were held for centuries as true.  Are all those scientists just yielding to social pressure because they don't want to be the odd man out?  Are all those scientists no different than the Pharisees and Sadducees of the time of Jesus Christ?

There are some that still believe the things that I listed above.  They are willing to deny science and even physical evidence in order to hang on to their religious beliefs.  And that is fine.  Just like it is fine for you to hang on to your beliefs about homosexuality.  Quite frankly, I could care less what you think of homosexuality any more than I could care what you think about any of the other things I listed above.  Why would I be surprised that you reject current understanding of homosexuality.  I have  a feeling that you believe a lot of things that are not based on scientific facts and false history.  Why should your beliefs and many other Mormon's beliefs on homosexuality be any different?  

You've just provided another reason why Mormonism is regarded as a cult and not Christian. The Bible never disregarded people for color. Christianity is responsible for a lot more changes in regards to everything.

And there are, however: many scientists who believe in a young earth and a global Flood. That doesn't make them anymore or less scientific. It does show that a belief in God is more complex than only accepting the material realm and not considering the spiritual whatsoever.

[Avatar4321]

On 12/12/2016 at 7:06 PM, Danzo said:

In my life, almost all of my religion takes place outside of the church building.

 

 

And you are entitled to freely exercise it in your life.

[Avatar4321]

Not seeing why we should have any more skirmishes. What do you have left to fight? As long as you do not try to infringe on my freedom to worship and preach the gospel of truth, your sins are between you and God.

Edited December 26, 2016 by Avatar4321