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

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

It sounds to me that if bakeries prevail in these matters, it actually won't be decided as a matter of protecting their "freedom of religion" at all, but as a function of baking a cake being a protected form of freedom of speech. 

What you're attempting to spin as "contempt" for the "sacrifice" of commercial opportunities isn't really motivated by "contempt" at all--it's motivated by the same desire to affirm the value of non-discrimination in the commercial workplace, regardless of and with the intent of protecting religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, national origin, etc.

I don't think the contempt is so terribly off base. The article you cited talks about "anti-religion animus" and  "discriminatory treatment based on viewpoint" on the part of the Colorado Civil Rights Committee. The made several anti-religion comments far above what is needed to affirm non-discrimination. 

I don't believe that all, or even most, people on favor of robust anti-discrimination laws are motivated by anti-religion sentiment or contempt. But the Committee's own words and actions certainly give the impression that if hate for religion is not the main motivation, it certainly played a role in these decisions. 

[provoman]

Teacher at Catholic School fired, teacher/news claim because she entered into a same sex marriage.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lesbian-miami-school-teacher-fired-marrying-girlfriend-article-1.3812762

What stood out in the article was the statement from a representative of lgbt advocacy group.

“Tony Lima, executive director of the South Florida LGBT rights group SAVE, was outraged by Morffi’s firing.

“I think it’s shocking that in this day and age this continues to happen in South Florida. It’s important to continue educating the community that this kind of stuff happens in this day and age. But it’s even more important to pass comprehensive statewide protections,”

It is concerning that Tony appears to advocate Goverments should use the force of law should compel Religious Organizations to accept and embrace conducts that violates the Organization religious beliefs. It tends to show that Tony is not interested in mutual respect with the Religious community.

 

[california boy]

On 2/7/2018 at 10:24 AM, kllindley said:

I don't think the contempt is so terribly off base. The article you cited talks about "anti-religion animus" and  "discriminatory treatment based on viewpoint" on the part of the Colorado Civil Rights Committee. The made several anti-religion comments far above what is needed to affirm non-discrimination. 

I don't believe that all, or even most, people on favor of robust anti-discrimination laws are motivated by anti-religion sentiment or contempt. But the Committee's own words and actions certainly give the impression that if hate for religion is not the main motivation, it certainly played a role in these decisions. 

I think you are right about contempt for people who use their religion in an unChristlike manner.  I can't imagine using Christ as a reason to not serve another person no matter how much of a sinner they may be.  Honestly I think the contempt is justified.  Those that believe in the message Christ taught should be outraged that someone would manipulate His teachings to treat others poorly.  Can you imagine Christ blessing fish and loaves and then going around and judging each person who he serves it to based on whether they are repenting of their sins or not?  Is all one has to do is read Matthew 25 to really question justification for not serving anyone based on how righteous they feel a person is before servicing them.  When did bakers become cake nanny's deciding whether their cakes are going to a good home or not.  For heavens sake, they aren't puppies.

The more divisiveness religion becomes, the more contempt the public will have against religion.  Look at the message of this video.  It is pretty apparent the astounding difference how people react when the message is much more in line with the gospel of Christ.  Read the comments.  If religion wants to have less public contempt, it should align itself with positive messages that uplift and draw people to religion and not the kind of example this baker or the country clerk or any of these other crusaders are setting.  Just like Prop 8, religion may win the battle, but loose the war.  There are real reasons why so many are walking away from organized religion.  Maybe more contempt for these bakers is exactly what is needed.

[kllindley]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you are right about contempt for people who use their religion in an unChristlike manner.  I can't imagine using Christ as a reason to not serve another person no matter how much of a sinner they may be.  Honestly I think the contempt is justified.  Those that believe in the message Christ taught should be outraged that someone would manipulate His teachings to treat others poorly.  Can you imagine Christ blessing fish and loaves and then going around and judging each person who he serves it to based on whether they are repenting of their sins or not?  Is all one has to do is read Matthew 25 to really question justification for not serving anyone based on how righteous they feel a person is before servicing them.  When did bakers become cake nanny's deciding whether their cakes are going to a good home or not.  For heavens sake, they aren't puppies.

The more divisiveness religion becomes, the more contempt the public will have against religion.  Look at the message of this video.  It is pretty apparent the astounding difference how people react when the message is much more in line with the gospel of Christ.  Read the comments.  If religion wants to have less public contempt, it should align itself with positive messages that uplift and draw people to religion and not the kind of example this baker or the country clerk or any of these other crusaders are setting.  Just like Prop 8, religion may win the battle, but loose the war.  There are real reasons why so many are walking away from organized religion.  Maybe more contempt for these bakers is exactly what is needed.

I choose to believe that contempt does not help anything. In marriage, contempt is one of the "four horsemen if the apocalypse." Like other relationships, a marriage can survive a surprising amount of conflict and differences. But once contempt is introduced, hope for reconciliation decreases significantly. 

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I choose to believe that contempt does not help anything. In marriage, contempt is one of the "four horsemen if the apocalypse." Like other relationships, a marriage can survive a surprising amount of conflict and differences. But once contempt is introduced, hope for reconciliation decreases significantly. 

I agree.  All the more reason, in my opinion, for those that want to lead people closer to Christ not appear to support actions taken by others that would breed contempt.  Because what is apparent, is that a lot of people have been turned away from religion because of these actions.  Just look at the comment section when these issues have been reported.  Now compare that to the comments on the YouTube video that I linked to.  Like a marriage, once a person has contempt for religion, it may be very difficult to ever bring them back to religion.

Edited February 11, 2018 by california boy

[kllindley]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

I agree.  All the more reason, in my opinion, for those that want to lead people closer to Christ not appear to support actions taken by others that would breed contempt.  Because what is apparent, is that a lot of people have been turned away from religion because of these actions.  Just look at the comment section when these issues have been reported.  Now compare that to the comments on the YouTube video that I linked to.  Like a marriage, once a person has contempt for religion, it may be very difficult to ever bring them back to religion.

I have to disagree. From my perspective, I see the cause and effect opposite of what you do.  I would say that contempt is not something that can be deserved. Contempt is much more about the person feeling it. I don't think that contempt is bred by an action, the action is just a target for the contempt that is already in a person's heart. 

I fully agree that followers of Christ can and ought to do better at showing love. I personally don't have much of a problem with the idea of using my skills to serve a gay couple. But I have a hard time dictating to others what they can and cannot believe God is asking of them. It feels hypocritical for me to force my own view of religion on someone else. Just like I wouldn't assume other people should share my understanding and personal choices related to sexual orientation, I don't think it's fair for me to judge a man's belief about what God wants him to do.

Far too often, I get the feeling that only religious people need to change and be more accepting of worldviews and lifestyle choices different from our own. What about increased respect and acceptance of religious beliefs we don't share?

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I have to disagree. From my perspective, I see the cause and effect opposite of what you do.  I would say that contempt is not something that can be deserved. Contempt is much more about the person feeling it. I don't think that contempt is bred by an action, the action is just a target for the contempt that is already in a person's heart. 

I fully agree that followers of Christ can and ought to do better at showing love. I personally don't have much of a problem with the idea of using my skills to serve a gay couple. But I have a hard time dictating to others what they can and cannot believe God is asking of them. It feels hypocritical for me to force my own view of religion on someone else. Just like I wouldn't assume other people should share my understanding and personal choices related to sexual orientation, I don't think it's fair for me to judge a man's belief about what God wants him to do.

Far too often, I get the feeling that only religious people need to change and be more accepting of worldviews and lifestyle choices different from our own. What about increased respect and acceptance of religious beliefs we don't share?

We do see things differently.  People don't automatically have contempt for others.  There is always something that triggers it.  And it is usually bad behavior. 

I fully support anyone's right to believe whatever they think about God.  But there are consequences for those beliefs when those beliefs cause someone to treat others unkindly.  They can't complain about people having contempt for them when their actions are contemptible to many people.  

This is similar to the Mormon church supporting a proposition that took away the civil rights of gay couples.  The church had every right to do what they felt was right.  But those actions caused a lot of people to think much less of the church.  The church should be ok with that as well.  Their actions caused those feelings of dislike by those who felt what the church supported was inappropriate.

 

[kllindley]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

We do see things differently.  People don't automatically have contempt for others.  There is always something that triggers it.  And it is usually bad behavior. 

I fully support anyone's right to believe whatever they think about God.  But there are consequences for those beliefs when those beliefs cause someone to treat others unkindly.  They can't complain about people having contempt for them when their actions are contemptible to many people.  

This is similar to the Mormon church supporting a proposition that took away the civil rights of gay couples.  The church had every right to do what they felt was right.  But those actions caused a lot of people to think much less of the church.  The church should be ok with that as well.  Their actions caused those feelings of dislike by those who felt what the church supported was inappropriate.

 

I would say that I don't have any disagreement with your last paragraph. Dislike and disapproval are earned. People have every right to dislike unwanted behaviors. 

Contempt goes beyond the behavior, indicating that a person is worthless or beneath consideration. 

This link explains how I think about contempt fairly well:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/resolution-not-conflict/201303/how-contempt-destroys-relationships

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

We do see things differently.  People don't automatically have contempt for others.  There is always something that triggers it.  And it is usually bad behavior. 

I have seen atheists that have automatic contempt for any devout believers and the reverse.

Would you say those who are wealthy and isolated when exposed to poverty who  are contemptuous of the poor are triggered by actions of the poor or their own bigotry.

[california boy]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have seen atheists that have automatic contempt for any devout believers and the reverse.

Would you say those who are wealthy and isolated when exposed to poverty who  are contemptuous of the poor are triggered by actions of the poor or their own bigotry.

When you are generalizing about an entire group of people, attitudes tend to be less fair don't you think?  I am not sure you can say all atheists have contempt for any devout believers any more than you can say that religious people have contempt for atheists.  Same with rich/poor.  When people generalize about different groups, it is more about their own bigotry.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I would say that I don't have any disagreement with your last paragraph. Dislike and disapproval are earned. People have every right to dislike unwanted behaviors. 

Contempt goes beyond the behavior, indicating that a person is worthless or beneath consideration. 

This link explains how I think about contempt fairly well:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/resolution-not-conflict/201303/how-contempt-destroys-relationships

Interesting article. It does show how destructive contempt can be.  What it doesn't address is the kinds of disrespect for others that may cause the contempt, which is more what I was addressing.

Edited February 12, 2018 by california boy

[california boy]

This is a little sketch that Jimmy Kimball did a few days ago.  What do you think about the point he is making.  Is it too much to expect a business to serve everyone?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

When you are generalizing about an entire group of people, attitudes tend to be less fair don't you think?  I am not sure you can say all atheists have contempt for any devout believers any more than you can say that religious people have contempt for atheists.  Same with rich/poor.  When people generalize about different groups, it is more about their own bigotry.

I never said all for any of them, I am only talking about minority subsets of the larger groups which subsets have contempt. As far as I can tell it is a small percentage of each group, but in almost every definite group if they are being honest about beliefs, there are a few who have contempt for those they see as not as advanced, and not because of any action but simply because they lack a quality the individual believes their group has. I am in no way generalizing.  I very rarely do for future reference.  I don't believe large groups are that monotonish.

Given my habit of writing, I am surprised you read it as a general commentary on all atheists, believers, etc.  That doesn't even really make sense since I also said "the reverse" which means I have seen devout believers who have had automatic contempt for atheists  just because they are atheists.  If I meant all, that would me I see myself as having contempt for atheists and I know I don't.

I don't think I have contempt for anyone, though pity for sure...which at times is probably almost as bad since it is extremely condescending in many cases.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Interesting article. It does show how destructive contempt can be.  What it doesn't address is the kinds of disrespect for others that may cause the contempt, which is more what I was addressing.

I think we must still be talking past each other. I think of contempt more like domestic violence. Abusers like to focus on what a child or spouse did to provoke or cause the abuse. Most people believe that violent behavior is never justified or deserved. 

3 hours ago, california boy said:

This is a little sketch that Jimmy Kimball did a few days ago.  What do you think about the point he is making.  Is it too much to expect a business to serve everyone?

Jimmy Kimmel is a comedian who has specialized lately in over simplifying complex political and social issues with deeply emotional rhetoric to increase his ratings and viewership. This is great for convincing people who already agree with an idea that they are not only right, but that no other positions are even reasonable. I'm sorry; I just don't find it compelling in the least. 

[kiwi57]

22 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you are right about contempt for people who use their religion in an unChristlike manner.

Except that that is not what is in view. What is in view is contempt for religious people.

Sorry.

22 hours ago, california boy said:

 I can't imagine using Christ as a reason to not serve another person no matter how much of a sinner they may be.

In the which you may be right, but that is not what is in view, either.

The baker did not refuse to serve another person because the customer was a "sinner." He refused to actively enable behaviour he regarded as sinful.

There's a difference.

And what is more, you clearly know there's a difference. You insist that the contempt is not towards religious people per se (even though it apparently is) but towards certain kinds of religiously motivated behaviour, yet you refuse to acknowledge that it is not gay people, but certain very restricted same sex activities that the victims of gay lawfare refused to support.

You have got the entire situation exactly - and exquisitely and elegantly - backwards.

I cannot believe that that could be unintentional.

22 hours ago, california boy said:

Honestly I think the contempt is justified.

IOW, you share it.

Why are we not surprised?

22 hours ago, california boy said:

Those that believe in the message Christ taught should be outraged that someone would manipulate His teachings to treat others poorly.  Can you imagine Christ blessing fish and loaves and then going around and judging each person who he serves it to based on whether they are repenting of their sins or not?  Is all one has to do is read Matthew 25 to really question justification for not serving anyone based on how righteous they feel a person is before servicing them.  When did bakers become cake nanny's deciding whether their cakes are going to a good home or not.  For heavens sake, they aren't puppies.

A far better analogy is this: Can you imagine Christ telling the woman taken in adultery to go ahead and meet with her lover again?

22 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe more contempt for these bakers is exactly what is needed.

You are clearly working yourself into a state of self-righteous dudgeon that anyone would have the temerity to refuse to be involved in an event they see as immoral.

[Kenngo1969]

con·tempt

kənˈtem(p)t/

noun

 

1. the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn.

   "he showed his contempt for his job by doing it very badly"

   synonyms:

   scorn, disdain, disrespect, scornfulness, contemptuousness, derision; More

   • disregard for something that should be taken into account.

     "this action displays an arrogant contempt for the wishes of the majority"

     synonyms:

     disrespect, disregard, slighting "he is guilty of contempt of court"
   • the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful of a court of law and its officers.

     plural noun: contempts; noun: contempt of court; plural noun: contempts of court

     "Twitter users could face legal action for contempt of court if they breach privacy injunctions"

[Calm]

"the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn"

Quote

Honestly I think the contempt is justified.

I personally think contempt for a person is a sin since it devalues that individual (and that includes for me even those who are evil).

It also seems strange to me that any from an activist group pushing for greater tolerance and acceptance responds to what they see as a lack of such with contempt, which seems to be the very problem they are condemning....so why are they being part of the problem they see ( speaking specifically to those in such groups that have contempt for those who they see opposing them, not every one associated with such groups)?

Edited February 13, 2018 by Calm

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

"the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn"

I personally think contempt for a person is a sin since it devalues that individual (and that includes for me even those who are evil).

It also seems strange to me that any from an activist group pushing for greater tolerance and acceptance responds to what they see as a lack of such with contempt, which seems to be the very problem they are condemning....so why are they being part of the problem they see ( speaking specifically to those in such groups that have contempt for those who they see opposing them, not every one associated with such groups)?

I agree that contempt for individuals is sin, because contempt is an emotion best reserved for actions, rather than any person in his/her entirety.

I disagree that those supporting anti-discrimination laws hold contempt for those who may not be as tolerant as we wish.  While I think it's clear that some on either side of the issue hold contempt for those on the other side, I agree with you that that isn't universally true. 

Your comments remind me of the paradox of tolerance--that tolerance itself cannot continue forever if it promotes absolute tolerance of intolerance.  If a society seeks to be tolerant of most, it still must draw the line against intolerance at some point.  While it is continually being evaluated and re-evaluated, open, honest, and candid dialogue are crucial to deciding on what is and should be acceptable, vs. the type of intolerance that shouldn't be tolerated.  Contempt is rarely a good reason upon which to base any such sound decisions.

[Storm Rider]

42 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Your comments remind me of the paradox of tolerance--that tolerance itself cannot continue forever if it promotes absolute tolerance of intolerance.  If a society seeks to be tolerant of most, it still must draw the line against intolerance at some point.  While it is continually being evaluated and re-evaluated, open, honest, and candid dialogue are crucial to deciding on what is and should be acceptable, vs. the type of intolerance that shouldn't be tolerated.  Contempt is rarely a good reason upon which to base any such sound decisions.

That does not sound logical to me.  It sounds like saying be charitable, but don't be charitable to all.  It sounds like a way to pick and choose.  Tolerance is tolerance until it is not.  There is not a middle ground; I will either be tolerant of intolerant, but I cannot speak as if I am a tolerant person when in reality pick and choose for whom I will be tolerant.  

Who gets to decide?  Why?  If we all get to decide for what we will be tolerant - i.e. live in a free society - then there will be no universal tolerance for a specific thing, but there will be a directive that "you" don't get to choose for anyone else about which all will be tolerant.  

No, your "paradox" is just permission to set up an elitist class that informs the poor stupid ones about what they should and should not be tolerant.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

 

I disagree that those supporting anti-discrimination laws hold contempt for those who may not be as tolerant as we wish.  While I think it's clear that some on either side of the issue hold contempt for those on the other side, I agree with you that that isn't universally true. 

I am confused...who are you disagreeing with?

[kllindley]

15 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

That does not sound logical to me.  It sounds like saying be charitable, but don't be charitable to all.  It sounds like a way to pick and choose.  Tolerance is tolerance until it is not.  There is not a middle ground; I will either be tolerant of intolerant, but I cannot speak as if I am a tolerant person when in reality pick and choose for whom I will be tolerant.  

Who gets to decide?  Why?  If we all get to decide for what we will be tolerant - i.e. live in a free society - then there will be no universal tolerance for a specific thing, but there will be a directive that "you" don't get to choose for anyone else about which all will be tolerant.  

No, your "paradox" is just permission to set up an elitist class that informs the poor stupid ones about what they should and should not be tolerant.  

You know, Storm, I am pretty critical of the intolerant pro-tolerance crowd. They do exist, and unfortunately, they are not as few in number as some would like to think. 

At the same time I think that Daniel has a valid point. We do get to decide as a people what we tolerate as a society. For many years we didn't tolerate profanity on prime-time television. We have decided collectively that we don't tolerate child abuse. These are moral decisions that we collectively make on an ongoing basis.  Whether or not a particular behavior is tolerated is a decision we make through law and public opinion. We try to balance the desires of the majority with the rights of minorities.

 

[Daniel2]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am confused...who are you disagreeing with?

Sorry I wasn't clear... I just meant that generally speaking, I disagree with any notion (not yours) that those supporting anti-discrimination laws hold contempt for those who may not be as tolerant as we wish.  You weren't suggesting as much (as I attempted to indicate--rather poorly--in the next sentence). ha

[Daniel2]

45 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

That does not sound logical to me.  It sounds like saying be charitable, but don't be charitable to all.  It sounds like a way to pick and choose.  Tolerance is tolerance until it is not.  There is not a middle ground; I will either be tolerant of intolerant, but I cannot speak as if I am a tolerant person when in reality pick and choose for whom I will be tolerant.  

Who gets to decide?  Why?  If we all get to decide for what we will be tolerant - i.e. live in a free society - then there will be no universal tolerance for a specific thing, but there will be a directive that "you" don't get to choose for anyone else about which all will be tolerant.  

No, your "paradox" is just permission to set up an elitist class that informs the poor stupid ones about what they should and should not be tolerant.  

It's not "my" paradox.  Google "the paradox of tolerance."  There's a lot of interesting information to read out there. 

I certainly wasn't attempting to set myself up as "an elitist" or elevate myself over "a poor stupid" class of others.  I think one would be hard-pressed to suggest as much, based on what I've written.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Daniel2

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Sorry I wasn't clear... I just meant that generally speaking, I disagree with any notion (not yours) that those supporting anti-discrimination laws hold contempt for those who may not be as tolerant as we wish.  You weren't suggesting as much (as I attempted to indicate--rather poorly--in the next sentence). ha

That makes sense...I knew you weren't disagreeing with me since you said you agreed.   thank for the clarification.

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

It's not "my" paradox.  Google "the paradox of tolerance."  There's a lot of interesting information to read out there. 

I certainly wasn't attempting to set myself up as "an elitist" or elevate myself over "a poor stupid" class of others.  I think one would be hard-pressed to suggest as much, based on what I've written.

Daniel, I don't view you as an elitist and I hope that you did not take anything I stated as an affront to you.  I just happen to not buy into the pseudo-logic of the supposed paradox of tolerance.  It is not logical and does not make sense.  Its basic premise if faulty.  

Ideas are not like germs that contaminate another.  Ideas are to be debated, ponder upon, and the stronger ideas eventually win the greatest support.  Humanity has proved itself quite capable to buy into poor ideas, but those ideas eventually are defeated.  What I find abhorrent is this concept that we must censor the speech and ideas of those with whom we disagree.  I reject that position entirely and without reservation.  If we are so fearful that an idea will not stand up to scrutiny in the public square then there is obviously something wrong with our understanding of that idea.  Additionally, we don't believe that our fellow humans are smart enough to buy into "our" personal belief system and therefore they need to be protected from anything that is perceived to contaminate the preferred position.