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

[The Nehor]

On 12/14/2016 at 7:25 PM, LittleNipper said:

Try rainbow cake..  Though oddly the rainbow once was a Protestant sign, Remember "gay" was once what Fred and Barney were having and no one associated it with homosexuality. Am I seeing a trend here? Marriage was once only between a man and a woman ----- hands down (only yesterday)

[LittleNipper]

9 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Funny, California Boy.... I had the EXACT same scripture play through my head when I read Carbon Dioxide's post--that about turning the other cheek, carrying the extra mile, etc.

It brought to mind the following beautiful post I came across a few years ago by a Christian blogger named Jessica, which I would say is the closest thing to a "Mic Drop"--BY a Christian, TO her fellow Christians--that I've seen on this issue:

(Bold added by me).

What a Christian should do is between the Christian and the Lord. However, I would have to nicely inform the pair that under the circumstances I felt uncomfortable with designing their cake and would suggest so and so's bakery up the road. However, if all they wanted from me was a cake. I would be willing to sell them a plain cake that they could decorate as they wished.  I would certainly offer them a glass of water if they were thirsty and some bread if they were hungry. However, I would not be able to make and deliver a wedding cake for their affair. If they asked why, I would certainly witness to them concerning God's plan of salvation.

Edited December 16, 2016 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

10 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

There's a lot of words above, much of which seems to be unrelated to the points being made.  You've made a lot of noise, but I don't think you answered the questions that were posed to you...

 In the interests of cutting through the filler and to try to confirm our understand what you're saying, it sounds as if you feel that "Because not every business or county has historically been racist, and because some areas were already de-segregating of their own accord, then..."....... what, exactly? 

Are you saying that legislative actions within the Civil Rights movement were unnecessary, because racism would have eventually died out on it's own...?

Are you saying that you believe it would be acceptable to get rid of current public accommodations laws that are still valid?

And while I certainly agree with you that there will always be ongoing debate about which behaviors and behavioral patterns ARE morally ethical and which are not, many key individuals within the Civil Rights movement don't share your opinion that "Gay pride movement has NOTHING to do with racism." 

Namely, it's well documented that Coretta Scott King, the wife of the renowned Civil Rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke numerous times before her passing emphasizing the similarities between racist and homophobic attitudes and the racial and LGBT civil rights movements:

Yes. The Civil War was basically the Republican North against the Democratic South. Most people forget that little fact. The Democrats still feel that Blacks need more help than whites  ---- and of course the Democrats are looking to gain the Black vote as well. The Democrats of the South often belonged to the KKK (or at least looked the other way) in the early 1960's and before. Now the Democrats want the gay vote, the women vote and the Hispanic vote. The reason being has little to do with helping the  "oppressed" and so much more to do with remaining in power, control, and manipulate.

Edited December 16, 2016 by LittleNipper

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Yes. The Civil War was basically the Republican North against the Democratic South. Most people forget that little fact. The Democrats still feel that Blacks need more help than whites  ---- and of course the Democrats are looking to gain the Black vote as well. The Democrats of the South often belonged to the KKK (or at least looked the other way) in the early 1960's and before. Now the Democrats want the gay vote, the women vote and the Hispanic vote. The reason being has little to do with helping the  "oppressed" and so much more to do with remaining in power, control, and manipulate.

They gained the black vote because Republicans wrote off the black vote to appeal to racists. While no bastion of racial equality LBJ backed black rights by helping to dismantle Jim Crow laws and laws suppressing the Black vote. The Republicans lost the South because they were more willing to play to the racists of the South and many of those Democrat KKK members became Republicans. Most KKK members now vote Republican. Some are cheering for our President elect hoping (rightly or wrongly) that he will make racism respectable again.

The political parties of the United States shift over time and black people do not owe perpetual loyalty to the Republicans because of Lincoln. Decisions made at high levels by FDR and Truman in the Second World War probably saved my grandfather's life. Am I obligated to vote Democrat because of that or am I allowed to examine what Democrats are like now and vote based on that analysis.

If you want to play the history card it is wise to know it reasonably well.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure about the issue of messaging. A baker who sells cakes can't refuse business based on identity (protected classes). A baker could refuse to sell a cake to a black person who happened to be a Nazi, based on the latter and not the former. Can a baker refuse to make a cake that says certain things? Not sure about that. Maybe? Probably?

I am pretty sure that was resolved as being under freedom of speech or something similar and cannot be forced.  That is very different, IMO, than having a standard product that isn't individualistic/personalized, but essentially off the shelf (in terms of choice as in a catalog if not in fact in the store inventory already).

[Tacenda]

I thought the Catholic church makes plenty money off of business ventures. Talk about calling the kettle black.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/should-the-mormon-church-_b_13656738.html

Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) committing tax fraud by hiding its global business empire, massive financial holdings and worldwide political machine behind the mask of religion? It’s a fair question and a question of fairness. As Pope Francis recently pointed out, if a Church becomes more about making money than fulfilling its religious function, “Then pay taxes! Otherwise it is not fair business.”

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Yes. The Civil War was basically the Republican North against the Democratic South. Most people forget that little fact. The Democrats still feel that Blacks need more help than whites  ---- and of course the Democrats are looking to gain the Black vote as well. The Democrats of the South often belonged to the KKK (or at least looked the other way) in the early 1960's and before. Now the Democrats want the gay vote, the women vote and the Hispanic vote. The reason being has little to do with helping the  "oppressed" and so much more to do with remaining in power, control, and manipulate.

The democrats used to be the Conservative party while the republicans were the liberal party. 

Some things change, but what stays the same is that both parties want power, control, and the ability to manipulate. That is the nature of politics. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm not a fan of cakes or pastries.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

The democrats used to be the Conservative party while the republicans were the liberal party. 

Some things change, but what stays the same is that both parties want power, control, and the ability to manipulate. That is the nature of politics. 

It is still disconcerting when I read about the World Wars how the Republicans were the dove party and the Democrats were the more hawkish party.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I thought the Catholic church makes plenty money off of business ventures. Talk about calling the kettle black.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/should-the-mormon-church-_b_13656738.html

Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) committing tax fraud by hiding its global business empire, massive financial holdings and worldwide political machine behind the mask of religion? It’s a fair question and a question of fairness. As Pope Francis recently pointed out, if a Church becomes more about making money than fulfilling its religious function, “Then pay taxes! Otherwise it is not fair business.”

More interestingly Fred Karger is Jewish and a supporter of the political state of Israel. How does that jibe with his insistence on the separation of church and state that he seems to insist on applying only to the LDS faith?

Of course the lies in the article are egregious enough that he should be laughed out of the building. Welcome to the new era of internet news where no one bothers to fact-check anything they agree with. I remember when I was a teenager and believed the internet would lead to an intellectual golden age of research and enlightenment with easy access to facts available to everyone. I was so naive.

[Kenngo1969]

I've posted my proposed solution to the Cake Conundrum several times here previously.  However, for the record, (at the risk of being redundant again ) , and for anyone who may have missed it, see here: 

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/colorado-cake-baker-forced-to-violate-religious-conscience/

Edited December 16, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Gray]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes.....back in the good old days.  

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is still disconcerting when I read about the World Wars how the Republicans were the dove party and the Democrats were the more hawkish party.

I remember being really surprised when i learned that in Nazi germany, the colleges were known for being super conservative.  I was so used to thinking of college as a place full of liberals.  It's always good to remember that what we typically see as 'the way things are' is really just 'the way things are right now.'

Edited December 16, 2016 by bluebell

[california boy]

12 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

What a Christian should do is between the Christian and the Lord. However, I would have to nicely inform the pair that under the circumstances I felt uncomfortable with designing their cake and would suggest so and so's bakery up the road. However, if all they wanted from me was a cake. I would be willing to sell them a plain cake that they could decorate as they wished.  I would certainly offer them a glass of water if they were thirsty and some bread if they were hungry. However, I would not be able to make and deliver a wedding cake for their affair. If they asked why, I would certainly witness to them concerning God's plan of salvation.

You are right, every Christian does have to decide for themselves if they are willing to follow the teachings of Christ.  Sometimes following those teachings are tough.  And of course you too have to decide if you are going to follow the teachings of Christ.  But let's be clear.  Christ did not say "When the law compels you to walk a mile, walk 3/4 of a mile and  offer the soldier a glass of water and you are good."

Christ also taught in Matthew 7:9 "Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?"  The couple asked for a wedding cake.  You offered them a half finished cake, some water and a piece of bread.

The sad part is when people make the kind of choices you are making and then still want to pretend that they are representing the teachings of Christ.  THAT is what is turning people off of organized religion.  That is why the fastest growing religion is no religion.  That is what the author of the blog that Daniel posted meant when they wrote.  

 

Quote

If we “snatch one person from the fire” by refusing to condone behavior we believe is immoral, but send hundreds and thousands of others fleeing churches and Christianity entirely, what have we really accomplished? Someone else will make that cake and fewer and fewer people will look to Christianity for love and hope. We will have won a battle that we were never called to fight in the first place, but lost the war

I suggest you reread the article that Daniel posted if you sincerely want to follow the teachings of Christ.  It has a lot to think about for every Christian that wants to claim they following the teachings of the Savior.  Of course, if you have already decided to do your own thing, then don't bother.  Just don't make the claim that you are following the teachings of Christ like some others in the media have.

 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are right, every Christian does have to decide for themselves if they are willing to follow the teachings of Christ.  Sometimes following those teachings are tough.  And of course you too have to decide if you are going to follow the teachings of Christ.  But let's be clear.  Christ did not say "When the law compels you to walk a mile, walk 3/4 of a mile and  offer the soldier a glass of water and you are good."

Christ also taught in Matthew 7:9 "Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?"  The couple asked for a wedding cake.  You offered them a half finished cake, some water and a piece of bread.

The sad part is when people make the kind of choices you are making and then still want to pretend that they are representing the teachings of Christ.  THAT is what is turning people off of organized religion.  That is why the fastest growing religion is no religion.  That is what the author of the blog that Daniel posted meant when they wrote.  

 

I suggest you reread the article that Daniel posted if you sincerely want to follow the teachings of Christ.  It has a lot to think about for every Christian that wants to claim they following the teachings of the Savior.  Of course, if you have already decided to do your own thing, then don't bother.  Just don't make the claim that you are following the teachings of Christ like some others in the media have.

 

 I do believe the LDS faith has to take a stand and make their position clear but we have done that. We believe homosexual behavior is sinful. Anyone who cares to know knows where we stand. Inconveniencing and offending others in the context of cakes and other minor items comes across as petty and alienates those we want to save.

It is worth noting that Jesus's advice to go two miles with the Roman soldier was addressed to people who had moral objections to carrying the baggage of an occupying enemy army that was denying the holy state of Israel self-rule. Think of Russia or China occupying your country and the Savior giving this advice. How does that compare to moral objections over basic service like making a cake for someone you disagree with?

[Daniel2]

So just to clarify, in response to my two questions asking:

• Are you saying that legislative actions within the Civil Rights movement were unnecessary, because racism would have eventually died out on it's own...?
• Are you saying that you believe it would be acceptable to get rid of current public accommodations laws that are still valid?

you answered:

14 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Yes.

So... You DO feel that legislative actions in the Civil Rights movement were unnecessary, and you DO favor getting rid of current public accommodations laws?  Is that right...? 

If so, do you favor getting rid of public accommodations laws regarding ONLY race (as well as any prohibitions of discrimination based on sexual orientation) OR do you favor getting rid of public accommodations regarding ANY and ALL currently-protected classes?

The reason I ask is because public accommodations law protects freedom of religion, so if we do away with them, then we're basically abandoning protecting religious affiliation as a protected class and allowing businesses and employees to discriminate against others based on their religion. 

Is that something you also agree with.....?  Or are you saying you only favor doing away with protections from discrimination based on race, gender, and orientation?

Edited December 16, 2016 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

My grandfather wasn't allowed to marry his second cousin in 1920. Associated maybe but most definitely not necessarily... Some Protestants like some Mormons are drunks ---- and that makes it okay or something to beseech God about.

https://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts

God can take care of himself. I live in a secular country where I'm subject to the laws of my country. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[carbon dioxide]

On 12/15/2016 at 1:05 AM, california boy said:

Tell me how you square your attitude with the example Christ showed when he had dealings with sinners?  Did Christ not treat them with love and respect?

Who do you think the sinner would be if someone compels you to bake a cake.  Because I think Christ taught that we should bake them two. Or was Christ only talking about Roman law so you are off the hook.  

My comments are based on me being FORCED to do something against my will.  As a general rule, I will respond in some way if I am forced to do something I don't want to do to retaliate.  As long as I am not forced, I will have a different response.  If I owned a bakery and I made the choice to make a cake for a gay wedding, I would make them the best cake I could like anyone else.  Its not about they gay couple as much as having someone take way my liberty and forcing me to do work that I do not want to do.  If the government was to draft me to fight a war that I did not see just and go fight and die for a cause I did not believe in, I would have to respond in some way in retaliation. 

[carbon dioxide]

2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

My comments are based on me being FORCED to do something against my will.  As a general rule, I will respond in some way if I am forced to do something I don't want to do to retaliate.  As long as I am not forced, I will have a different response.  If I owned a bakery and I made the choice to make a cake for a gay wedding, I would make them the best cake I could like anyone else.  Its not about they gay couple as much as having someone take way my liberty and forcing me to do work that I do not want to do.  If the government was to draft me to fight a war that I did not see just and go fight and die for a cause I did not believe in, I would have to respond in some way in retaliation.  Christ administered to sinners because he wanted to do it. Not because the government was forcing him to do it. 

 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

My comments are based on me being FORCED to do something against my will.  As a general rule, I will respond in some way if I am forced to do something I don't want to do to retaliate.  As long as I am not forced, I will have a different response.  If I owned a bakery and I made the choice to make a cake for a gay wedding, I would make them the best cake I could like anyone else.  Its not about they gay couple as much as having someone take way my liberty and forcing me to do work that I do not want to do.  If the government was to draft me to fight a war that I did not see just and go fight and die for a cause I did not believe in, I would have to respond in some way in retaliation. 

Christ did teach though that if someone compelled you to do something you thought was wrong and which you didn't want to do, you should do it anyway, and even do more than they demanded.

I am a rebellious person by nature in the same way that you are; I don't do well when i'm forced.  My instinct is retribution as well.  I'm often reminded though that retribution has no part in being a Christian.

Retribution is another word for vengeance and the Lord declares "vengeance is mine."  Part of me becoming a new creature in Christ is not seeking retribution when i feel forced.  It's a difficult thing to do though.

[Daniel2]

27 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

My comments are based on me being FORCED to do something against my will.  As a general rule, I will respond in some way if I am forced to do something I don't want to do to retaliate.  As long as I am not forced, I will have a different response.  If I owned a bakery and I made the choice to make a cake for a gay wedding, I would make them the best cake I could like anyone else.  Its not about they gay couple as much as having someone take way my liberty and forcing me to do work that I do not want to do.  If the government was to draft me to fight a war that I did not see just and go fight and die for a cause I did not believe in, I would have to respond in some way in retaliation. 

We are a nation of laws.  Through legislation and regulation, the government "forces" us to do many things... acts of commission as well as acts of omission.

Business owners are "forced" to do many things, from registering their business, acquiring licensing, complying with regulations, training and certification requirements, provide required insurance and benefits to employees, pay taxes, fines, fees, etc.

Anger over being "forced" to comply with public accommodation laws requiring non-discrimination against protected classes of people seems like a strange thing to hang one's anger on... but that's your right. 

But at the end of the day, the alleged "force" that we're talking about is actually an illusion.  If any business owner feels that any of the numerous requirements of doing business are so personally offensive or egregious that they can't abide the oppression of being forced to not oppress others, the government doesn't "force" anyone to stay in business... It's probably unwise for a conscientious objector to expect to keep employment as a soldier in the military if killing someone violates their religious beliefs.  But said conscientious objectors shouldn't expect to continue to collect a salary and remain employed as soldiers if they are personally unwilling to comply with the requirements of being a soldier.

We're all free to pursue other vocational interests that don't cause us personal distress or violate our conscience.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

My comments are based on me being FORCED to do something against my will.  As a general rule, I will respond in some way if I am forced to do something I don't want to do to retaliate.  As long as I am not forced, I will have a different response.  If I owned a bakery and I made the choice to make a cake for a gay wedding, I would make them the best cake I could like anyone else.  Its not about they gay couple as much as having someone take way my liberty and forcing me to do work that I do not want to do.  If the government was to draft me to fight a war that I did not see just and go fight and die for a cause I did not believe in, I would have to respond in some way in retaliation. 

Can I print this and give it to my four year old niece? Her approach is more to fold her arms, make a pouty face, and say: "I don't want to and you can't make me." I think your more eloquent approach to saying the same thing would help her sound more sophisticated.  

Edited December 16, 2016 by The Nehor

[Scott Lloyd]

On December 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

That Karger would even raise an issue about taxation of City Creek and Deseret Book shows he is so reckless and ill-informed in the stridency of his activism that his credibility is near zero. I wish him every failure in his hate-motivated endeavors

 

On December 13, 2016 at 10:38 AM, smac97 said:

I am not persuaded that he is "reckless and ill-informed" at all.  I think his factual misrepresentations are calculated and intended to foment resentment, suspicion and hatred.

Thanks,

-Smac

There's another screed on Huffington Post from Karger today gunning for the Church, spouting the same lies and distortions and drumming up support for his vendetta. 

What is it with Huffington Post? Have they abandoned all aspirations whatsoever to journalistic integrity?

[Danzo]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

What is it with Huffington Post? Have they abandoned all aspirations whatsoever to journalistic integrity?

I don't think one can abandon something they never had in the first place

 

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

There's another screed on Huffington Post from Karger today gunning for the Church, spouting the same lies and distortions and drumming up support for his vendetta. 

What is it with Huffington Post? Have they abandoned all aspirations whatsoever to journalistic integrity?

Thanks for the head's up, Scott.  Could you post a link?  I try to stay informed on topics like these, even of cringe-worthy stupid actions or reporting!