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

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Once again, that simply is NOT true.

The type of discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act and public accommodation laws prevents instances of "bad behavior" (as I've used it and in the context of your accusation, 'discriminating against someone based on the wedding event encompassing their choice of spouse or choice of wedding venue or choice of religious/non-religious ceremony, etc.') of ANY kind and has been subject to punishment up to and potentially including financial obliteration based on ANY protected class, including:

• Race.
• Color.
• Religion or creed.
• National origin or ancestry.
• Sex.
• Age.
• Physical or mental disability.
• Veteran status.

It's just that all 'bad behavior' (of discriminating against one's customers based on the above list) are already matters of settled law... yet you keep omitting these protected classes and only direct your outrage at gay and lesbian Americans asking for the same (equal) treatments and protections. 

 

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

The analogy isn't flawed, because both examples rely upon the very same legal principles, precedent, and application, even as the details always very from any case to another.

Piggy Park Enterprises never said he hated black people or didn't want to serve them; he cited his religious belief objecting to the ACT of integrating whites and blacks together in the same space.

Further, you know as well as I that public accommodation aspects of anti-discrimination law prohibit and prevent business owners to refuse to provide goods or services to the following ACTIONS/EVENTS:

• Interracial marriages (were it not so, business owners could claim that they aren't denying service based on RACE, just on the EVENT of a mixed-race MARRIAGE, which is an action/event, not the people's race, even if he were HAPPY to bake interracial couples cakes for ANY other occasion).

Has that ever been tested in law?

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

• Religious marriages of ANY creed--or for those with no Faith at all (were it not so, business owners could claim that they aren't denying service based on RELIGION, just on the EVENT of a Mormon/Jewish/Catholic/Atheist MARRIAGE, which is an action/event, not the people's religion, even if he were HAPPY to bake Mormon/Jewish/Catholic/Athiest couples cakes for ANY other occasion).
• Intergenerational marriages (were it not so, business owners could claim that they aren't denying service based on AGE, just on the EVENT of an intergenerational MARRIAGE, which is an action/event, not the people's ages, even if he were HAPPY to bake intergenerational couples cakes for ANY other occasion).
• Mixed-ability marriages (were it not so, business owners could claim that they aren't denying service based on disability status, just on the EVENT of a mixed-ability MARRIAGE, which is an action/event, not the people's ableness, even if he were HAPPY to bake mixed-ability couples cakes for ANY other occasion).
• Military weddings for those in active duty or retired veterans (were it not so, business owners could claim that they aren't denying service based on the couples' military service, just on the EVENT of a military-related MARRIAGE, which is an action/event, not the people's status as active/retired military, even if he were HAPPY to bake veteran couples cakes for ANY other occasion).

Again, there's a fundamental distinction over which you are glossing: mixed-race marriages, religious marriages, mixed-ability marriages, etc. etc. are all authentic conjugal marriages; same-sex marriages, not to put too fine a point on it, are not.

Interestingly, when the Italian fashion designers Dolce and Gabbana declared their non-support for same-sex marriages, their fellow gays turned on them in an outburst of vindictive fury. Gay lawfare may pretend to be about nothing more than securing the legal rights of gays, but it's really about punishing dissent.

As the case of Orson Scott Card so thoroughly demonstrates.

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Kiwi, it seems like you want to make this current round of application all about gays wanting to destroy the family-businesses of anyone who disagrees with them.

Actually, you could shorten that: it appears to be all about gays wanting to destroy anyone who disagrees with them.

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Yet you seemingly ignore the reality that the ACTIONS/WEDDINGS of those of other classes are protected from discrimination in the very same way you're loudly decrying the alledged "entitlement" that I am supposedly feeling.

Wanting to be treated the SAME way as everyone else is NOT "entitlement"--it's EQUALITY.

When the law protects EVERYONE else's CHOICE religion (or the chosen EVENT of their religious-based wedding), or when the law protects EVERYONE else's race (or the chosen EVENT to marry someone of another race), or when the law protects EVERYONE"s military service (or the CHOSEN event to have a military wedding), or when the law protects EVERYONE else's gender---then the Constitution--------NOT my sense of entitlement----states that ALL of us are created and are to be treated equally.  In my case and under current public accommodations law, that means that for I and those like me, the law must treat our choice to marry someone of the same gender the same as it does everyone else.  If I am entitled, it is because I expect my government to honor the contract it proclaims to make with each of us as citizens.  No, I am not entitled--I am GRATEFUL to be a citizen where I can share in the dream of equality for all, while rolling up my sleeves and joining the hard work to make us "a more perfect union."

Now... when it comes right down to it, I acknowledge and understand that you think the whole public accommodation law system should be done away with.  As such, I really don't see that attempting to convince you that gays should be free from discrimination on the same terms as everyone else is going to be fruitful, since you don't buy into the entire notion of anti-discrimination law.  You want businesses to be free to be as intolerant as they wish.

Since you reject the principles upon which the entire system depends, it's pointless to try to convince you that gays should have it, so I intend to stop trying to convince you otherwise.  While I think you're tilting at windmills to try to throw out public accommodation law, go for it--it's a free country.  

What I will continue to defend against, however, is any ongoing insinuations or efforts by you or anyone else demean, belittle, or mischaracterize gay and lesbian Americans as overly-entitled, snowflake individuals who expect any type of special rights that are irrational, unjust, outlandish, and/or horrific that don't already equally apply to all the rest of American citizens, up to and including the ability to destroy 'family owned' businesses who attempt to discriminate against their fellow American citizens based on events related to any status of protected classifications, even when attempting to invoke their 'deeply-held religious beliefs.'

And there's those mocking scare quotes again.

Of course you don't think religious beliefs are worthy of any kind of respect. Why would you?

 

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Of those two, only one is being penalized. 

Currently (just in case it makes a difference in the conversation)....

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

 

Has that ever been tested in law?

Do you mean specifically cake baking or general wedding services?

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

In an interesting, but not completely unexpended, twist to the story: it seems that even the law makers, let alone society at large, are not completely sure where they fall on the application of non-discrimination laws. 

Joint Budget Committee votes to defund state civil rights commission

I'm sad that none of the many pro-LGBT advocates even acknowledged the historical problems that legislators have tried to address regarding the composition and functioning of the committee. It's a very polarized and partisan "scorched earth" conversation. 

Did you read the updated version of the article you posted....?  This wasn't the result of a "joint" decision--the Democrats voted to continue the funding, the Republicans refused, and their inaction resulted in the failure of future funding.  The Republican decision to defund the Colorado State Civil Rights division is seen as a purely political bully tactic.

You see, the Colorado State Civil Rights division is the agency that found against Masterpiece Cakes--the case currently before SCOTUS.

And with the Republican majority's current stance that religious shop owners should be allowed to discriminate, their recent vote to defund the Civil Rights Commission has been described as both payback and a way to impede the commission from upholding existing civil rights laws.

From the article:

One Colorado, the state’s leading advocacy organization for LGBTQ rights, also found the news troubling. Executive Director Daniel Ramos said the decision to block 2018-19 funding for the commission and division “sends a very disturbing message about how much they value protecting the civil rights of all Coloradans, including LGBTQ Coloradans. We call on Senate Republicans to restore funding to this vital office as soon as possible.”

State Rep. Leslie Herod, a Denver Democrat and the first African-American lesbian lawmaker in Colorado, said Coloradans “deserve a local remedy and local recourse,” and defunding the commission takes that away. The decision also goes around the legislative process and is an abuse of their authority, Herod said.

“Getting caught in the crossfire are Coloradans whose rights are being violated,” she added.

Joe Neguse, now a Democratic candidate for Congress in the 2nd Congressional District, formerly served as DORA’s executive director. He said today the JBC decision “is politics at its worst. Instead of protecting the civil rights of all Coloradans, several legislators voted to prioritize grandstanding and political gamesmanship. He called on the Republicans on the JBC to “do their job,” fund the commission and division and stop playing political games.

The ACLU of Colorado also called on the JBC to reverse course. “It’s a terrible move,” said Denise Maes, public policy director.  The commission protects Coloradans from unlawful discrimination. By defunding the commission, there’s a statement there that perhaps the state need not be so vigilant to stop discrimination.” She also said that in bringing up the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, as Sen. Lundberg did in his Facebook post, indicates the Republicans may be retaliating against the commission for their ruling in the case.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Daniel2

[kllindley]

5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Did you read the updated version of the article you posted....?  This wasn't the result of a "joint" decision--the Democrats voted to continue the funding, the Republicans refused, and their inaction resulted in the failure of future funding.  The Republican decision to defund the Colorado State Civil Rights division is seen as a purely political bully tactic.

You see, the Colorado State Civil Rights division is the agency that found against Masterpiece Cakes--the case currently before SCOTUS.

And with the Republican majority's current stance that religious shop owners should be allowed to discriminate, their recent vote to defund the Civil Rights Commission has been described as both payback and a way to impede the commission from upholding existing civil rights laws.

From the article:

 

I did read it. I didn't ever say it was a joint decision. I assumed people knew what a JBC is. 

And I commented that the LGBT activists and Democrats have tried to make this a purely political issue. You helped prove that point with your quotes. You see, 😉 all are from people invested in making the issue appear to be about bitter Republicans and intolerance. I posted that particular article as an example of people refusing to have honest dialogue and resorting to ideological narratives.

I guess I should have included more information to show how disingenuous these claims are. 

http://kdvr.com/2018/02/13/will-republicans-force-a-change-to-colorados-civil-rights-commission/

"But state Republicans want to make clear they do not want to get rid of the commission.

“We are committed to the reauthorization of the Civil Rights Commission,” Republican State Sen. Bob Gardner said.

“I believe the make up of the commission is not balanced right now.”

Gardner said he wants to look at the commission's role in Colorado government out of concerns it might have too much power.

Gardner also expressed concern that the governor shouldn’t be the only one allowed to appoint members to the commission."

Republicans commit to funding Civil Rights Commission, but have changes in mind it

"Republicans called the outrage “political demagoguery.” Republican leaders say the Civil Rights Commission, which dates back to the 1951 Fair Trade Employment Practices Office, is important and they are committed to funding it. But it is up for its periodic sunset review, meaning lawmakers have to reauthorize it this legislative session, and Republican lawmakers say they want to wait until after that review before funding the commission because its budget may change.

The House Judiciary Committee is considering the review currently.

Sen. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, chairs the Senate Judiciary committee that will review the commission in the Senate. He told reporters on Tuesday he wants to fund the commission but has some changes in mind.

Gardner said the makeup of the commission needs to include better representation for small businesses. He is also concerned the executive branch is making all the appointments, he said."

"Last year, Senate Republicans voted down the re-appointment of LGBTQ advocate Heidi Jeanne Hess as head of the Civil Rights Commission, citing concerns over Hess’ ties to the advocacy group One Colorado. Senate President Kevin Grantham is pushing a billthrough the Senate that would prohibit the governor from nominating someone who the Senate already rejected."

https://coloradopolitics.com/colorado-civil-rights-commission-tough-year/

"Hess, of Clifton and the only rural representative on the commission, was appointed to the board in 2013 and is a Western Slope organizer for the LGBT organization One Colorado. She was appointed as an at-large representative, but the commission’s website had her listed both as at-large and as a representative of small business. Hess has never owned a small business, and that drew the ire of Senate Republicans, who claimed she had advocated against business interests, the Daily Sentinel reported.

*Hess remained on the commission after the session was over, given that the constitution requires an appointee remain on the body until their replacement is named. In Hess’s case, she had already been on the commission since 2013 and was technically her own replacement. She later resigned and the governor’s office continues to accept applications for her replacement.

But her continued presence on the commission prompted Republican Senate President Kevin Grantham of Cañon City to draw up a bill that would make it clear that once the Senate has rejected an appointment, the governor cannot go back and re-appoint that person.

In most states, Grantham told reporters last month, once rejected, a person cannot continue to serve, But he said the governor’s counsel had said the language in the constitution about appointments is unclear. “I think that’s wrong,” Grantham said. “The intent is clear.”

Senate Bill 43 faces an uncertain future, should it reach the Democratic-controlled House. “This shouldn’t be a D or R issue,” Grantham said. The rules should be clear, he added; if a person is rejected they shouldn’t serve. The Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs green-lighted the bill Wednesday."

[california boy]

Does anyone else see that this discussion is never going to resolve any different points of view?   Mormons fundamentally believe that gays are unworthy of marriage or having families.  No matter what is said, that position is not going to change. 

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

No matter what is said, that position is not going to change. 

Have you been of trying to change others? Is that the point of the discussion to you?  

 

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

 Mormons fundamentally believe that gays are unworthy of marriage or having families.

That's low <But I'm sure it will provoke some great dialogue.></end sarcasm>  Maybe your goal is to get the thread shut down?

Besides, it's not even very accurate. In contrast, I would say that Mormons are the ones who truly believe that gays are worthy of eternal marriages and families. We just believe that a soul's fullest potential can only be realized in a relationship characterized by gender complementarity. 

[california boy]

On 2/15/2018 at 9:56 PM, kllindley said:

Have you been of trying to change others? Is that the point of the discussion to you?  

 

That's low <But I'm sure it will provoke some great dialogue.></end sarcasm>  Maybe your goal is to get the thread shut down?

Besides, it's not even very accurate. In contrast, I would say that Mormons are the ones who truly believe that gays are worthy of eternal marriages and families. We just believe that a soul's fullest potential can only be realized in a relationship characterized by gender complementarity. 

I have said very little in this thread   Obviously I am not trying to change anyone’s mind  

and yeah we all get that you are a Mormon hero because you have a temple marriage.   So that means Mormons want all gays to marry and have a family just like you. 

Mod: Tone it down.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Does anyone else see that this discussion is never going to resolve any different points of view?   Mormons fundamentally believe that gays are unworthy of marriage or having families.  No matter what is said, that position is not going to change. 

Cal, I don't think I have ever heard anyone postulate that LDS have such beliefs before.  I know I have never heard any LDS say something similar.  It is always quite the contrary - they actually believe that God created each of us to have a spouse and to have a family.  In fact, one of the fundamental purposes of this mortal existence is to propagate this world and bring all of God's spirit children, his greatest creation, down to earth.  This belief, which also is a position of all of the largest Christian churches, is fundamental to why the entire gay lifestyle does not work and its cause for humanity great heartache.  

I have also heard, and I am sure you have also, is that any relationships outside of marriage as ordained by God is at best a hollow copy.  It fails to propagate; it fails to fulfill God's designs for his children.  

When I was a boy my dad taught me how to use tools, build things, etc.  In his teaching there were male pieces and female pieces - I may not have grasped the full meaning of these terms of identification until I was older (in my teens), but they made sense to me.  One was specifically designed for the other - it was undeniable.  Any attempt to connect two male pieces or two female pieces failed utterly and completely.  It just did not work because they were not designed to work that way.  

I suspect that since the creation of the world this has been the overriding thought of humanity about homosexual relationships.  No society was ever existed where it was the primary manner of relationships - why?  Because any society built on such a premise was immediately deemed to self-destruct.  Because they were not fulfilling their purpose the society would die because there was no propagation.  

No, it has nothing to do with you or any other gay child being worthy.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It is just that each human was designed for a higher purpose.  This does not answer why "I" am gay; or how can a gay person be happy, etc., but it is the simpliest explanation as to why Christians believe what they believe.  

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Cal, I don't think I have ever heard anyone postulate that LDS have such beliefs before.  I know I have never heard any LDS say something similar.  It is always quite the contrary - they actually believe that God created each of us to have a spouse and to have a family.  In fact, one of the fundamental purposes of this mortal existence is to propagate this world and bring all of God's spirit children, his greatest creation, down to earth.  This belief, which also is a position of all of the largest Christian churches, is fundamental to why the entire gay lifestyle does not work and its cause for humanity great heartache.  

I have also heard, and I am sure you have also, is that any relationships outside of marriage as ordained by God is at best a hollow copy.  It fails to propagate; it fails to fulfill God's designs for his children.  

When I was a boy my dad taught me how to use tools, build things, etc.  In his teaching there were male pieces and female pieces - I may not have grasped the full meaning of these terms of identification until I was older (in my teens), but they made sense to me.  One was specifically designed for the other - it was undeniable.  Any attempt to connect two male pieces or two female pieces failed utterly and completely.  It just did not work because they were not designed to work that way.  

I suspect that since the creation of the world this has been the overriding thought of humanity about homosexual relationships.  No society was ever existed where it was the primary manner of relationships - why?  Because any society built on such a premise was immediately deemed to self-destruct.  Because they were not fulfilling their purpose the society would die because there was no propagation.  

No, it has nothing to do with you or any other gay child being worthy.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It is just that each human was designed for a higher purpose.  This does not answer why "I" am gay; or how can a gay person be happy, etc., but it is the simpliest explanation as to why Christians believe what they believe.  

Not really sure what you are stating?  Because some tools have male/female parts do gays even have a place in your world if they are not connected to the opposite sex?  This seems to be whatkllindely believes. So would it be better to state that Mormon believe that gays that can’t fit with the opposite sex are unworthy of marriage and family. 

[Daniel2]

15 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Again, there's a fundamental distinction over which you are glossing: mixed-race marriages, religious marriages, mixed-ability marriages, etc. etc. are all authentic conjugal marriages; same-sex marriages, not to put too fine a point on it, are not.

The bolded portion above really tells me/us all we really need to know about where you're coming from and the foundation upon which your views are based.  It's clear that even after our government has recognized my equal civil right of marriage, you continue to deny that right, despite it being written into law and ruled upon at every level up to it's highest.

So long as you refuse to view my marriage as "authentic" from a civil standpoint, despite our government's designation of it as such, there's little point in engaging with you in discussion about whether or not the government and our nation's laws should treat it equally to interracial marriage, religious marriage, mixed-religious marriage, non-religious marriage, etc.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

9 hours ago, kllindley said:

I did read it. I didn't ever say it was a joint decision. I assumed people knew what a JBC is. 

And I commented that the LGBT activists and Democrats have tried to make this a purely political issue. You helped prove that point with your quotes. You see, 😉 all are from people invested in making the issue appear to be about bitter Republicans and intolerance. I posted that particular article as an example of people refusing to have honest dialogue and resorting to ideological narratives.

I guess I should have included more information to show how disingenuous these claims are. 

I realize you didn't explicitly say it's a joint decision, but if posters only read the title of the article and your words, it would be easy to make the mistake of assuming that neither political party has come to a consensus of how civil rights should be implemented in the public square.

While simultaneously claiming that Democrats are being political over this issue, you now assert it's disingenuous to suggest Republicans are playing politics.  The evidence you post on this is Republicans explanations of why they couldn't continue funding, and you expect us to take those words at face value. 

In my view, actions speak louder than words.

While I originally typed a lot more, I decided to delete it all and I ask that we all cease discussing this tangent--it's beyond the scope of this thread, is against board rules, and would likely get the thread closed.

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I realize you didn't explicitly say it's a joint decision, but if posters only read the title of the article and your words, it would be easy to make the mistake of assuming that neither political party has come to a consensus of how civil rights should be implemented in the public square.

While simultaneously claiming that Democrats are being political over this issue, you now assert it's disingenuous to suggest Republicans are playing politics.  The evidence you post on this is Republicans explanations of why they couldn't continue funding, and you expect us to take those words at face value. 

In my view, actions speak louder than words.

While I originally typed a lot more, I decided to delete it all and I ask that we all cease discussing this tangent--it's beyond the scope of this thread, is against board rules, and would likely get the thread closed.

I'm sorry. I thought it was relevant to the ongoing tension between LGBT and religious rights. I'll drop it. 

[california boy]

46 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

The bolded portion above really tells me/us all we really need to know about where you're coming from and the foundation upon which your views are based.  It's clear that even after our government has recognized my equal civil right of marriage, you continue to deny that right, despite it being written into law and ruled upon at every level up to it's highest.

So long as you refuse to view my marriage as "authentic" from a civil standpoint, despite our government's designation of it as such, there's little point in engaging with you in discussion about whether or not the government and our nation's laws should treat it equally to interracial marriage, religious marriage, mixed-religious marriage, non-religious marriage, etc.

This is exactly my point. As long as Mormons believe that gays shouldn’t have civil marriage and when they do, they are not really marriages, then those who discriminate against those marriages are hero’s    Showing the wrongness of the same type of past discrimination will not change that belief one bit.  

Mormons believe that the only gays that can participate in their plan of happiness are the ones that fit into the straight mold.  So why would a Mormon ever believe that a civil gay marriage should be respected just like their marriages?  Those marriages make them apostates and their children should be rejected for membership into the church until they disavow the very marriage of their parents.  And by the rejection of the validity of their gay parents marriage, they also acknowledge that they are illegitimate bastards.  

Having a baker refuse to bake wedding cakes to a gay couple is probably the least offensive thing Mormons do to gay families.  But we love them, so there is that.

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Not really sure what you are stating?  Because some tools have male/female parts do gays even have a place in your world if they are not connected to the opposite sex?  This seems to be whatkllindely believes. So would it be better to state that Mormon believe that gays that can’t fit with the opposite sex are unworthy of marriage and family. 

Hello Cal, I think the term "unworthy" is not appropriate.  It is not simply about "parts" - it is about what is our function as children of God.  The fact that two men or two women can fall in love (which I find more to be lust even for heterosexual couples - it is after the lust disappears that love really grows and consumes a couple) and perform sexual acts does not equate to marriage or a family.  I am bleeding over into too many topics and not addressing your question - I apologize.  

Unworthy is not an appropriate term simply because it is not what we believe.  Within Mormonism, and all of human history, there was not a concept of gay marriage.  The purpose of marriage was to propagate; gays cannot propagate ergo there is no marriage.  It is not about being unworthy, but it is about attempting to do something that is impossible.  This is not to say that two people, regardless of gender, cannot intensely be devoted to one another and love one another, but the traditional concept of marriage does not fit. 

The idea or concept of family has become so distorted by liberal thinkers that for many it has lost meaning.  If people live together then they are a family regardless of being married, etc.  Thus, the definition of marriage is multi-layered and can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.  I am not even sure if people have to live together any more to qualify as a family unit.  If they want to call themselves a family no one gainsays them and they are a family.  

The Church does not define the terms marriage or family for society.  Conversely, the Church does define marriage and family for its members.  Within this sphere of influence worthiness does not play a role for anyone regardless of sexual preference.  

[Anijen]

What makes it ok to call a perfectly honest faithful man trying to to live his religious beliefs  and 1st Amendment,  justify calling Jack Phelps behavior bad?  Really? 

Because you have had persecution it does not allow and justifies yourself to persecute others and you are a hypocrite if you think it does.

Quote an article about tolerance, but you yourself  it is okay to be intolerant. What exactly is Jack Phelps "bad behavior"?

 

Instead of a mea culpa it is excuses. 

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Anijen

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

What makes it ok to call a perfectly honest faithful man trying to to live his religious beliefs  and 1st Amendment,  justify calling Jack Phelps behavior bad?  Really? 

Because you have had persecution it does not allow and justifies yourself to persecute others and you are a hypocrite if you think it does.

Quote an article about tolerance, but you yourself  it is okay to be intolerant. What exactly is Jack Phelps "bad behavior"?

Instead of a mea culpa it is excuses. 

 

Hi, Anijen,

I think you're missing much of my point.  If were to answer your questions literally as you've asked them, here's what I'd say:

1. The First Amendment, which preserves freedom of speech and freedom of religious belief, is what "makes it OK" (at least, from a civil-rights-based and/or legal perspective) for any of us to call other individuals' behaviors "bad," according to a) our own personal belief system and b) according to our freedom of speech.  That means it is the First Amendment that allows that Jack Phillips and Christians or Latter-day Saints in general can call my relationship sinful, can call engaging in homosexual relationships "bad behavior," and can excommunicate married homosexuals from your churches based on your view that our behavior is "bad."  In a similar fashion, as a Unitarian Universalist who believes it's "bad behavior" to refuse to serve someone in the name of God and/or Religion, and also believes it's "bad behavior" for anyone to assert that one's religion exempts themselves from public accommodation laws, the First Amendment allows me to speak of Mr. Phillips behavior as "bad.
2. What any of us view to be examples of "perfectly honest faithful" depends on our belief system.  For example, you feel that Mr. Phillips is an example of "perfect honesty and faith," and view me to be "behaving badly" by engaging in same-sex behavior within a committed, faithful, and honest marriage with a member of my own gender.  My belief is that Mr. Phillips' refusal to serve customers based on the type of marriage they're choosing is reprehensible and has no place in American society not only because it dishonors American ideals of equality under the law, but it also undermines religious freedom by elevating any given business owners' "deeply-held religious beliefs" over those of their customers'. 
3. For over 50 years, America has accepted the Civil Rights Act as the law which governs our society, including the requirements it establishes and the sanctions/punishments which it enacts upon those that break the law.  You suggest I am a hypocrite if I seek to "persecute" someone by expecting the law to be equally administered to all.  Are you saying that The Civil Rights Act and Public Accommodation Laws are forms of "persecution"?  Do you believe atheist shop owners would accurately be classified as "persecuted" if said atheist owners had to face legal sanctions if they refused to bake cakes for LDS customers who are getting married in the temple?
4.  I am not suggesting that business owners who deny services based on religious beliefs should be "persecuted" in the name of some imaginary belief that I've personally been "persecuted."  I'm asking that the law be equally applied to us all, which is the antithesis of hypocrisy, not a demonstration of it.
5. Perhaps you didn't read the article I quoted about tolerance, which itself said that in order to workably preserve the greatest amount of tolerance in a civil society, there ultimately must be a limit to tolerance, lest the intolerant minority eventually over throw the tolerant majority.   
6. I think I've explained what Jack Phillips' "bad behavior is" (see answers 1 & 2).
7. I don't follow what you mean by "instead of mea culpa it is excuses."

 

With all of the above being said, though, Anijen, from my perspective, I simply claim the same legal rights and civil consideration and entitlement that Mr. Phillips, his religion, his views, and his actions receive--no more, no less.

If baking a custom wedding cake is considered First Amendment-protected Freedom of Speech, I will accept that ruling as lawful and binding, as long as that's true for ALL custom wedding cake bakers; that means anyone can refuse a custom wedding cake to anyone at any time.  That is the requirement of Due Process and Equal Application of the Law. If the law or the impending ruling singles out same-sex weddings as the only exception, but requires custom wedding cakes to be baked for customers regardless of religion, race, veteran status, etc., then it will be an unjust and unconstitutional ruling which I expect would eventually be successfully challenged in court.

D

Edited February 16, 2018 by Daniel2

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

 

With all of the above being said, though, Anijen, from my perspective, I simply claim the same legal rights and civil consideration and entitlement that Mr. Phillips, his religion, his views, and his actions receive--no more, no less.

Moving the goal posts. I am specifically calling out your accusation of "bad behavior."

Claiming the same legal rights is completely different than accusing Phelps of bad behavior, unless his claiming the same legal rights you claim is the bad behavior (as you stated above). If it is then it is hypocrisy (i.e. good when you do it, bad behavior when he does it).

[Daniel2]

12 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Moving the goal posts. I am specifically calling out your accusation of "bad behavior."

Claiming the same legal rights is completely different than accusing Phelps of bad behavior, unless his claiming the same legal rights you claim is the bad behavior (as you stated above). If it is then it is hypocrisy (i.e. good when you do it, bad behavior when he does it).

No, I haven't moved any goal posts.

I continue to assert that Mr. Phillips IS engaging in a bad behavior that I am NOT engaging in.

Mr. Phillips is seeking to refuse goods and services to a same-sex couple based on the nature of their wedding.  That is bad behavior.

I don't seek to refuse goods and services based on people's religion, gender, or sexual orientation.  There are no circumstances in which I would propose that I should be exempt from providing the same services to everyone as I would based on any protected classifications.

Mr. Phillips and I obviously have different opinions on what constitutes bad behavior and what doesn't.

And it appears you and I do, as well.

Not sure where hypocrisy comes into it at all.

D

[Anijen]

22 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I continue to assert that Mr. Phillips IS engaging in a bad behavior that I am NOT engaging in.

Oh, I see. When you are the one who gets to decide when its bad behavior. All clear now. coughhypocracycough

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

Oh, I see. When you are the one who gets to decide when its bad behavior. All clear now. coughhypocracycough

Huh....??  Each of us is empowered to define for ourselves what we view as "bad behavior."

Just as Mr. Phillips (and anyone else) is is free to view any given type of sexual relationship(s) as "bad behavior," I am free to view using his religious beliefs to deny goods and services to someone else as "bad behavior."  You don't have to agree with me, just as I don't have to agree with you or Mr. Phillips.

The law, however, is not based on any one individual's decision about what constitutes "bad behavior"--including me, or you, or Mr. Phillips.

Laws are created by the government and weighed by the government against the Constitution. In America, only those laws deemed to be Constitutional are those that endure.  In fact, when it comes to "bad behavior" and legislation, I'd guess that there are likely many behaviors which most of us would consider "bad" which are still entirely legal.

The law distinguishes between legal behavior and illegal behavior.  I'd wager that most of us would agree that not everything that's legal is "good," and not everything that's illegal is "bad."

I haven't made any sweeping pronouncements about "bad behavior" vs "good behavior" in any of my comments, except in response to others' employment of the terms.

Candidly, I'm confused about your line of questioning and what your point really is...  If you'd care to clarify, I'm happy to try to understand your point.

If you cannot show I'm a hypocrite, I'd ask that you please stop accusing me of such.

D

Edited February 16, 2018 by Daniel2

[Anijen]

5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Laws are created by the government and weighed by the government against the Constitution. 

Clarification, laws are created by Congress and the Constitution is the law. In fact it is considered the supreme law of the land.

 

Quote

Each of us is empowered to define for ourselves what we view as "bad behavior."

And you view yourself as an innocent victim , in which that victimhood gives you the right to participate in intolerance and hypocrisy against others who happen to believe in the exact Constitution you use to defend your rights, but it is bad behavior for Mr. Phelps to do the same.

 

Quote

Just as Mr. Phillips (and anyone else) is is free to view any given type of sexual relationship(s) as "bad behavior," I am free to view using his religious beliefs to deny goods and services to someone else as "bad behavior."

The thing is, I agree you have a right to use every Constitutional right to defend yourself and perhaps to your surprise I think that is a good thing. Where we disagree is I do not consider the very same right of Mr. Phelps using his Constitutional rights as bad behavior.

 

Quote

The law distinguishes between legal behavior and illegal behavior. 

Here is where you do not understand the law. The Phelps case is a casein my opinion which made it to the Supreme Court because the Court will need to face it sooner or later the issue when state laws conflict with the Constitution. For example here, we have a state statute [DACA] which eventually will go against the First Amendment. Specifically a discrimination law against religious beliefs and freedom from compelled speech, both are First Amendment rights. So we have two laws battling it out.

 

Quote

I'd wager that most of us would agree that not everything that's legal is "good," and not everything that's illegal is "bad."

We both are in agreement here.

 

Quote

I haven't made any sweeping pronouncements about "bad behavior" vs "good behavior" in any of my comments,

But you did. You stated that Mr. Phelps had "bad behavior." and then you justified your comments. I called you on it, simple as that.

 

Quote

Candidly, I'm confused about your line of questioning and what your point really is...  If you'd care to clarify, I'm happy to try to understand your point.

Redundancy alert. My point is simply again you specifically called out Phelps right to defend his Constitutional rights as "bad behavior." 

 

 

Quote

If you cannot show I'm a hypocrite, I'd ask that you please stop accusing me of such.

1+1=2 if you add one digit with one digit you get two digits.

If you see the planet earth from outside the earth you see it isn't flat.

If you call a person who is defending his Constitutional rights as "bad behavior" at the same time using your constitutional right to accuse him and it is correct when you do it, but bad behavior when he does it, that is hypocrisy.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by Anijen

[kiwi57]

On 2/16/2018 at 12:39 PM, Calm said:

Do you mean specifically cake baking or general wedding services?

Generally, business owners to refuse to provide goods or services to interracial weddings.

[kiwi57]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

This is exactly my point. As long as Mormons believe that gays shouldn’t have civil marriage and when they do, they are not really marriages, then those who discriminate against those marriages are hero’s    Showing the wrongness of the same type of past discrimination will not change that belief one bit. 

Because those of us who see what is really going on know that the past discrimination wasn't "the same type."

The past discrimination in view was based upon characteristics of the person, such as skin colour or religion. In the case of the LGBT-alphabet soup crowd, you are demanding special recognition (if not privileged status) for behaviour.

18 hours ago, california boy said:

Mormons believe that the only gays that can participate in their plan of happiness are the ones that fit into the straight mold.  So why would a Mormon ever believe that a civil gay marriage should be respected just like their marriages?  Those marriages make them apostates and their children should be rejected for membership into the church until they disavow the very marriage of their parents.  And by the rejection of the validity of their gay parents marriage, they also acknowledge that they are illegitimate bastards.  

I deeply regret that you appear to be asserting something you have no good-faith basis to believe.

I remind you, yet again, that not one of those children ever was, or ever will be, born to a same sex couple.

Not. One.

Quote

Having a baker refuse to bake wedding cakes to a gay couple is probably the least offensive thing Mormons do to gay families.

There are no "gay families." There are families that may have one or more gay members.

Quote

 But we love them, so there is that.

I'm so glad it wasn't me taking that tone with you.

Edited February 17, 2018 by kiwi57

[Daniel2]

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 9:41 PM, Anijen said:

Clarification, laws are created by Congress and the Constitution is the law. In fact it is considered the supreme law of the land.

And you view yourself as an innocent victim , in which that victimhood gives you the right to participate in intolerance and hypocrisy against others who happen to believe in the exact Constitution you use to defend your rights, but it is bad behavior for Mr. Phelps to do the same.

The thing is, I agree you have a right to use every Constitutional right to defend yourself and perhaps to your surprise I think that is a good thing. Where we disagree is I do not consider the very same right of Mr. Phelps using his Constitutional rights as bad behavior.

Here is where you do not understand the law. The Phelps case is a casein my opinion which made it to the Supreme Court because the Court will need to face it sooner or later the issue when state laws conflict with the Constitution. For example here, we have a state statute [DACA] which eventually will go against the First Amendment. Specifically a discrimination law against religious beliefs and freedom from compelled speech, both are First Amendment rights. So we have two laws battling it out.

We both are in agreement here.

But you did. You stated that Mr. Phelps had "bad behavior." and then you justified your comments. I called you on it, simple as that.

Redundancy alert. My point is simply again you specifically called out Phelps right to defend his Constitutional rights as "bad behavior." 

1+1=2 if you add one digit with one digit you get two digits.

If you see the planet earth from outside the earth you see it isn't flat.

If you call a person who is defending his Constitutional rights as "bad behavior" at the same time using your constitutional right to accuse him and it is correct when you do it, but bad behavior when he does it, that is hypocrisy.

Yes, laws are created by Congress and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land by which Congress's created laws are measured--that's another way of restating what I said, and I agree with both my original statement and your clarification--your statement simply added more specifics.

No, I do not consider myself to be an "innocent victim," as I haven't experienced anyone unlawfully denying me goods or services.  Those that have been unlawfully denied goods and services that contradict public accommodation laws are victims.

Exercising one's right to due processes of law when asking the judicial system to review both the constitutionality of the laws made by Congress, and/or as asking the appellate court system to review lower court's rulings is NOT an example of "bad behavior."  I don't believe Mr. Phillips' efforts to seek redress of the rulings against him are "bad behavior," and I've never said his efforts in doing so are what's "bad behavior."  If we feel the laws have treated us unfairly, we all are absolutely within our legal right to ask the courts to review the law and the rulings against ourselves in cases like these.  You've suggested I have said that attempting to defend one's constitutional rights is "bad behavior," but I have not.

You've said that I "don't understand the law," but didn't explain how you believe I do, other than saying that Masterpiece represents two competing First Amendment rights vs. a discrimination law.  With respect, Masterpiece isn't being argued as a matter of freedom of religion.  If it were, it's unlikely it would be at SCOTUS.  Rather, Masterpiece is arguing it's case not on the basis of protecting Mr. Phillips' religious freedom, but as a function of protecting Mr. Phillips' freedom of speech.  Masterpiece made their case that, from their view, the law should rule that the act of commercially creating a custom wedding cake should be considered as a First Amendment-protected freedom of speech.  While religion informs Mr. Phillips beliefs about why he wishes to decline, First Amendment freedoms of religion aren't being employed by his lawyers as the basis upon which they are seeking SCOTUS to rule in their favor.  So, really, this case isn't about religious freedom at all, but about how far the freedom of speech extends and how public accommodation laws should be applied to certain acts of behavior (in this case, creating a custom wedding cake).  I am fairly confident I "understand the law" and this case fairly well, given the amount of attention I've devoted to it.

Regarding all your nonsense about me "calling Mr. Phillip's behavior 'bad' and you 'calling me on it," I really don't see how you think that's important to the discussion at all.  As I've said, we're ALL free to define for ourselves what constitutes 'bad' behavior vs. 'good' behavior.  We aren't all free to define for ourselves what constitutes 'legal' behavior vs. 'illegal' behavior.  We're all free to seek equal due process of law when we feel we've been wronged.  Prior to Obergefell, only opposite-sex couples were free to choose to legally marry one another.  Whether or not it was legal to marry someone of the same sex didn't make it 'bad' or 'good' in many peoples' views--and now that it is legal, it still doesn't affect many people's views of whether or not same-sex relationships are legal.  Since Obergefell, same-gender couples are now free to legally marry one another on the same grounds as our straight counterparts.  Mr. Phillips believes it's 'good behavior' to refuse to create a wedding cake for the marriage of a same-gender couple.  I believe it's 'bad behavior' for Mr. Phillips to refuse to create a wedding cake for a same-gender couple, not only from an ethical standpoint, but it was also illegal for him to do so (and every court who's weighed in on the case thus far agrees, which is where the law currently stands and will continue to stand up until and unless SCOTUS rules otherwise).  I don't believe it's 'bad behavior' for Mr. Phillips to ask the court to consider the constitutionality of the laws about the creation of wedding cakes; that's his right.  What would be 'bad behavior' would be for either Mr. Phillips or I to refuse to comply with however SCOTUS rules on the matter.  Mr. Phillips believes it's bad behavior for me to engage in same-sex behaviors and marriage between same-sex couples.  Up until Lawrence and later Obergefell, the law agreed with him; in the wake of both rulings, the law agrees with me.  Those rulings clearly don't matter to Mr. Phillips; he still believes same-sex behavior and marriage are sinful, and just as I am free to consider his refusal to server others in the name of Jesus as 'bad behavior,' regardless of it's legality, he's likewise also entirely justified in believing same-sex behaviors are sinful, regardless of what the law says.  What he and I are both free to believe what we like, when it comes to the law, we have to obey the law after seeking redress up to the highest levels of the judicial system and our defense is still rejected.  In all of the above I've said in this paragraph, I find no hypocrisy.  This is the last I intend to speak about that.

D