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

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Hi, Storm Rider,

I can appreciate that you don't trust activists of any political activist groups and remain wary of their motives. Many of us likewise feel that way when some religious leaders wade into political waters to defend what they label "a moral issue" (or often an issue of so-called "religious liberty"); that said religious leaders are likewise 'not truly concerned about the polis, the community, the all,' and that their 'focus is laser sharp on their own wants and needs,’ or at least, those of their religious community. And I imagine there's some truth to both of our positions, but it doesn't have to be "either/or"--perhaps there's also some room for altruistic motives from both groups, as well.  Either way, neither of us has to "trust" anyone who's views we don't find compelling, even if and when we have to comply with laws with which we disagree (or make a choice to defy law as an act of civil disobedience, of course).

Regarding your sandwich deli scenario: as I've said repeatedly, consumers are free to take their business elsewhere and choose not to press charges when and if businesses refuse to comply with public accommodation laws.  And while I've never been denied service, I imagine if I were, I am not the type to make it an issue to spend my time and energies on prosecuting a business for doing so in real life.  I've had enough personal interaction with the law regarding my divorce to know that I don't want to waste any more time and life than I have to within the walls of a courtroom. 

But even if you or I choose not to press charges, I can still admire and respect the likes of those that choose the road less travelled and made a difference in the world... those like Fredrick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Oliver Brown, Estelle Griswold, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr.,  Annie Newman, Harvey Milk, Eddie Windsor, and Jim Obergefell (I realize the list of those whom we admire most will vary from person to person, depending on our ideological paradigm).  Whether or not you or I choose to pursue justice according to what the law says, other citizens retain that right and are welcome to exercise it.  And, as mentioned previously, in some cases, the government itself has a vested interest in upholding the law and reducing unjust discrimination in the public square, even if some consumers chose not to prosecute individually.

As others have said, your suggestion that "the market will sort itself out" didn't work 60 years ago, and it is unlikely to work any more today, especially when taking a look at states where certain religious ideologies hold majority views.  For example, as a gay man living in Utah, I found this recent article somewhat troubling--albeit not entirely surprising--when I realized that most of my fellow citizens believe that Utah-based businesses should be able to deny wedding goods and services to couples like my husband and I:  Most Utahns say a baker with a religious objection shouldn’t have to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple.  From what I've read, Utah diverges from the national norm, where a large majority believe business owners should not be able to discriminate based on their religious beliefs.  Knowing that I live in a highly conservative state, a majority of businesses here reflect the values of the conservative majority, and most would flourish in a free-market system (just as diners in the South who continued to refuse service to black citizens would likely have been financially unaffected because their refusal to serve blacks reflected the dominant views of their local communities).  No... as you noted in your post, capitalism hasn't created a perfectly just society on it's own, and if we've learned anything from history, it isn't likely ever going to.  More on this later, though.

Three years ago, while we were living and seeking to get married in a state where the majority can enforce community standards allowing businesses to refuse services, it was certainly disconcerting when my then-fiance and I were trying to find wedding venders.  We were hoping and praying no one would ask us about the bride, or, if they did, would accept our business, regardless.  Thankfully, none asked about where the bride might be, and our wedding proceeded as planned.  While I realize that it may seem trivial or petty or merely a matter of 'not getting our feelings hurt' to seemingly get flustered about insignificant things like cakes or flowers or tuxedos or venues, but while we hopefully would have been able to find someone who was willing to serve us, the bigger, broader, and fundamental underlying issue is whether or not an individual operating a business in the public square can refuse service to someone based on religious objections. 

As I've said before, if you allow Christians to discriminate against gays, then why can't Christians refuse service based on their religious objections against Jews or Muslims or Atheists or people of other/mixed races or abilities or veteran status or marital status, etc. etc.  If religious freedom as a means of preventing discrimination AGAINST members of any given religious affiliation because of religious bias, then the government cannot create a loophole allowing discrimination against customers in the name OF religion.  It undercuts religious liberty entirely.

As Kllindley's article (subsequent to your post above) illustrates, laws prohibiting against discrimination based on sexual orientation should and will protect those who are straight just as much as they protect those that are gay.  Your allegations of the creation of "special classes" is simply, demonstrably false.  If we were to accept your erroneous proposition that 'prohibiting against discriminating based on sexual orientation' elevates gays above straights, it would be like saying laws prohibiting against discrimination based on gender elevates women above men in the eyes of the law, or that prohibiting against discrimination based on religion elevates Mormons over Jews; or Muslims over Atheists.  It simply doesn't make sense.

Finally, I never said nor did I mean to imply that the society we currently live in is now fully "a just society."  A "just society" would be perfect in it's application of everything, and as you noted, there have always been haves and have nots.  Yes, we don't yet live in a perfect world--which is what I acknowledged when I said, "that there's never been a better, safer, more stable time to be alive than today.  The world continues to improve across multiple measurements of health, longevity, peace, and prosperity.  We aren't a perfect world yet, and the potential for violence, greed, and corruption will be ever present threats that we must continually battle against, but on the whole, there is much to be grateful for.  And even though it's sometimes frustratingly slow, I fully agree with the words of the great Dr. King that 'arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice'."

Thanks,

Daniel

Daniel...you write beautifully and from the soul.  Your compassionate voice should be heard by so many others...God Bless You!

 

[Daniel2]

52 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Right.  It's not as though, amidst a surfeit of providers of a specific good or service, a militant gay or lesbian (or two) would actually seek out a religiously devout service provider actually hoping that the provider,  on religious grounds, would refuse, thereby giving the militant gay(s) or lesbian(s) the convenient opportunity to subject that business owner to public opprobrium.

Noooooo.  That would never happen ...  would it?

 

I don't know... As someone who looks back with deep regret over the wasted years of time, energy, and money I spent in some legal actions around my divorce and custody matters (despite the legal gains I made), I personally try to avoid court like the plague.

Do you have any actual evidence besides what seems like hoodwinking innuendo that "a militant gay or lesbian (or two) would actually seek out a religiously devout service provider actually hoping that the provider, on religious grounds, would refuse"? 

Any specific case, admission, or any relevant evidence at all that that has actually happened.............???

D

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Sorry--I wasn't very clear and the quote feature failed to separate out my closing questions directed at you from the quoted article itself, in which I asked:

Do you believe the government had the ability in 1968 to tell the owner of Piggie Park that he couldn't deny selling his goods and services to black people...?  (This isn't meant to be a trap or a trick question... I'm trying to figure out where you and others draw the line of where, if ever, religious freedom intersects with civil rights).

I would presume you would agree that restaurants shouldn't be allowed to refuse to allow blacks into their restaurants because their religious beliefs objected to any type of integration between the races (even though he was perfectly willing to sell them food for them to take to eat elsewhere), and that that judge made the correct ruling.  But I don't know that that's the case.  Perhaps you feel the government oversteps it's legal bounds by having done so?

Understanding your views on that would help me try to see if you feel the courts have been inconsistent or not in their rulings, which presumably would lead to your lack of Faith that Ms. LeNoir will be successful in her case...  At least, that's what I got from your previous comment that you are skeptical that the courts will protect Ms. LeNoir, should her story pan out?

D

Ok.  I do believe the government had the ability to tell the owner of Piggie Park that he couldn't deny selling goods and services to black people.  I also believe that they have the ability to tell the Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner that he can't deny service to a same-sex couple.  I just don't think that it is a good idea, politically or morally. 

I don't believe that the Hands-On-Originals case is over, as the Kentucky Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal from the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission.  Nothing has happened to Ben Borgman, owner of Bedlam Coffee, though he may get a letter telling him that the law doesn't allow him to do what he did.  I see inconsistent application or the standard. 

37 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

 

"New Mexico state law , as well as NMSU’s own policies , prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It would be wrong for LeNoir to lose an opportunity to coach merely because of her personal religious beliefs and her heterosexual orientation — but it’s also understandable why a team with openly LGBTQ assistant coaches that is trying to cultivate an inclusive environment would be wary of LeNoir’s extremely vocal position that homosexuality is a sin and that gay people need to be rescued.

Thank you for providing the context from ThinkProgress.  I can see many religious/social conservatives agreeing with "It would be wrong for [any couple] to [be denied service] merely because of [their homosexual] orientation - but it's also understandable why a [business with openly religious employees that is trying to cultivate a faithful environment would be wary of participating in a ceremony that is directly contrary to his beliefs.] 

By the way, I think it is interesting that one interview, given in 2011, is enough to classify as an "extremely vocal position."  

[Daniel2]

52 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Ok.  I do believe the government had the ability to tell the owner of Piggie Park that he couldn't deny selling goods and services to black people.  I also believe that they have the ability to tell the Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner that he can't deny service to a same-sex couple.  I just don't think that it is a good idea, politically or morally. 

I don't believe that the Hands-On-Originals case is over, as the Kentucky Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal from the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission.  Nothing has happened to Ben Borgman, owner of Bedlam Coffee, though he may get a letter telling him that the law doesn't allow him to do what he did.  I see inconsistent application or the standard. 

Thank you for providing the context from ThinkProgress.  I can see many religious/social conservatives agreeing with "It would be wrong for [any couple] to [be denied service] merely because of [their homosexual] orientation - but it's also understandable why a [business with openly religious employees that is trying to cultivate a faithful environment would be wary of participating in a ceremony that is directly contrary to his beliefs.] 

By the way, I think it is interesting that one interview, given in 2011, is enough to classify as an "extremely vocal position."  

I'm glad to see you are also likewise consistent in how you apply the law.

From what I understand, yes, the "Hands On Originals" case would have to be appealed to the Kentucky State Court before it could possibly reach SCOTUS.

Based on the information I can find, Bedlam Coffee will be receiving the same warning letter that other businesses received, such as Arlene's Flowers.  However, I'm not sure that there's yet been an inconsistent application of the standard as you suggest, because the other businesses chose to either ignore and continued to defy (which, again, I can understood were viewed to be acts of civil disobedience) the ordinances, or suspended services while pursuing the promotion of their views (as Masterpiece Cakes did) and hoping to prevail in court (here's the citation of the article I quote in support of this, below).  However, the owner of Bedlam Coffee has suggested he doesn't deny services to Christians; he claims it was the offensive nature of the proselyting behaviors and speech of this particular group.  I haven't heard of any additional complaints yet, or a desire on his part to continue to deny services to Christians in general.

“We are going to send a letter to the gentleman who owns the coffee shop and we are going to say that you cannot deny service to someone based on their religious beliefs,” Charlene Strong, chair of the Washington State Human Rights Commission, told the Dori Monson Show... Strong explained that this is the same response that Arlene’s Flowers in Richland received. The shop owner refused to serve a gay couple based on her religious beliefs. She received a letter, similar to what Borgman can expect. Despite receiving a letter informing her of anti-discrimination laws, she continued to refuse service. The incident resulted in a lawsuit that went to the state supreme court which determined the florist broke anti-discrimination laws.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

[Daniel2]

AAAAAaaaaarggghhhhhh,.... The failure of the "quote" feature is going to be the death of me... ha!

In response to your last comment saying, "I can see many religious/social conservatives agreeing with "It would be wrong for [any couple] to [be denied service] merely because of [their homosexual] orientation - but it's also understandable why a [business with openly religious employees that is trying to cultivate a faithful environment would be wary of participating in a ceremony that is directly contrary to his beliefs."

I think the difference here is we're talking two different cases with two different requirements; one is operating under the laws saying you can't deny goods and services based on a protected class, but the other is saying you can't discriminate in employment considerations based on a protected class.  While they deal with similar issues of discrimination, what the law requires in each case is not the same. 

A business cannot discriminate in considering applications for employment against what an individual believes.

A business owner cannot discriminate in deciding which member of the general of the public he will sell his products to.

Even allowing for the similarities, though, the sentence you choose to paraphrase isn't a statement of actual law.  While we may understand that the University "may be wary" of Ms. Lenoir's beliefs, they still can't discriminate on the basis of those beliefs---presumably, they'd have to have other circumstances by which to rescind the verbal offer.

And I agree--a 6-year-old interview isn't necessarily "extremely vocal."

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

AAAAAaaaaarggghhhhhh,.... The failure of the "quote" feature is going to be the death of me... ha!

In response to your last comment saying, "I can see many religious/social conservatives agreeing with "It would be wrong for [any couple] to [be denied service] merely because of [their homosexual] orientation - but it's also understandable why a [business with openly religious employees that is trying to cultivate a faithful environment would be wary of participating in a ceremony that is directly contrary to his beliefs."

I think the difference here is we're talking two different cases with two different requirements; one is operating under the laws saying you can't deny goods and services based on a protected class, but the other is saying you can't discriminate in employment considerations based on a protected class.  While they deal with similar issues of discrimination, what the law requires in each case is not the same. 

A business cannot discriminate in considering applications for employment against what an individual believes.

A business owner cannot discriminate in deciding which member of the general of the public he will sell his products to.

Even allowing for the similarities, though, the sentence you choose to paraphrase isn't a statement of actual law.  While we may understand that the University "may be wary" of Ms. Lenoir's beliefs, they still can't discriminate on the basis of those beliefs---presumably, they'd have to have other circumstances by which to rescind the verbal offer.

And I agree--a 6-year-old interview isn't necessarily "extremely vocal."

I can see the ways that the cases are not exactly the same as employment and public accommodations entail different elements.  I'm not trying to be needlessly argumentative.  

I hope along with you and others that, overall, the courts continue to be consistent in their application of the law.   Maybe the few problems I'm seeing are unfortunate exceptions that will become increasingly rare and equally condemned.   

I recognize and own my tendency to be pessimistic in issues like this.  At least then when things go well, I'm pleasantly surprised rather than devastated when the world fails to meet my ideals.  

[Daniel2]

23 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Daniel...you write beautifully and from the soul.  Your compassionate voice should be heard by so many others...God Bless You!

Hey, Jeanne,

Not sure if you saw it, but I wrote a public message on your feed in your profile since I can't seem to send you a PM... http://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/16980-jeanne/ (and scroll down a few posts to see mine).

Thanks!

Daniel

 

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by Daniel2

[kiwi57]

On 11/7/2017 at 8:54 AM, thesometimesaint said:

When that "business owner" uses his religion to violate the law. That "business owner" deserves all the public opprobrium they get.

Nothing self-righteous or judgmental there, right?

You'd never dream of stoning someone for sinning; but you are righteously zealous about stoning anyone who doesn't want to sin by association.

"Progressives" are the new Pharisees.

Edited November 7, 2017 by kiwi57

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Hey, Jeanne,

Not sure if you saw it, but I wrote a public message on your feed in your profile since I can't seem to send you a PM... http://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/16980-jeanne/ (and scroll down a few posts to see mine).

Thanks!

Daniel

 

 

I replied and hope that you see my message.  Thank you!!  I will have to delete some old messages and get my PM going again.  God Bless You!

[thesometimesaint]

19 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Nothing self-righteous or judgmental there, right?

You'd never dream of stoning someone for sinning; but you are righteously zealous about stoning anyone who doesn't want to sin by association.

"Progressives" are the new Pharisees.

Stoning someone is more a " Regressive Christian" thing. Progressive Christians believe in the separation of Church and State.

[Kenngo1969]

On 11/6/2017 at 1:24 PM, Daniel2 said:

... Any specific case, admission, or any relevant evidence at all that that has actually happened.............???

D

Even sans a specific example ... You think that's something the parties involved would admit to doing publicly? ("Yeah, we really wanted to stick it to him, since he's one of those self-righteous putative Christians"); if so, how do you think that howls of being genuinely hurt and offended by the business owner's snub would play in the arena of public opinion?  My guess (and yes, it's just a guess; no, i don't have any specific examples, so sue me) is that it wouldn't play very well even among people who otherwise would be sympathetic to the snubbed gay couple's position, because such an admission would be detrimental to efforts to pulverize a reluctant business owner into submission to the prevailing sociopolitical orthodoxy ... I'm more comfortable positing that such a thing has happened than I think you should be positing that such a thing would never happen. 

[Kenngo1969]

On 11/6/2017 at 10:49 AM, thesometimesaint said:

I believe we all have the right to believe anything we want. When we act on that belief the government may have an affirmative responsibility to protect the citizen acted against.

 

On 11/6/2017 at 12:27 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Right.  It's not as though, amidst a surfeit of providers of a specific good or service, a militant gay or lesbian (or two) would actually seek out a religiously devout service provider actually hoping that the provider,  on religious grounds, would refuse, thereby giving the militant gay(s) or lesbian(s) the convenient opportunity to subject that business owner to public opprobrium.

Noooooo.  That would never happen ...  would it?

 

 

On 11/6/2017 at 12:54 PM, thesometimesaint said:

When that "business owner" uses his religion to violate the law. That "business owner" deserves all the public opprobrium they get.

So, all laws are, ipso facto, res ipsa loquitur, and self-evidently, simply by their mere passage, just, good, and right, then?  There's no such thing as an unjust law, a bad law, a defective law, a law which fails to accomplish its intended purpose, or a law that (whatever that law's intended noble purpose) results in unintended harmful consequences? While it's certainly true that we share an aversion to, e.g., Jim Crow laws (as I'm sure most everyone here does; I haven't heard anyone argue in favor of such laws, and I'm sure they would be marginalized by most everyone else here if they were to do so), do you even realize what damage that gross overgeneralization does to your position, even in the minds of many of those who agree with you?  Are there any limits on this "all the public opprobrium they get"?  

Does that mean it's not OK to burn a cross in the back yard of a black family's home or to picket a home where a gay person or people live with a sign that says, "God Hates Fags," on the one hand, but it is OK to start a bonfire in a business owner's yard in protest or to picket a business owner's home with a sign that says, "God Hates Those Who Hate Fags"?  Gay students deserve an an education free of harassment, but someone who favors traditional marriage ought to be hounded off of campus (since they "deserve all of the public opprobrium they get")?  Gay workers deserve to be able to make a living, but someone who favors traditional marriage ought to be hounded out of a job (since they "deserve all of the public opprobrium they get")?

No, The Sometime Saint, arguably, what they "deserve" is to be subject to the consequences of violating the law, and no more.  Or do you really mean to endorse the sort of anarchy implicit in the "all the public opprobrium they get" position?  If so, that certainly does not speak well of you, nor does it speak well of those who agree with you. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

On 2017-11-06 at 1:24 PM, Daniel2 said:

I don't know... As someone who looks back with deep regret over the wasted years of time, energy, and money I spent in some legal actions around my divorce and custody matters (despite the legal gains I made), I personally try to avoid court like the plague.

Do you have any actual evidence besides what seems like hoodwinking innuendo that "a militant gay or lesbian (or two) would actually seek out a religiously devout service provider actually hoping that the provider, on religious grounds, would refuse"? 

Any specific case, admission, or any relevant evidence at all that that has actually happened.............???

D

I have a friend who was a photographer who was accidentally cced a letter one partner mailed another about how they intended to sue her once she refused to serve them (they had sent an email requesting information about her services)...I did not read the original, but it sounded like it was for the money and not principle.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

So, all laws are, ipso facto, res ipsa loquitur, and self-evidently, simply by their mere passage, just, good, and right, then?  There's no such thing as an unjust law, a bad law, a defective law, a law which fails to accomplish its intended purpose, or a law that (whatever that law's intended noble purpose) results in unintended harmful consequences? While it's certainly true that we share an aversion to, e.g., Jim Crow laws (as I'm sure most everyone here does; I haven't heard anyone argue in favor of such laws, and I'm sure they would be marginalized by most everyone else here if they were to do so), do you even realize what damage that gross overgeneralization does to your position, even in the minds of many of those who agree with you?  Are there any limits on this "all the public opprobrium they get"?  

Does that mean it's not OK to burn a cross in the back yard of a black family's home or to picket a home where a gay person or people live with a sign that says, "God Hates Fags," on the one hand, but it is OK to start a bonfire in a business owner's yard in protest or to picket a business owner's home with a sign that says, "God Hates Those Who Hate Fags"?  Gay students deserve an an education free of harassment, but someone who favors traditional marriage ought to be hounded off of campus (since they "deserve all of the public opprobrium they get")?  Gay workers deserve to be able to make a living, but someone who favors traditional marriage ought to be hounded out of a job (since they "deserve all of the public opprobrium they get")?

No, The Sometime Saint, arguably, what they "deserve" is to be subject to the consequences of violating the law, and no more.  Or do you really mean to say that the sort of anarchy implicit in the "all the public opprobrium they get"?  If so, that certainly does not speak well of you, nor does it speak well of those who agree with you. 

I  believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Plus I believe in peacefully, and legally changing any law that violates core principles of the US Constitution, either through executive, legislative, or judicial means.

My limits are if you have to violate the US Constitution in order to maintain your religious objections to serving the general public. You deserve the public infamy. IE; everyone entitled to believe anything they want including that being LGBTQ is a sin. Refusal to obey the law, the 14th Amendment, crosses my limits for behavior.

If someone is burning cross in the backyard belonging to someone else then that is a crime. They deserve the legal punishment.

If someone is picketing the home of a business man for whatever reason, as long as they are peaceful, then I don't care.

Everyone who is peaceful and respectful of the rights of others can have whatever belief they want. When they use that belief to harass or publicly condemn anyone else that to me crosses my limits.

I will defend to my death your right to believe any silly thing you like, as long as you allow me the right to believe any silly thing I like.

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I  believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Plus I believe in peacefully, and legally changing any law that violates core principles of the US Constitution, either through executive, legislative, or judicial means. ...

OK, but that's not consistent with a "they-deserve-all-the-public-opprobrium-they-get" position.

[Kenngo1969]

15 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

... If someone is burning cross in the backyard belonging to someone else then that is a crime. They deserve the legal punishment.

If someone is picketing the home of a business man for whatever reason, as long as they are peaceful, then I don't care. ...  [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

So ... people can trespass on private property (that is, they can commit a crime), as long as they do so peacefully?  

"Peaceful" trespassing isn't a crime?  As long as they don't burn anything, shout anything, et cetera, anyone who wishes to do so can hold up a sign on my premises saying "God Hates Kenngo1969"?

[thesometimesaint]

20 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

OK, but that's not consistent with a "they-deserve-all-the-public-opprobrium-they-get" position.

SEE http://www.dictionary.com/browse/opprobrium

opprobrium

[uh-proh-bree-uh m]

 

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

noun

1.

the disgrace or the reproach incurred by conduct considered outrageously shameful; infamy.

2.

a cause or object of such disgrace or reproach.

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE http://www.dictionary.com/browse/opprobrium

opprobrium

[uh-proh-bree-uh m]

 

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

noun

1.

the disgrace or the reproach incurred by conduct considered outrageously shameful; infamy.

2.

a cause or object of such disgrace or reproach.

I know what opprobrium is.  I stand by my previous responses.  (In attempting to dialogue with your interlocutors, you might fare better if you were to cease condescending to them.   As it seems that you are unwilling to do that, this will be my last post to you on the thread.)

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Even sans a specific example ... You think that's something the parties involved would admit to doing publicly? ("Yeah, we really wanted to stick it to him, since he's one of those self-righteous putative Christians"); if so, how do you think that howls of being genuinely hurt and offended by the business owner's snub would play in the arena of public opinion?  My guess (and yes, it's just a guess; no, i don't have any specific examples, so sue me) is that it wouldn't play very well even among people who otherwise would be sympathetic to the snubbed gay couple's position, because such an admission would be detrimental to efforts to pulverize a reluctant business owner into submission to the prevailing sociopolitical orthodoxy ... I'm more comfortable positing that such a thing has happened than I think you should be positing that such a thing would never happen. 

Strange that out of one side of your mouth, you decry alleged money-hungry, litigation-prone gays and lesbians, while taunting me to sue you out of the other. 

No... Even though you're comfortable implying slanderous motives to people like me without having any specific examples, I won't be suing you.  As I've already said, litigation isn't something I'd want to waste my time and energy on.  It requires too much effort (not to mention the financial cost) to carry around that much negative emotion and energy, and the toll on my own emotional core to drum up that much resentment towards someone isn't worth it.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

58 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So ... people can trespass on private property (that is, they can commit a crime), as long as they do so peacefully?  

"Peaceful" trespassing isn't a crime?  As long as they don't burn anything, shout anything, et cetera, anyone who wishes to do so can hold up a sign on my premises saying "God Hates Kenngo1969"?

Setting a bonfire on others property without their consent is a crime. Picketing on the public thoroughfare and/or sidewalk is not a crime. Trespass is a crime. I'm fine with calling the police and having them removed from the property. Violence directed against either isn't the solution.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Strange that out of one side of your mouth, you decry alleged money-hungry, litigation-prone gays and lesbians, while taunting me to sue you out of the other. 

No... Even though you're comfortable implying slanderous motives to people like me without having any specific examples, I won't be suing you.  As I've already said, litigation isn't something I'd want to waste my time and energy on.  It's requires too much effort (not to mention finances) to carry around that much negative emotion and energy, and the toll on my own emotions to drum up that much resentment towards someone isn't worth it.

Slander requires a specific target.  I disagree with you.  I bear you no ill will, that disagreement notwithstanding.  (In any event, Calmoriah has provided the evidence you requested.  If you find that insufficient, that's your prerogative.  I disagree.)  A certain subset of gays and lesbians are militant, litigious, not wont to find any common ground with their adversaries, and so on.  If that glass slipper fits, perhaps some introspection is in order.  If not, no one will force you to wear it.  This will be my last post on the subject and on this thread.  Good day.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Daniel2]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

I have a friend who was a photographer who was accidentally cced a letter one partner mailed another about how they intended to sue her once she refused to serve them (they had sent an email requesting information about her services)...I did not read the original, but it sounded like it was for the money and not principle.

Interesting. I don’t doubt people threaten to sue businesses on a regular basis for a variety of reasons. 

I can understand them threatening to sue in the hope of encouraging her to change her mind.  That doesn’t mean their request wasn’t benign to begin with, though. 

Is there any evidence their initial request was a concerted, conscious effort to preemptively identify Christian businesses with the sole intent to litigiously profit from them financially, instead of stemming from an ernest attempt to find a wedding photographer? 

Additionally, how does your friend know it was truly sent ‘on accident’...? It seems possible the couple feigned ‘accidentally’ ccing her in the hope that she’d change her mind and decide to serve them...

Did they follow through on that perceived threat—Is your friend facing a lawsuit?  Or did she photograph the wedding?  Any chance you can get a copy of the email and share it?

Edited November 9, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

17 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Slander requires a specific target.  I disagree with you.  I bear you no ill will, that disagreement notwithstanding.  (In any event, Calmoriah has provided the evidence you requested.  If you find that insufficient, that's your prerogative.  I disagree.)  A certain subset of gays and lesbians are militant, litigious, not wont to find any common ground with their adversaries, and so on.  If that glass slipper fits, perhaps some introspection is in order.  If not, no one will force you to wear it.  This will be my last post on the subject and on this thread.  Good day.

You must have a different definition of “slanderous” than the dictionary and I do:

slan·der·ous

ˈslandərəs/

adjective

adjective: slanderous

1. (of a spoken statement) false and malicious.

   "slanderous allegations"

   synonyms:

   defamatory, denigratory, disparaging, libelous, pejorative, false, misrepresentative, scurrilous, scandalous, malicious, abusive, insulting; informalmudslinging "slanderous accusations"

All of which seem to me to be perfectly applicable to your accusations and tone.

No, Calm’s post didn’t provide evidence of what you implied and I asked for evidence of... It didn’t indicate (at least, from what we’ve read yet) that the couple had targeted the owner only to sue instead of threatening to sue if they were denied services, and it’s unclear if it was done “on accident” or as a means to encourage the photographer to comply. 

His/her post was a lot of second-hand hearsay about something he didn’t read firsthand, and hasn’t yet posted the context or actual text of (though I hope that’s forthcoming, as per my last post).

Interesting that you find the “example” in Cal’s post to be “sufficient.” I’d wager if I sincerely tried to support any of my points with a story I’d heard from a friend about an email they received but which I’d never read myself and the result of which (a.k.a. money-seeking litigation) I have no evidence of actually happening, I’d be laughed out of the thread, just as anyone would who’d try to use such “evidence” as support for anything substantive. 

Best to you, and have an enjoyable day. 

D

Edited November 9, 2017 by Daniel2

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Stoning someone is more a " Regressive Christian" thing. Progressive Christians believe in the separation of Church and State.

Thank you for making my point. By labelling yourself as "progressive," you imagine that your vindictiveness is fully sanitized and perfectly righteous. It excuses you from ever saying "Lord, is it I?" and instead you can smugly say, "Yep, it's them all right."

And in case you didn't notice, "Using the power of the state to bring churches to heel" isn't separation, it's entanglement.

I'm sure you've heard this saying of John Stuart Mill:

"Men might as well be imprisoned, as excluded from the means of earning their bread."

When I hear it, it makes me realise how draconian it is to force someone to choose between his conscience and his livelihood. Perhaps when you hear it, it makes you think that since it's perfectly righteous to drive non-surrendering Christians out of business, then it's probably just as righteous to lock them up, too.

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I know what opprobrium is.  I stand by my previous responses.  (In attempting to dialogue with your interlocutors, you might fare better if you were to cease condescending to them.   As it seems that you are unwilling to do that, this will be my last post to you on the thread.)

You are misapplying the term to posit that I'm for violence of any type. I'm not.