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

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Smac here is quoting one of the commenters to Dan Peterson's blog post about Karger's behavior.

I also like what a follow-up commenter had to say:

It is to Daniel's credit that he has denounced Karger's activities. I call on other LGBT advocates and sympathizers to follow suit if they are serious that it was not intended that the gay marriage law be used to attack the Church.

Edited to add:

Here is how Dreher himself expresses it:

 

I really wasn't planning to comment on this thread.  It seems kind of pointless to me.  But in no way did I want my silence to be construed as any support at all for what Karger is doing.  I think it is wrong, petty, misguided and doomed to fail.  No court should ever rule in favor of this kind of action against any church simply because they participate in the electoral process.  I think the church was very careful in following election laws and even though they were fined for not complying fully, it was a minor error.  I might remind you that Karger was behind the pushing of that fine as well.  However this latest lawsuit is completely without merit.  I condemn his actions.

Now Scott, I wonder if there will be any of the TBM condemning Snowflake for distorting the accommodation laws to stir up anti gay feelings.  You and SMAC are completely aware of how the accommodation laws work.  Are you going to point out his error in how he applies those laws?  I will be interested to see.

The reason why I was not planning to get involved in this thread is because I feel that most of these discussions are quite pointless at this point.  I have learned to trust in justice and the legal system to protect my rights and the rights of members of the church.  I have no doubt this lawsuit will get thrown out.  And I have faith that Mike Lee's current proposal to allow for legal discrimination will be thrown out by the Supreme Court if it ever actually becomes law.  While there may be some gray areas, it seems clear to me that a business can not legally discriminate against any minority group no matter what their personal religious beliefs.  The bake is obligated to bake the cake just like he does for all his other customers.  They are not obligated to provide a topper with two guys getting married.  That seems totally reasonable to me.  In the end, I think the law will continue to rule the way it has in the past no matter what Mike Lee tries to propose.

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

I really wasn't planning to comment on this thread.  It seems kind of pointless to me.  But in no way did I want my silence to be construed as any support at all for what Karger is doing.  I think it is wrong, petty, misguided and doomed to fail.  No court should ever rule in favor of this kind of action against any church simply because they participate in the electoral process.  I think the church was very careful in following election laws and even though they were fined for not complying fully, it was a minor error.  I might remind you that Karger was behind the pushing of that fine as well.  However this latest lawsuit is completely without merit.  I condemn his actions.

Now Scott, I wonder if there will be any of the TBM condemning Snowflake for distorting the accommodation laws to stir up anti gay feelings.  You and SMAC are completely aware of how the accommodation laws work.  Are you going to point out his error in how he applies those laws?  I will be interested to see.

The reason why I was not planning to get involved in this thread is because I feel that most of these discussions are quite pointless at this point.  I have learned to trust in justice and the legal system to protect my rights and the rights of members of the church.  I have no doubt this lawsuit will get thrown out.  And I have faith that Mike Lee's current proposal to allow for legal discrimination will be thrown out by the Supreme Court if it ever actually becomes law.  While there may be some gray areas, it seems clear to me that a business can not legally discriminate against any minority group no matter what their personal religious beliefs.  The bake is obligated to bake the cake just like he does for all his other customers.  They are not obligated to provide a topper with two guys getting married.  That seems totally reasonable to me.  In the end, I think the law will continue to rule the way it has in the past no matter what Mike Lee tries to propose.

I think Daniel and you have done a good job of delineating the distinction between public accommodation and forced speech or abridged freedom of religion. The wedding-cake-vs.-wedding-topper example is a good one.

As a matter of principle, I approve.

I'm not as confident as you are about the future. Karger makes me nervous. I approve of Lee's and others' efforts to head off any threats to First Amendment freedoms. I earnestly feel, for example, that BYU should not be penalized by the government or any other entity for provisions in its honor code that relate to religious faith and morality. As I understand it, Lee seeks legislation that would protect against that.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Wedding cakes are inanimate objects and don't have a sexual orientation. In Oregon at least, if you sell them to straight people you must also sell them to gay people. 

Common sense should always rule the day!

[smac97]

Here's another wrinkle:

Quote

Couple fights law forcing them to promote SSM

Tuesday, December 13, 2016 |  Bill Bumpas (OneNewsNow.com)

The owners of a video production company have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the Minnesota Human Rights Act, arguing that the law would force them to tell stories that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Carl and Angel Larsen own Telescope Media Group, and because of their religious beliefs and convictions, the couple wants to get into the marriage industry and tell stories about God's design for marriage between a man and a woman.

However, the Minnesota law would require them to also produce videos promoting same-sex “marriage.”

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is representing the Larsens in their lawsuit against the state.

ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco maintains that penalties for violating the law include: payment of a civil penalty to the state; triple compensatory damages; punitive damages of up to $25,000; a criminal penalty of up to $1,000 and; even up to 90 days in jail.

"Films are protected speech, and when the Larsen's create films, they're speaking, and so it's their expression that's on the line here,” Tedesco explained. “And what the government's saying is [that] they have the right to control what you say through your expressive services as a business owner."

Tedesco contends that the Larsen's had no choice but to challenge the law in court.

"When the government has this kind of power to compel speech – to coerce people to promote messages that the government thinks they ought to promote – that's a power they have over everybody over every issue,” the Christian attorney asserted. “It's not something that's going to be limited to same-sex marriage or marriage … and so it's incredibly important we win these cases."

Tedesco hopes his legal group will quickly get a preliminary injunction so that the Larsens can begin working in the marriage industry without violating their religious beliefs as the case moves forward.

More here:

Quote

MINNEAPOLIS - The owners of a video company have filed a legal challenge to Minnesota's human rights act because they want to shoot weddings for heterosexual couples only.

Carl and Angel Larsen say they will be punished for refusing wedding services to same-sex couples. The St. Cloud couple owns Telescope Media Group and filed a lawsuit against the state' human rights commission and attorney general.

The Star Tribune reports the Larsens are trying to break into the wedding industry, but want to shoot weddings only for heterosexual couples. The couple wants to advertise at wedding expos and on websites but Minnesota’s current law, they say, would force them into producing videos “promoting a conception of marriage that directly contradicts their religious beliefs.”

Their federal lawsuit has the backing of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal nonprofit organization. Minnesota Human Rights Commissioner Kevin Lindsey says the lawsuit is part of a pattern of litigation nationwide aimed at eroding the rights of the LGBTQ community.

The Minnesota Human Rights Act is available online here.  I suspect the relevant portions of this statute are those which prohibit denial of "public accommodations" based on sexual orientation (see section 363A.11(a)(1) ("It is an unfair discriminatory practice ... to deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because ... sexual orientation") and/or prohibit "business discrimination" (see section 363A.17(3) ("{It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a person engaged in a trade or business or in the provision of a service} to intentionally refuse to do business with, to refuse to contract with, or to discriminate in the basic terms, conditions, or performance of the contract because of a person's ... sexual orientation").

The delineation here appears to be what constitutes "speech."  Decorating a cake for a same-sex wedding would, in my mind, be construed as "speech," but I guess reasonable minds can disagree about that.  I'd need to give that matter some further study and consideration.

But the above story appears to center on a topic that, I think, falls squarely within the realm of "speech," and hence we have an issue where a state statute is using the coercive power of law to compel speech violative of the speaker's religious beliefs.  That is, you run a business which sells a form of speech expression (in this case, wedding videos).  The Minnesota statute compels citizens of that state, under threat of civil and criminal penalties, to engage in "speech" (in the form of wedding videos) which, for some, violates their religious beliefs.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 13, 2016 by smac97

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Common sense should always rule the day!

Unfortunately, Common sense is not found in Oregon.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't see it as automatically petty.  If someone was doing it just to make the couple mad, then it would be petty, but if they are doing it so that the couple honestly understands their position, then that's a different issue.

The truth is that very very few couples would ever choose someone to be a part of their wedding celebration if they thought the union was sinful.  In the past when couples have sued a bakery for not wanting to provide a cake, it has been an attempt to teach the bakery a lesson and punish them for not agreeing with SSM.

Letting a couple know, before the fact, that you sincerely believe that SSM is sinful and you don't feel good about participating in one, while still following the law, seems like the only logical solution and not pettiness.

 

I just see it as a show of passive aggressive behavior. If I went to a store to buy something and the person owning the store said they thought Mormons were sinful and planned to donate all the profit from my purchase to create anti-Mormon literature I would probably laugh in their face at how dumb they were and leave. It seems like a 'showy' approach designed to inflame tensions. It is like the Christian who just had a bad discussion with an atheist or person of another faith calling out "I'll pray for you." as they walk away. It is clearly designed to just tick them off and score the last verbal jab.

Now if you just took the money and donated it without making a production over how you disagree......cool.

Edited December 13, 2016 by The Nehor

[Danzo]

As someone who has followed the case fairly closely (an attorney in my office building was handling the case for a while and we would talk about it in the hall) it is my belief that the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) is partly responsible for the huge uproar for this case.

BOLI should have just handed out a 5 or 10 thousand dollar fine, but instead they go for $150,000 (later reduced to $135,000 by the ALJ).  

If they would have gone for a small (but still inconvenient) amount the hazards of litigation would not have justified fighting the fine.   Nobody gets press over a 5,000 fine.   When BOLI tried to go for 150K, it meant there was a big reason to fight the outcome.  BOLI then also had a really big reason to justify the large fine.  Both sides then had to use the press.   If BOLI had been sensible and acted the way any reasonable bureaucracy would, no one would be talking about this now.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Unfortunately, Common sense is not found in Oregon.

That is what I keep telling my relatives who live there.

[LittleNipper]

10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

As I've told you before there is no law requiring you to sell anything to any one. There are laws that require you sell your wares to everyone if you sell your wares to the public.

Those laws are discriminatory and bias against people of a select moral conscience. If citizens can picket a privately owned place of business for whatever reason, then the owner of said company should likewise have the right to refuse to sell to whomever he chooses for whatever reason. Or are you suggesting that Jewish bakeries should be forced to make birthday cakes for Neo Nazi clubs in celebration of Adolf Hitler's birthday.  Some people are really stupid and they can even be Supreme Court Judges.

Edited December 14, 2016 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Common sense should always rule the day!

Common sense hasn't been very common for at least the last 50 years... Just look at the lawsuits people have won. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by LittleNipper

[Glenn101]

On 12/12/2016 at 6:24 PM, Daniel2 said:

As I mentioned previously, conservatives aren't the only ones taking action.

Fred Karger has long been a vocal critic of the LDS church's involvement in anti-same-sex marriage initiatives and anti-LGBT legislation.  And unfortunately (thought perhaps, not surprisingly) he's renewing his efforts again... 

I'm uncertain if the timing of the two incidents is related, but I'm frankly tired of both approaches!

I've tried posting the text of the SL Tribune's article on the matter, but for some reason, the site isn't letting me post it (I've written 5 posts attempting to copy the text here, but after hitting "Submit," nothing appears), so here's the link.

This is not an just an "emerging battle." It is an age old battle that has been waged ever since the Garden of Eden. Instead of Free dom of Religion, the battle actually is one that is attempting to bring about a total "freedom from religion."

Glenn

[sjdawg]

13 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Decorate a male of female oriented wedding cake and deliver it to the "marriage" reception. Take photographs of the "marriage" couple at their "joining" and reception. Play themed music at a "Marriage" reception. Provide a "honeymoon" bed for the "married couple." Requested to order gay novels. Asked to print gay "marriage" invitations. All of which place the christian provider in an embarrassingly compromising position.

Lets put it this way. Should a Black establishment have to service a KKK rally --- to take pictures, serve cake, play select music and possibly be exposed to a mockery of racial differences? I see it as one and the same. Many Christians see gay marriage as a mockery of God's ordained sacrament.

yes and many gays see Christians as small minded bigots.   When you open a private business you open yourself up to providing services to people you may disagree with.  I don't think photographing a gay couple is in any way similar to a KKK rally.  Do Christian business only print "marriage" (I use brackets because you did) invitations for heterosexual marriages they are comfortable with?  What is the criteria for supporting these marriages?  Age?  Religious affiliation?   First marriages only?  No ******* children?   Heterosexual marriage is no guarantee of moral superiority.  I think you may need to get over yourself.   I have been to plenty of weddings I didn't think were a good idea for a variety of reasons.   I don't believe my attendance or my assisting with clean up or providing other help put me in an "embarrassingly compromising position"   I've put myself in enough embarrassing positions without needing to start taking credit for the actions of others.

 

 

[sjdawg]

9 hours ago, snowflake said:

I agree. Maybe we should force the Muslim owned grocery store in my town to sell Pork, Booze and pornography. Or force the LDS owned stores to do the same thing, sell cigarettes, alcohol, gay wedding cakes and pornography, it is such nonsense....all in the name of anti-discrimination. If you don't agree with the LGBTQ community you become labeled as a hater or an anti.

They are not forced to sell pork However, if they choose to sell pork they can't discriminate against customers.  It is that simple.   If you can't sell a wedding cake to a Gay couple then find another product to sell.  Businesses make these decisions all the time.

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, sjdawg said:

yes and many gays see Christians as small minded bigots.   When you open a private business you open yourself up to providing services to people you may disagree with.  I don't think photographing a gay couple is in any way similar to a KKK rally.  Do Christian business only print "marriage" (I use brackets because you did) invitations for heterosexual marriages they are comfortable with?  What is the criteria for supporting these marriages?  Age?  Religious affiliation?   First marriages only?  No ******* children?   Heterosexual marriage is no guarantee of moral superiority.  I think you may need to get over yourself.   I have been to plenty of weddings I didn't think were a good idea for a variety of reasons.   I don't believe my attendance or my assisting with clean up or providing other help put me in an "embarrassingly compromising position"   I've put myself in enough embarrassing positions without needing to start taking credit for the actions of others.

 

Quote

Well, that is their own judgement applying their own opinions to support their own desires. I would suggest to you that many Christians are applying God's principles for marriage and definition of sin. Is it okay to provide a drunk with alcohol? Is it alright to furnish a lecherous man with porno magazines? Is sin something that we made up or did God provide us with the laundry list. Who exactly ordained marriage man or God. Yes, many people do marry for the wrong reasons. Should we add another for kicks? I would have to say that a homosexual "marriage" begins and ends morally, ethically, spiritually, intrinsically, physically, and psychoanalytically bankrupted. It is not what any parent would desire for their little children's future. And God considers nothing wrong with someone remaining single throughout his or her life. And frankly, I am not a Mormon. 

I do not believe that the Bible in anyway supports eternal mortal marriage. I am firmly persuaded that all saved individuals are married to the Lord for all eternity --- so there is no marriage carried over from our mortal lives and there will be no children born in heaven. You feel supportive of your friends and I can understand that. However, your support of your thoughts and friends should not include cohering others to abide to such choices. 

No one is promised sexual gratification for life. No one has to have sex. That may Sound blunt and unfeeling to you; however, it is a fact. True friendship is a gift of God but that doesn't entail having sex with that individual. I have no problem with guys living together; however, society is quickly changing this to mean something else (much like the word "gay") and it is entirely false.

 

 

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I just see it as a show of passive aggressive behavior. If I went to a store to buy something and the person owning the store said they thought Mormons were sinful and planned to donate all the profit from my purchase to create anti-Mormon literature I would probably laugh in their face at how dumb they were and leave. It seems like a 'showy' approach designed to inflame tensions. It is like the Christian who just had a bad discussion with an atheist or person of another faith calling out "I'll pray for you." as they walk away. It is clearly designed to just tick them off and score the last verbal jab.

Now if you just took the money and donated it without making a production over how you disagree......cool.

If you didn't mind making the cake, that would probably be a good option.  If you sincerely believed it would be sinful for you to make the cake, it makes sense that you would try to find a solution that would help the couple choose a different bakery. 

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you didn't mind making the cake, that would probably be a good option.  If you sincerely believed it would be sinful for you to make the cake, it makes sense that you would try to find a solution that would help the couple choose a different bakery. 

If baking a cake is ever sinful then I do not want to live on this planet anymore.

[california boy]

15 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Those laws are discriminatory and bias against people of a select moral conscience. If citizens can picket a privately owned place of business for whatever reason, then the owner of said company should likewise have the right to refuse to sell to whomever he chooses for whatever reason. Or are you suggesting that Jewish bakeries should be forced to make birthday cakes for Neo Nazi clubs in celebration of Adolf Hitler's birthday.  Some people are really stupid and they can even be Supreme Court Judges.

I would like to know how many others on this board support bringing back segregation like little upper here.  Scott?  SMAC?  Glenn?  All you others that are ok with bringing back segregation?   

 

Or or are willing to condemn such attitudes

Edited December 14, 2016 by california boy

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If baking a cake is ever sinful then I do not want to live on this planet anymore.

I don't think it's sinful either but I do believe some things are sinful that others disagree with (and have similar reactions to them as you do about baking a cake for a SSM wedding) so I try to stay off of my high horse about it.  

[thesometimesaint]

On 12/13/2016 at 10:35 AM, snowflake said:

So a Christian bakery that doesn't "do gay wedding cakes" is exempt?  Oh, and of course the lesbian couple couldn't go to another bakery, they just had to go to the one owned by the Christians.  In Portland of all places. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/29/oregon-bakery-owners-pay-more-than-135g-in-damages-over-refusal-to-make-cake-for-gay-wedding.html

 

I'm still looking for that gay wedding cake.

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Those laws are discriminatory and bias against people of a select moral conscience. If citizens can picket a privately owned place of business for whatever reason, then the owner of said company should likewise have the right to refuse to sell to whomever he chooses for whatever reason. Or are you suggesting that Jewish bakeries should be forced to make birthday cakes for Neo Nazi clubs in celebration of Adolf Hitler's birthday.  Some people are really stupid and they can even be Supreme Court Judges.

NO they can not legally discriminate. If a Jewish baker normally carries for sale birthday cakes for neo-Nazis to celebrate Hitlers birthday, They can not legally refuse to sell them to you.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

NO they can not legally discriminate. If a Jewish baker normally carries for sale birthday cakes for neo-Nazis to celebrate Hitlers birthday, They can not legally refuse to sell them to you.

Nazis aren't a protected class. You can't discriminate based on race, gender, religion, age, veteran status, and in some states sexual orientation. 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Nazis aren't a protected class. You can't discriminate based on race, gender, religion, age, veteran status, and in some states sexual orientation. 

What if the customer is Afro American, or gay?  The message is not a protected class, only the customer.

 

Edited December 15, 2016 by cdowis

[sunstoned]

On 12/13/2016 at 0:07 PM, Daniel2 said:

I think this article does a good job of answering your question (bold added).  Let me know, if not:

 

It's worth noting that FOX news distorts the actual reasons for the hefty fine, which (as specified in the ruling itself) wasn't because the bakery refused to bake the cake for the same-sex, but because the bakery released their customer's personal information to the public, and for the violations of privacy and awards for the resulting damages.

I guess the "entertainment" clause in "Fox news and entertainment" gives them license to play fast and loose with the facts.  The above information brings clarity to the courts decision.

[sunstoned]

23 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Those laws are discriminatory and bias against people of a select moral conscience. If citizens can picket a privately owned place of business for whatever reason, then the owner of said company should likewise have the right to refuse to sell to whomever he chooses for whatever reason. Or are you suggesting that Jewish bakeries should be forced to make birthday cakes for Neo Nazi clubs in celebration of Adolf Hitler's birthday.  Some people are really stupid and they can even be Supreme Court Judges.

I would suggest that you think about re-working this post. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

On 12/13/2016 at 10:49 AM, Gray said:

This kind of comparison is frequently used, but it's very imprecise. A more apt comparison would be a Muslim store owner who refused to cater to Hindu customers, while catering to everyone else. 

I think a better comparison would be a Muslim caterer being forced to cater a bachelor's party at a strip joint.  Most of these bakers would love to sell cakes to gay customers, and have, in fact, never denied a customer because of their sexual orientation.  It is the event they wish to avoid, not the customer.