Recent Survey (via Jana Reiss)

[Gray]

55 minutes ago, USU78 said:

How enlightened must one be to be able to group all those who object to participation in obscenity and abomination on religious grounds as "fundamentalist" and "ultra" and "undesirable!"

USU "See what I did there?" 78

Fundamentalists are by and large complaining the loudest about their fellow citizens being allowed the same rights that they hold. Some people feel downright persecuted when they lose a former position of privilege, and are placed on equal footing with people they think of as having some kind of inferior status.

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Gray

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

How enlightened must one be to be able to group all those who object to participation in obscenity and abomination on religious grounds....

One would have a very small customer base if they exclusively did business with people who'd never participated in objectionable behavior (in the eyes of the business owner).  Or do you expect them to only discriminate against gays?

[USU78]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

Fundamentalists are by and large complaining the loudest about their fellow citizens being allowed the same rights that they hold. Some people feel downright persecuted when they lose a former position of privilege, and are placed on equal footing with people they think of as having some kind of inferior status.

Quote

What a burden it is for fundamentalist business owners to have to cater to "undesirables." I suppose they can console themselves by drying their tears on the good money they're earning from gay customers.

I guess you're never going to tire of namecalling or generalizing.

Pity.

Nice rhetorical flip, BTW, with "undesirable."

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

One would have a very small customer base if they exclusively did business with people who'd never participated in objectionable behavior (in the eyes of the business owner).  Or do you expect them to only discriminate against gays?

It would be the rare Mormon indeed who insisted that the Hasid deli owner provide the hams for the ward Easter dinner on pain of putting the poor soul out of business.

Show us where any Mormon ever did any such thing as retaliate against such a Hasid deli owner for refusing to handle treyf meats.

[JulieM]

28 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It would be the rare Mormon indeed who insisted that the Hasid deli owner provide the hams for the ward Easter dinner on pain of putting the poor soul out of business.

Show us where any Mormon ever did any such thing as retaliate against such a Hasid deli owner for refusing to handle treyf meats.

Well, I've personally never lived in a ward that had a catered Easter dinner.  That's not a very good analogy, IMO. (Also, how many Hasids even own deli's that sell pork?).

My point was that there are very few people who'd be served if only those who hadn't ever done something objectionable or even against the owner's religion was allowed to be their customer.  Seems the law supports this too (so far).

Edited July 10, 2017 by JulieM

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, I've personally never lived in a ward that had a catered Easter dinner.  That's not a very good analogy, IMO.

My point was that there are very few people who'd be served if only those who hadn't ever done something objectionable or even against the owner's religion was allowed to be their customer.  Seems the law supports this too (so far).

Are you familiar with the Books of the Macabbees in the RoC Bible?  I'll assume not.

The Greek conquerors of the Levant would later give way to the Romans, but while they were in charge of Judea, Syria, and surrounding areas, the Greeks wanted everybody to be fully standardized and incorporated in all ways to the Greek/Hellenistic way of life.  This included participating in public rituals (like eating the pork sacrificed on their altars to Greek gods), not being circumcised (because it was a violation of the body beautiful from the Greek point of view) and such things.  Jews were undergoing painful surgery to reverse their circumcisions.  A lot of Jews were "going along to get along," but to a sizable portion of the population of Judea and surrounding areas, when the Greek g-dking, Antiochus Epiphanes, had his image installed in the Jerusalem Temple and ordered that (a) pork sacrifices be burned to that image and (b) everybody had to partake of the sacrifice in order to be in good standing in Hellenistic society, the revolt began, led by the Macabbee family.

They eventually succeeded in kicking the Hellenes out politically.  This image and this profanation of G-d's Temple are referred to in the Book of Daniel as the "Abomination of Desolation," the perversion of the holy in service to the unholy.  It was an outrage and a sacrilege.

Compulsory participation in homosexual marriages is of a kind with Epiphanes' profanation of G-d's Temple.  It is a perversion of the holy  ...  not an imperfect imitation, as a secular wedding of man and woman, but a perversion.

Bullies at all times in all epochs are always trying to compel the unwilling to accept the unacceptable  ...  and the bullies know very well what they're doing  ...  and the bullied know as well, even if they aren't particularly adept at articulating it.  The setup artists who attack people, knowing full well they cannot participate in this profanation, are despicable.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Bullies at all times in all epochs are always trying to compel the unwilling to accept the unacceptable  ...  and the bullies know very well what they're doing  ...  

Sounds like you're describing yourself here!   To me, it's unacceptable to try to deny others their constitutional right of marriage (and again, the law supports my opinion).

I'm off of here now and headed out to dinner.  By the way, your demeaning manner of communication really makes it unpleasant to even attempt to have a discussion with you (with your "I'll assume not" type comments ).  

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Sounds like you're describing yourself here!   To me, it's unacceptable to try to deny others their constitutional right of marriage (and again, the law supports my opinion).

I'm off of here now and headed out to dinner.  By the way, your demeaning manner of communication really makes it unpleasant to even attempt to have a discussion with you (with your "I'll assume not" type comments ).  

Well  ...  we cannot all be Mr Rogerses, can we?

You're quite missing the point here:  I've been referring to folks who set up other folks, knowing full well they'll fail because of their religious scuples, and who will get enriched to the detriment of those who've been set up, who are despicable.

And how am I supposed to know who knows what?  It's not like the Books of the Macabbees are in the LDS canon.  I made the assumption so as to make sure anybody who didn't know would get what I was referring to. I don't care whether you did or didn't know, as that's none of my business.  If I bored you with my reader's digest version of Macabbees, mea culpa.

Edited July 10, 2017 by USU78

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Well Scott, I have really made an effort to show why the  majority of the justices disagreed with Scalia's dissenting opinion.  I have tried to put it in a context that you would relate to.  But I can tell from your comments that you really don't want to understand the issues.  You would rater ignore the substance of what is being talked about and revert back to trite platitudes.  

Equal protection under the law is NOT a radical new definition of what the law was written to protect.  You just choose to forever hold on to the idea that gays are not entitled to the same rights as straight couples. That they should be treated as second class citizens.  And that the constitution does not apply to them or their right to marry.  

 

Equal protection is not radical. The redefinition of marriage is. 

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Equal protection is not radical. The redefinition of marriage is. 

You just don't get it.  Equal protection is why gay marriage is legal.  I find it so unbelievable that you think gays do not have the right to marry who they want because you think every marriage should be like yours.  We live in a country governed by 3 branches of government.  We don't live in a theocracy.  At some point that idea will have to sink in because it is reality.  Your dream world of being able to dictate who can and can not marry is gone.  All because you live in a country that believes in equal protection for EVERYONE.

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

You just don't get it.  Equal protection is why gay marriage is legal.  I find it so unbelievable that you think gays do not have the right to marry who they want because you think every marriage should be like yours.  We live in a country governed by 3 branches of government.  We don't live in a theocracy.  At some point that idea will have to sink in because it is reality.  Your dream world of being able to dictate who can and can not marry is gone.  All because you live in a country that believes in equal protection for EVERYONE.

All l'm saying is that this matter, like other controversial issues, should have been permitted to play out on the political stage and been subject to the voice of the people, especially when a time-honored institution is about to be redefined. That's the essence of democracy. As it was, it was short-circuited by judicial fiat, with judges acting improperly in the role of lawmakers.

In this, I agree with Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia and two other justices on the Supreme Court.

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Well  ...  we cannot all be Mr Rogerses, can we?

You're quite missing the point here:  I've been referring to folks who set up other folks, knowing full well they'll fail because of their religious scuples, and who will get enriched to the detriment of those who've been set up, who are despicable.

And how am I supposed to know who knows what?  It's not like the Books of the Macabbees are in the LDS canon.  I made the assumption so as to make sure anybody who didn't know would get what I was referring to. I don't care whether you did or didn't know, as that's none of my business.  If I bored you with my reader's digest version of Macabbees, mea culpa.

I wasn't very well acquainted with the Books of Macabbees, even if JulieM was. I appreciate the enlightenment.

And I agree with you about the presence of bullies through the ages -- which I took to be your point.

We're starting to see disquieting indications of such bullying of our own faith tradition, with the gay-rights ideology encroaching on the sanctity of our worship services. I'm referring to the incident of late where an attempt was made to hijack a ward's fast-and-testimony meeting. Many, including some here, applauded that deplorable incident. And we had Happy Jack Wagon on here a day or two ago boasting of openly opposing the position of the Church while at church, and of his stake president supporting him in that.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

I guess you're never going to tire of namecalling or generalizing.

Pity.

Nice rhetorical flip, BTW, with "undesirable."

I think the rhetorical flip is probably taking the stance that persecuted minorities should remain persecuted, and the fact that this isn't happening is a sign that the majority is suffering persecution.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

It would be the rare Mormon indeed who insisted that the Hasid deli owner provide the hams for the ward Easter dinner on pain of putting the poor soul out of business.

Show us where any Mormon ever did any such thing as retaliate against such a Hasid deli owner for refusing to handle treyf meats.

I don't know of any Hasid deli owners who refuse to sell their food to Mormons.

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know of any Hasid deli owners who refuse to sell their food to Mormons.

And no Mormon has ever bullied any Hasid deli owner for any reason, let alone to require him, on pain of bankruptcy, to handle treyf meats against his religious scruples.

Do you have information to the contrary?

[USU78]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think the rhetorical flip is probably taking the stance that persecuted minorities should remain persecuted, and the fact that this isn't happening is a sign that the majority is suffering persecution.

Persecuted minorities. Funny stuff that.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, USU78 said:

And no Mormon has ever bullied any Hasid deli owner for any reason, let alone to require him, on pain of bankruptcy, to handle treyf meats against his religious scruples.

Do you have information to the contrary?

Mormons have a different group that they bully.  They leave Hasid deli owners alone.

[USU78]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Mormons have a different group that they bully.  They leave Hasid deli owners alone.

😂 Ridiculous

[Gray]

12 hours ago, USU78 said:

And no Mormon has ever bullied any Hasid deli owner for any reason, let alone to require him, on pain of bankruptcy, to handle treyf meats against his religious scruples.

Do you have information to the contrary?

Nope. And no gay person has ever done anything like that to a fundamentalist business owner, to my knowledge.

[Gray]

12 hours ago, USU78 said:

Persecuted minorities. Funny stuff that.

Is it?

[USU78]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

Nope. And no gay person has ever done anything like that to a fundamentalist business owner, to my knowledge.

Now you're just making things up

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Now you're just making things up

Nope. I know the comparison you're trying to make, but it's specious.

If a business owner has the religious view that certain classes of people are treyf and can't be served, they're going to have a bad time, no matter which class of people it is.

[JulieM]

25 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Now you're just making things up

Now, that's funny.  Gray isn't the one posting about Hasid deli owners not refusing to provide ham for ward Easter dinners 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Nope. I know the comparison you're trying to make, but it's specious.

If a business owner has the religious view that certain classes of people are treyf and can't be served, they're going to have a bad time, no matter which class of people it is.

Now you're being disingenuous. Compelling participation in an abomination is tyranny. I would rather suffer the misery that tyranny affords than embrace the Abomination of Desolation.

The cake orderers could have had anything else on the menu, just not special order the wedding cake. Huge difference.

[Gray]

36 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Now you're being disingenuous.

No, I'm not. I'm not the one trying conflate products with people.

 

Quote

Compelling participation in an abomination is tyranny.

No one is forcing you think that gay people are abominations. I'm sad that you feel that way - what a blinkered outlook. Some people think Mormonism is an abomination too. But if they run a business, they must serve Mormon customers. And black customers and women customers and so on.

 

Quote

I would rather suffer the misery that tyranny affords than embrace the Abomination of Desolation.

This is quite dramatic, isn't it? I'm not sure someone with this outlook has the disposition to run a business. Business owners must deal with the unwashed and unworthy masses, after all. That's the job, right?

 

Quote

The cake orderers could have had anything else on the menu, just not special order the wedding cake. Huge difference.

So gay people aren't allowed to order wedding cakes? Are there special water fountains they're not allowed to drink from too?

Edited July 11, 2017 by Gray