We Can Find Common Ground on Gay Rights and Religious Liberty

[california boy]

I haven't started thread on this site for almost a decade.  So I am not starting one now without careful consideration.  I have also not posted here for the last month.  I was thinking of taking a year off.  Mostly because I feel the lines are so sharply drawn concerning LGBT issues and church members, it was beginning to feel pointless.  Then I read a rather thought provoking article in the New York Times today, and felt like maybe there is an opportunity to discuss the issue of gay rights and religious liberty.  With the recent Supreme Court rulings, I felt like there may be an opportunity to try and find common ground.  This thread is not about discussing whether you agree with the recent court ruling or not.  Frankly it really doesn't matter whether you disagree with the ruling or not.  It is now the law of the land.  This discussion is about whether or not it is possible to find common ground. Here are a few paragraphs that I found though provoking from the New York Times article.  I hope you will too.

Quote

In an era when Americans are deeply polarized and angry at one another, convinced that those on the other side politically are wicked and unreasonable, there is a better way forward on the fraught issue of gay rights and religious liberty — a path that could build on the protections the Supreme Court has provided L.G.B.T. Americans, while affording important new safeguards to those who believe the Court’s decision will pressure religious institutions to abandon their views on sexual ethics. It holds out the prospect of a positive-sum resolution for both sides, with each side getting something it considers essential and neither side getting everything it wants.

Quote

Both sides, then, have unfinished agendas. L.G.B.T. advocates want broader civil rights protections than the Supreme Court’s relatively narrow decision provided. Religious-liberty advocates want some carve-outs for faith-based institutions. 

Quote

In today’s Trumpified world, Americans tend to think that politics is a brutal Punch and Judy show, and that compromise is a surrender of principles. But when the politics of compromise is in good working order, it builds new alliances, develops new solutions, and turns conflict into cooperation.

The article goes on to suggest that by both communities working together, it not only addresses deep seated differences, but actually changes attitudes.  

Quote

Start with what at first glance may seem to be a curious fact. According to polling conducted last year by the Public Religion Research Institute, 77 percent of Utahans support nondiscrimination protections for L.G.B.T. Americans, second only to 81 percent in New Hampshire.

I want to focus on the last quote from the article.  It is suggesting that by working out a compromise, both sides got a little of what they wanted, but even more important, much more support and tolerance for LGBT civil rights.  

 

There is another article I want to bring into this discussion.  This one coming from a very conservative publication.  SCOTUS Routs Conservatives, Again.

Here are some though provoking thoughts from this article.

Quote

It is hard to overstate the magnitude of this decision, and the size of the loss to religious and social conservatives. SCOTUS, the highest legal authority in the land, has declared that homosexuality and transgenderism are like race. If you disagree, you are on the side of Klansmen, in effect. This is not just the opinion of Democratic lawmakers, or columnists at The New York Times. This is now the law of the land. And it became the law of the land thanks to two Republican justices, Roberts and Gorsuch, who were loyal to their class in the clutch.

 

Quote

 

Today we can see that we’ve lost on every front and that the swift and relentless currents of secularism have overwhelmed our flimsy barriers. Hostile secular nihilism has won the day in our nation’s government, and the culture has turned powerfully against traditional Christians. We tell ourselves that these developments have been imposed by a liberal elite, because we find the truth intolerable: The American people, either actively or passively, approve.

The advance of gay civil rights, along with a reversal of religious liberties for believers who do not accept the LGBT agenda, had been slowly but steadily happening for years. .......

The public square has been lost.

 

There is much handwringing and fear mongering in this article, but what is clear is that the population strongly supports LGBT civil rights and are rejecting objections that religion has been trying to impose on those civil rights.  I believe the more religion fights against LGBT equality, the more the public square will turn against them.  As this article points out, this slide has been going on for years.  Prop 8 was a watershed moment when, for the first time religion realized that they could not dictate what civil rights the LGBT community could and could not have.  It lost not only the legal battle, but the majority of Americans support for LGBT civil right to marry.

Quote

“This will end all legislative bargaining over religious liberty in the gay-rights context,” Laycock wrote in an email. “There is no longer a deal to be had in which Congress passes a gay-rights law with religious exemptions; the religious side has nothing left to offer.”

I think it is pretty clear that the ability for religion to steamroll it's beliefs on others no longer is working.  I also think it is in the best interest of the LGBT community to not now become the steamroller of it's beliefs against religious liberties.  Finding a common ground is a really good alternative for both groups.  So what is that common ground.  What further rights do you believe the LGBT community should have.  And what rights do you believe religious institutions should be able to retain.  Because one thing should be clear to both sides, these issues are not entirely settled.  

Sorry this is such a long introduction, but I am hoping that this discussion will be more about substance and less about name calling and pointing fingers.  Maybe it is time for a serious discussion that does involve compromise on both sides of this issue.    I request that each poster to address BOTH sides of the divide, both religious liberties and LGBT rights, not just support their own point of view.  If you are unwilling to do that, then I kindly ask that you do not participate in this particular thread.

Edited June 23, 2020 by california boy

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

deep seeded

Totally off topic...but my mind is functioning that way right now, I will come back to this when I can give it the attention it deserves.....

Because you made me think I had misunderstood this for all of my life and I liked the 'correct' way so much better (an idea is planted), but then I found out the less poetic version is correct after all (stubborn butt ain't moving)...

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/deep-seeded-or-deep-seated

Quote

Seat can mean a location, as in the county seat, or a body part that is the center of some emotion or function. For this definition, Dictionary.com and the American Heritage Dictionary both use this example sentence: The heart is the seat of passion. 

We don't often use the word seat that way anymore, so it's easy to see why people get confused about deep-seated. When you're thinking of something deeply felt or buried, it's not far fetched to think of a seed buried in the dirt. Nevertheless, deep-seated is the right choice. The Oxford English Dictionary defines deep-seated as "having its seat far beneath the surface.” 

 

Edited June 23, 2020 by Calm

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Totally off topic...but my mind is functioning that way right now, I will come back to this when I can give it the attention it deserves.....

Because you made me think I had misunderstood this for all of my life and I liked the 'correct' way so much better (an idea is planted), but then I found out the less poetic version is correct after all (stubborn butt ain't moving)...

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/deep-seeded-or-deep-seated

 

Thanks for that.  I appreciate the correction. I have changed my post to use the correct terminology.  I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

[CV75]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

What further rights do you believe the LGBT community should have.  And what rights do you believe religious institutions should be able to retain.  Because one thing should be clear to both sides, these issues are not entirely settled.

Do you have a side-by-side comparison / check-list of rights to contextually assist with picking out what rights should be furthered and what should be retained? There are so many differing views on what constitutes a fundamental normative rule about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to legal/social/ethical systems/conventions/theories that the discussion might veer in that direction instead of addressing specific expressed actions.

[Daniel2]

I appreciate the attempt to frame the discussion in thoughtful and constructive ways.  I think that the most recent ruling DOES maintain religious freedoms and explicitly calls out those religious protections that continue to apply, so while I think there is understandably a lot of concern whenever new rulings are issued that enumerate newly-recognized civil rights and/or non-discrimination requirements, I think religious freedoms continue to be both legally considered by the courts, as well as given the appropriate weight they do and should deserve.

In answer to your question, CB, (which I'm paraphrasing) of "what rights should LGBT individuals have on the basis of sex?" AND "what rights should religious individuals have on the basis of religious belief?": in my view, the answer is the same to both questions:

Both 'religion' and 'sex' (the latter of which now includes 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity,' as functions of 'sex') should all have the same civil rights and non-discrimination protections as other characteristics of Title VII (those of race, color, and national origin) and of those protected by public accommodation laws.

That is, whether I'm a member of the LGBT or straight community, I cannot and should not be able to discriminate against employees or customers based on their religion or sex, or 'sexual orientation or gender identity as a function of sex.' 

If I'm a member of any given religious affiliation or lack thereof, I cannot and should not be able to discriminate against employees or customers based on their sex, or 'sexual orientation or gender identity as a function of sex.'

In sum, I claim no more or less legal protections for myself or others, save for those that are already enumerated for all of us, whether on the basis of our race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Daniel2

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Do you have a side-by-side comparison / check-list of rights to contextually assist with picking out what rights should be furthered and what should be retained? There are so many differing views on what constitutes a fundamental normative rule about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to legal/social/ethical systems/conventions/theories that the discussion might veer in that direction instead of addressing specific expressed actions.

Here are a few that come to mind.

Should a business be able to refuse to service someone based on "personally held religious beliefs". What if they are a baker, florist or photographer that might be asked to provide their services for a gay wedding?  What if it is an interracial couple? What if they are a grocery store owner and their business has no services related to gay weddings?

Should a wedding venue be forced to rent to anyone or can they discriminate?  What if their religious belief believes they should not rent to Jews or Blacks?  Do the owners have to practice a recognized religion or can they just have personal religious beliefs?

Should a religious organization be allowed to fire someone for any reason that goes against their beliefs no matter what the job or responsibility?  What if they are a janitor or a landscaper.  What if the person is a Jew or in an inter racial marriage? 

Can anyone claim to be a religious organization?

What if that employee is working at a for profit religious business owned by a church such as a museum or theme park.

What if the business run by a religious organization is not religious based such as a hospital or thrift store?

Should a religious organization be able to discriminate against LGBT if they are receiving federal funds such as an adoption agency or a school. Are they still entitled to federal funds?

If a religiously run school hires someone who is gay who ends up working for them for years, and then finds out they are gay, should the school be able to fire them?  What if they teach drama or english or math or any other completely non religious subject?

Can a religious organization fire a paid minister if they find out they are LGBT?

Does a religious school that has married housing have to rent to a married gay couple?

Should a religious institution that rents property or a venue be forced to rent that property or venue to anyone that wants to use it?

Does a religious organization have the right to trump all other laws that prohibit discrimination simply because they are a religion?  Can they discriminate against anyone because of any reason, skin color, sex, someone else's religion, or sexual orientation?

These are just a few of the gray areas that are yet to be clarified by the laws of this country.  You may consider the answers black and white.  But someone with a different point of view may not see things the same way.

 

 

 

 

 

[The Nehor]

You are more optimistic than I am.

[pogi]

Thank you Cali boy for this post.  I find it heartening that even with a huge victory for LGBT issues, instead of doing a victory dance and rubbing it in the face of the other side, you are reaching out and trying to find common ground and compromise.  Instead of using the victory as a wedge to divide, you are using it as an opportunity to reach out to the other side.  This is what we need more of in society today.  You give me hope. 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

................................"In an era when Americans are deeply polarized and angry at one another"

There is much handwringing and fear mongering in this article, but what is clear is that the population strongly supports LGBT civil rights and are rejecting objections that religion has been trying to impose on those civil rights.  I believe the more religion fights against LGBT equality, the more the public square will turn against them. ..............................

Both articles tend to miss the point which the polls show so clearly, which you recognize by commenting "that the population strongly supports LGBT civil rights."  That small ultra-conservative clique doesn't understand that Supreme Court justices tend not to take the Constitution lightly.  They are not so much favoring LGBTQ rights as that they love the Constitution -- it is the focus of their lives.  Similarly for the religion boogyman: There is no reason to think that American religion in general is anti-LGBTQ.  Supporting civil liberties is not the same as approving of individual preferences.  I may not ever drink booze or smoke cigarettes, but I see nothing to be gained by prohibition.  People often fail to realize that preventing freedom of choice for others may end up with one's own choices being curtailed.  Sometimes tolerance has the advantage of enlightened self-interest.

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are more optimistic than I am.

Yes, things can easily go the other way, as in the CHAZ where the ANTIFA elite is now imposing segregation, thus extending the baleful influence of Evergreen College to Seattle.

[Damien the Leper]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Both articles tend to miss the point which the polls show so clearly, which you recognize by commenting "that the population strongly supports LGBT civil rights."  That small ultra-conservative clique doesn't understand that Supreme Court justices tend not to take the Constitution lightly.  They are not so much favoring LGBTQ rights as that they love the Constitution -- it is the focus of their lives.  Similarly for the religion boogyman: There is no reason to think that American religion in general is anti-LGBTQ.  Supporting civil liberties is not the same as approving of individual preferences.  I may not ever drink booze or smoke cigarettes, but I see nothing to be gained by prohibition.  People often fail to realize that preventing freedom of choice for others may end up with one's own choices being curtailed.  Sometimes tolerance has the advantage of enlightened self-interest.

Nailed it!

[CV75]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Here are a few that come to mind.

Thank you. Generally speaking, I think D&C134:10 might cover most of my reaction ("We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.").

In my opinion:

"We" means the religion is not an individual, personal code or popular movement but an organized entity as defined by law.

"religious societies" includes the businesses of these entities.

"members" includes actual or potential employees, clients, customers, etc. of any "race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or age".

Denial of transaction does not count as denial of property or life, this world’s goods, jeopardy of life or limb, or physical punishment if these needs can be met elsewhere in the community. Otherwise a "edit: Duty to Rescue Good Samaritan" law should apply, to ensure basic needs are met without transaction. Feelings are the basis of both religion and identity and are not part of the material transactions.

"Excommunicate" includes refusal of employment, service, etc. within the context of "religious societies".

I think conditions for federal funding are up to the funder, and "We" and "religious societies" can adapt as they deem appropriate for a changing marketplace.

Edited June 23, 2020 by CV75

[bsjkki]

I agreed with the recent Supreme Court decision. I think Utah's anti discrimination laws are a good thing. But, in that opinion, it was clear that there will be more cases where these competing rights intersect. There are differing viewpoints about where we are headed and what is to come. I would argue that there is a fine line between fighting against oppression that the LGBTQ community has been a victim of and then swinging the pendulum to becoming the oppressor of religious groups. There are many instances of people being fired for expressing their religious views on homosexuality. Do you think that is okay? I know many who believe in order to have a business, you must be forced to 'bake the cake.' Why would you want to do that? Personally, I view society right now forcing people to think 'one way.' If you don't, you are subject to mob action, firing and cancel culture. That is really not what America was founded on. Many people are fired/not hired because of the political affiliation or viewpoints. Do you think that is okay? I think we need to get to where it is okay to have differing viewpoints and don't feel the need to ruin people because they think differently.  Living in Kansas, I had parents who would not let their kids play with mine due to our religion. I did not set out to then ruin them. In my small community in Colorado, we would often find our cars littered with anti-Mormon pamphlets as we left church. We shrugged and moved on.

"More recently, we have seen the law used aggressively to force religious people and entities to subscribe to practices and policies that are antithetical to their faith.

The problem is not that religion is being forced on others. The problem is that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith.

This reminds me of how some Roman emperors could not leave their loyal Christian subjects in peace but would mandate that they violate their conscience by offering religious sacrifice to the emperor as a god.

Similarly, militant secularists today do not have a live and let live spirit - they are not content to leave religious people alone to practice their faith. Instead, they seem to take a delight in compelling people to violate their conscience.

For example, the last Administration sought to force religious employers, including Catholic religious orders, to violate their sincerely held religious views by funding contraceptive and abortifacient coverage in their health plans. Similarly, California has sought to require pro-life pregnancy centers to provide notices of abortion rights.

This refusal to accommodate the free exercise of religion is relatively recent. Just 25 years ago, there was broad consensus in our society that our laws should accommodate religious belief. 

In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – RFRA. The purpose of the statute was to promote maximum accommodation to religion when the government adopted broad policies that could impinge on religious practice. 

At the time, RFRA was not controversial. It was introduced by Chuck Schumer with 170 cosponsors in the House, and was introduced by Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch with 59 additional cosponsors in the Senate. It passed by voice vote in the House and by a vote of 97-3 in the Senate. 

Recently, as the process of secularization has accelerated, RFRA has come under assault, and the idea of religious accommodation has fallen out of favor.

Because this Administration firmly supports accommodation of religion, the battleground has shifted to the states. Some state governments are now attempting to compel religious individuals and entities to subscribe to practices, or to espouse viewpoints, that are incompatible with their religion.

Ground zero for these attacks on religion are the schools. To me, this is the most serious challenge to religious liberty. 

For anyone who has a religious faith, by far the most important part of exercising that faith is the teaching of that religion to our children. The passing on of the faith. There is no greater gift we can give our children and no greater expression of love.

For the government to interfere in that process is a monstrous invasion of religious liberty.

Yet here is where the battle is being joined, and I see the secularists are attacking on three fronts.

The first front relates to the content of public school curriculum. Many states are adopting curriculum that is incompatible with traditional religious principles according to which parents are attempting to raise their children. They often do so without any opt out for religious families.

Thus, for example, New Jersey recently passed a law requiring public schools to adopt an LGBT curriculum that many feel is inconsistent with traditional Christian teaching. Similar laws have been passed in California and Illinois. And the Orange County Board of Education in California issued an opinion that “parents who disagree with the instructional materials related to gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation may not excuse their children from this instruction.”

Indeed, in some cases, the schools may not even warn parents about lessons they plan to teach on controversial subjects relating to sexual behavior and relationships.

This puts parents who dissent from the secular orthodoxy to a difficult choice: Try to scrape together the money for private school or home schooling, or allow their children to be inculcated with messages that they fundamentally reject.

A second axis of attack in the realm of education are state policies designed to starve religious schools of generally-available funds and encouraging students to choose secular options.  Montana, for example, created a program that provided tax credits to those who donated to a scholarship program that underprivileged students could use to attend private school.  The point of the program was to provide greater parental and student choice in education and to provide better educations to needy youth.

But Montana expressly excluded religiously-affiliated private schools from the program.  And when that exclusion was challenged in court by parents who wanted to use the scholarships to attend a nondenominational Christian school, the Montana Supreme Court required the state to eliminate the program rather than allow parents to use scholarships for religious schools.

It justified this action by pointing to a provision in Montana’s State Constitution commonly referred to as a “Blaine Amendment.”  Blaine Amendments were passed at a time of rampant anti-Catholic animus in this country, and typically disqualify religious institutions from receiving any direct or indirect payments from a state’s funds."

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, things can easily go the other way, as in the CHAZ where the ANTIFA elite is now imposing segregation, thus extending the baleful influence of Evergreen College to Seattle.

The problem goes much deeper. You see, the boogeyman and the Loch Ness monster are also supporters of segregation and both are as real as the "ANTIFA elite" so we are in real trouble.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I agreed with the recent Supreme Court decision. I think Utah's anti discrimination laws are a good thing. But, in that opinion, it was clear that there will be more cases where these competing rights intersect. There are differing viewpoints about where we are headed and what is to come. I would argue that there is a fine line between fighting against oppression that the LGBTQ community has been a victim of and then swinging the pendulum to becoming the oppressor of religious groups. There are many instances of people being fired for expressing their religious views on homosexuality. Do you think that is okay? I know many who believe in order to have a business, you must be forced to 'bake the cake.' Why would you want to do that? Personally, I view society right now forcing people to think 'one way.' If you don't, you are subject to mob action, firing and cancel culture. That is really not what America was founded on. Many people are fired/not hired because of the political affiliation or viewpoints. Do you think that is okay? I think we need to get to where it is okay to have differing viewpoints and don't feel the need to ruin people because they think differently.  Living in Kansas, I had parents who would not let their kids play with mine due to our religion. I did not set out to then ruin them. In my small community in Colorado, we would often find our cars littered with anti-Mormon pamphlets as we left church. We shrugged and moved on.

"More recently, we have seen the law used aggressively to force religious people and entities to subscribe to practices and policies that are antithetical to their faith.

The problem is not that religion is being forced on others. The problem is that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith.

This reminds me of how some Roman emperors could not leave their loyal Christian subjects in peace but would mandate that they violate their conscience by offering religious sacrifice to the emperor as a god.

Similarly, militant secularists today do not have a live and let live spirit - they are not content to leave religious people alone to practice their faith. Instead, they seem to take a delight in compelling people to violate their conscience.

For example, the last Administration sought to force religious employers, including Catholic religious orders, to violate their sincerely held religious views by funding contraceptive and abortifacient coverage in their health plans. Similarly, California has sought to require pro-life pregnancy centers to provide notices of abortion rights.

This refusal to accommodate the free exercise of religion is relatively recent. Just 25 years ago, there was broad consensus in our society that our laws should accommodate religious belief. 

In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – RFRA. The purpose of the statute was to promote maximum accommodation to religion when the government adopted broad policies that could impinge on religious practice. 

At the time, RFRA was not controversial. It was introduced by Chuck Schumer with 170 cosponsors in the House, and was introduced by Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch with 59 additional cosponsors in the Senate. It passed by voice vote in the House and by a vote of 97-3 in the Senate. 

Recently, as the process of secularization has accelerated, RFRA has come under assault, and the idea of religious accommodation has fallen out of favor.

Because this Administration firmly supports accommodation of religion, the battleground has shifted to the states. Some state governments are now attempting to compel religious individuals and entities to subscribe to practices, or to espouse viewpoints, that are incompatible with their religion.

Ground zero for these attacks on religion are the schools. To me, this is the most serious challenge to religious liberty. 

For anyone who has a religious faith, by far the most important part of exercising that faith is the teaching of that religion to our children. The passing on of the faith. There is no greater gift we can give our children and no greater expression of love.

For the government to interfere in that process is a monstrous invasion of religious liberty.

Yet here is where the battle is being joined, and I see the secularists are attacking on three fronts.

The first front relates to the content of public school curriculum. Many states are adopting curriculum that is incompatible with traditional religious principles according to which parents are attempting to raise their children. They often do so without any opt out for religious families.

Thus, for example, New Jersey recently passed a law requiring public schools to adopt an LGBT curriculum that many feel is inconsistent with traditional Christian teaching. Similar laws have been passed in California and Illinois. And the Orange County Board of Education in California issued an opinion that “parents who disagree with the instructional materials related to gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation may not excuse their children from this instruction.”

Indeed, in some cases, the schools may not even warn parents about lessons they plan to teach on controversial subjects relating to sexual behavior and relationships.

This puts parents who dissent from the secular orthodoxy to a difficult choice: Try to scrape together the money for private school or home schooling, or allow their children to be inculcated with messages that they fundamentally reject.

A second axis of attack in the realm of education are state policies designed to starve religious schools of generally-available funds and encouraging students to choose secular options.  Montana, for example, created a program that provided tax credits to those who donated to a scholarship program that underprivileged students could use to attend private school.  The point of the program was to provide greater parental and student choice in education and to provide better educations to needy youth.

But Montana expressly excluded religiously-affiliated private schools from the program.  And when that exclusion was challenged in court by parents who wanted to use the scholarships to attend a nondenominational Christian school, the Montana Supreme Court required the state to eliminate the program rather than allow parents to use scholarships for religious schools.

It justified this action by pointing to a provision in Montana’s State Constitution commonly referred to as a “Blaine Amendment.”  Blaine Amendments were passed at a time of rampant anti-Catholic animus in this country, and typically disqualify religious institutions from receiving any direct or indirect payments from a state’s funds."

Very well said.

I saw in the OP that CB is calling for "working out a compromise" where "both sides got a little of what they wanted."  That sounded a bit even-handed.  But then he scuttles that reading with the next sentence: "but even more important, much more support and tolerance for LGBT civil rights."  So it's not a call for even-handed, bilateral discussion after all.  It's just a polite request for "more."  More concessions.  More surrendering of civil liberties held by religious people, as if LGBT rights are a zero sum game, as if the only way these rights accrue to gay people is to take other rights away from religious people.

CB then dismisses and disparages concerns about the recent SCOTUS decision as "handwringing and fear mongering," followed by veering into a bit into triumphalism by declaring that religionists are the baddies ("impos{ing}" on the "civil rights" of gays), and that "the population" is "rejecting" those impositions.  He then declares that religionists can no longer "steamroll it's beliefs on others."  Again, not very even-handed, this.

He then expresses concern that LGBT folks "not now become the steamroller of it's beliefs against religious liberties," as if that hasn't already been happening for quite a while now.  Masterpiece Cakeshop, anyone?

CB thereafter presents a series of "questions" (most of which are quite loaded, methinks):

Quote

• Should a business be able to refuse to service someone based on "personally held religious beliefs". What if they are a baker, florist or photographer that might be asked to provide their services for a gay wedding?  What if it is an interracial couple? What if they are a grocery store owner and their business has no services related to gay weddings?
• Should a wedding venue be forced to rent to anyone or can they discriminate?  What if their religious belief believes they should not rent to Jews or Blacks?  Do the owners have to practice a recognized religion or can they just have personal religious beliefs?
• Should a religious organization be allowed to fire someone for any reason that goes against their beliefs no matter what the job or responsibility?  What if they are a janitor or a landscaper.  What if the person is a Jew or in an inter racial marriage? 
• Can anyone claim to be a religious organization?
• What if that employee is working at a for profit religious business owned by a church such as a museum or theme park.
• What if the business run by a religious organization is not religious based such as a hospital or thrift store?
• Should a religious organization be able to discriminate against LGBT if they are receiving federal funds such as an adoption agency or a school. Are they still entitled to federal funds?
• If a religiously run school hires someone who is gay who ends up working for them for years, and then finds out they are gay, should the school be able to fire them?  What if they teach drama or english or math or any other completely non religious subject?
• Can a religious organization fire a paid minister if they find out they are LGBT?
• Does a religious school that has married housing have to rent to a married gay couple?
• Should a religious institution that rents property or a venue be forced to rent that property or venue to anyone that wants to use it?
• Does a religious organization have the right to trump all other laws that prohibit discrimination simply because they are a religion?  Can they discriminate against anyone because of any reason, skin color, sex, someone else's religion, or sexual orientation?

Is there a single question here that isn't an implicit demand for concessions that lessen rights of religious liberty and individual conscience?  I'm struggling to find one.

Is there a single question here that calls for concessions that go the other way?  That preserve and protect rights of religious liberty and individual conscience?  Again, I'm struggling to find one.

Notwithstanding the risible remarks in the OP, I'll give it a go.   Here are some thoughts responsive to the OP ("So what is that common ground.  What further rights do you believe the LGBT community should have.  And what rights do you believe religious institutions should be able to retain.").

1. Let Each Side Speak for Itself

First, I think each side should stop presuming to speak for the other side.  This includes explanations of the other side's motives (which usually include the worst possible assumptions and imputations).  This is a *huge* problem.  Every accusation of "hater," "bigot," "homophobe" and so on is an implicit imputation of motives.  That needs to stop.

By way of example, in January 2018, CB asked for "a suggestion on how to move forward" in relation to the then-in-place policies of the Church.  Speaking of Dan Reynolds (the front man for Imagine Dragons), he said: "I am really interested in what members that object to how this issues is being brought up mostly by other members like Reynolds think should happen."  I responded:

Quote

Again, let's stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.

Let's stop with the vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric.

Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children.

Let's stop putting the worst possible spin imaginable on the policy changes.

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings.

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church.

Quit working nonstop to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church.

Let's give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits.

Let's give the Church room and time to work with the policy changes (much as it has - with generalized success - with its nearly-identical policies regarding children of polygamous families).

Look at how many of these pertain to critics of the Church presuming to speak for the Church.

Look at how many of these requests pertain to critics of the Church endlessly presuming to speak on its behalf, to impute onto it and its members the worst of motives, and so on.

As long as LGBT folks insist on speaking on behalf of religionists, as long as they insist on imputing onto us the worst possible, most hateful and vicious of motives, as long as such pervasive and casual slurs and slanders continue, we won't make much progress in communicating with each other.

2. Let Each Side Present their Side

Second, let's allow each side to rationalize and explain their own position.

3. Let's Be Patient

Third, I think we need to be patient with each other (and yes, I need to work on this).  Bernard Gui posted this quote a while back:

Quote

During the first half of the nineteenth century a number of individuals in Europe began to study homosexuality scientifically (Stein 6900). The theories developed during this time suggested that homosexuality was a disease, and these theories influenced how homosexuality was regarded by the scientific community until well past the mid twentieth century. It wasn't until the late twentieth century that there was a paradigm shift in the science of psychiatry and medicine regarding the pathology of homosexuality. In the early twentieth century, psychiatrists considered homosexuality a disease that could be cured through psychotherapy and treatment options were assessed, yet gradually, theories of a hormonal and genetic origin of homosexuality arose and became accepted. This paradigm shift impacted the political and social climates of the United States, while at the same time; these outside influences also affected science. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders, and patients practicing homosexuality were no longer treated as if it were a disease. Thus, since its conception in the early nineteenth century, the scientific definition of homosexuality has greatly evolved; this evolution has been closely associated with the progression of the social and political definition of homosexuality as well. 

I found this to be persuasive and thought-provoking.  The "paradigm shift" has continued, but these days it seems to be more about lawfare, public shaming, and threats, rather than through reasoning, evidence and efforts to persuade.

4. Ultimate Differences of Opinion

Fourth, we need to allow for continued deeply-held differences of opinion as to the morality of homosexual behavior.  Again, the coercive element is extremely strong here.  Religionists are called upon to either abandon their beliefs, or else be publicly denounced as bigots, homophobes, etc.  This shaming strategy has worked quite well in shaming some into submission, and others into silence.  But I think it's fundamentally immoral.

5. Stop Targeting Christians for "Lawfare"

Fifth, Masterpiece Cakeshop was, and remains, an exercise in egregious lawfare targeting Christians.  These things need to stop.  The legislative process should be used more.

6. Acknowledge Changes/Improvements

Finally, I think everyone needs to acknowledge that a lot has changed re: the legal rights and general standing of LGBT folks in society.  A lot has improved.  Give credit where it's due.  That's not happening much.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Islander]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Here are a few that come to mind.

Should a business be able to refuse to service someone based on "personally held religious beliefs". What if they are a baker, florist or photographer that might be asked to provide their services for a gay wedding?  What if it is an interracial couple? What if they are a grocery store owner and their business has no services related to gay weddings?

Yes -- It is not just a "business". A florist, a baker and a photographer are "creating" a unique, tailor-made product/service that constitute speech and thus is being force to create a certain expressive creation against their religious conviction. Should an African American baker be forced to bake a cake for the local grand dragon of the KKK, depicting a black man hanging from a tree? Of course not. 

Should a wedding venue be forced to rent to anyone or can they discriminate?  What if their religious belief believes they should not rent to Jews or Blacks?  Do the owners have to practice a recognized religion or can they just have personal religious beliefs?

No -- Other than renting the locale, if they are not forced to participate in the event in any way they find objectionable from a religious standpoint. 

Should a religious organization be allowed to fire someone for any reason that goes against their beliefs no matter what the job or responsibility?  

Yes -- You don't have the right to work in a religious organization, when you are fully aware and cognizant that your value system collides with those of the organization. You would would have lied in your statement of faith and values that are required prior to employment. Which specifies the expectations about your faith, beliefs and conduct. 

What if they are a janitor or a landscaper.  What if the person is a Jew or in an inter racial marriage? (Here you are blaring the issues. Religion and race are two very different categories)

No -- the current Supreme Court ruling makes provisions for that. If you are a Jew why would you lie about your religious beliefs and affiliation?

Can anyone claim to be a religious organization?

No -- There are classifications are to what constitute a religio licita 

What if that employee is working at a for profit religious business owned by a church such as a museum or theme park.

Yes -- The religious organization exception applies. Again, why would you go work at an organization fully aware that you hold a value system that runs diametrically opposed to those of your employer? If your behavior clashes with the image, values and organizational culture as to be disruptive and detrimental to the business, yes, you should be fired. I would not go work for an explicitly gay business.

What if the business run by a religious organization is not religious based such as a hospital or thrift store?

It is still a religious organization and the the exemption applies. 

Should a religious organization be able to discriminate against LGBT if they are receiving federal funds such as an adoption agency or a school. Are they still entitled to federal funds?

The government can not discriminate (dictate who gets money) based on religious affiliation. To do so would be discriminating against a group of people for no good cause, since nobody can show that the religious character of the organization hinders the task at hand (adoption in this case). The argument here could be lengthy. Basically, society has decided to normalize and legalize (homosexual) behavior that is biologically abnormal. Via the same instrument and for the same purposes, institute adoption into an abnormal domestic relationship that religious people find objectionable. Why force them into compliance just to receive Fed funds? How about leaving them alone to pursue their work and find an agency that has no such objections?

If a religiously run school hires someone who is gay who ends up working for them for years, and then finds out they are gay, should the school be able to fire them?  What if they teach drama or english or math or any other completely non religious subject?

Yes --This is a redundant question. See above similar question, please.

Can a religious organization fire a paid minister if they find out they are LGBT?

Yes --This is a redundant question. See above similar question, please.

Does a religious school that has married housing have to rent to a married gay couple?

No --This is a redundant question. See above similar question, please.

Should a religious institution that rents property or a venue be forced to rent that property or venue to anyone that wants to use it?

No -- This is a redundant question. See above similar question, please.

Does a religious organization have the right to trump all other laws that prohibit discrimination simply because they are a religion?  Can they discriminate against anyone because of any reason, skin color, sex, someone else's religion, or sexual orientation?

Of course not. The law prohibit discrimination skin color, sex, someone else's religion. The exemption to religious beliefs always applies to a religious organization. They have the right to hire those that share values, beliefs and the org, has the right to expect certain behavior and overall conduct.

These are just a few of the gray areas that are yet to be clarified by the laws of this country.  You may consider the answers black and white.  But someone with a different point of view may not see things the same way.

See my answers above inserted into the original post text, please. Te issue is that some do not believe religion is that important. Some believe that it should be a matter to keep private; at home or church, and not to be seen or heard in the market place. They forget that it was the belief that people are endowed by God with the liberties enshrined in the Constitution that allow the current debate to take place. In some countries gay people are put to death routinely. 

There are millions of secular, non-religious business in the country. Explicitly religious organizations are a small fraction of them. This is not about LGBT rights. This is about erasing religious conviction from the marketplace and to force those that stand for their religious values into government imposed tyrannical submission. I come from a communist country and have seen it all before. There is no mistaking the signs. This is really what the LGBT lobby is about:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there..." Marsha Gessen, gay activist.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Thank you. Generally speaking, I think D&C134:10 might cover most of my reaction ("We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.").

In my opinion:

"We" means the religion is not an individual, personal code or popular movement but an organized entity as defined by law.

"religious societies" includes the businesses of these entities.

"members" includes actual or potential employees, clients, customers, etc. of any "race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or age".

Denial of transaction does not count as denial of property or life, this world’s goods, jeopardy of life or limb, or physical punishment if these needs can be met elsewhere in the community. Otherwise a "Good Samaritan" law should apply, to ensure basic needs are met without transaction. Feelings are the basis of both religion and identity and are not part of the material transactions.

"Excommunicate" includes refusal of employment, service, etc. within the context of "religious societies".

I think conditions for federal funding are up to the funder, and "We" and "religious societies" can adapt as they deem appropriate for a changing marketplace.

So what does the LGBT community get out of your compromise?  Cause I am not seeing any compromise at all.  I see a stand that religion and religious beliefs have a right to discriminate against whoever they want, whenever they want as long as it doesn't break current law.  But one thing is certain, there are plenty of laws such as I listed above that are up for debate and clarification.  Do you really think that such a stand will work?

I actually see it as a dangerous position to take for religion itself.  It puts an us against them kind of wall up.  With the vast majority of people supporting LGBT rights to not be discriminated against, just who will end up being the bad guy and the one that is scorned by the public in the end.  And how will a younger generation who already has issues with the way religion treats the LGBT community react.  Don't you think this will push them further away from religion, increasing the downward spiral that religion has been experiencing in the past couple of decades?  I am really asking if as a religious person, do you really think this is even a good stance for religion itself.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I agreed with the recent Supreme Court decision. I think Utah's anti discrimination laws are a good thing. But, in that opinion, it was clear that there will be more cases where these competing rights intersect. There are differing viewpoints about where we are headed and what is to come. I would argue that there is a fine line between fighting against oppression that the LGBTQ community has been a victim of and then swinging the pendulum to becoming the oppressor of religious groups. There are many instances of people being fired for expressing their religious views on homosexuality. Do you think that is okay? I know many who believe in order to have a business, you must be forced to 'bake the cake.' Why would you want to do that? Personally, I view society right now forcing people to think 'one way.' If you don't, you are subject to mob action, firing and cancel culture. That is really not what America was founded on. Many people are fired/not hired because of the political affiliation or viewpoints. Do you think that is okay? I think we need to get to where it is okay to have differing viewpoints and don't feel the need to ruin people because they think differently.  Living in Kansas, I had parents who would not let their kids play with mine due to our religion. I did not set out to then ruin them. In my small community in Colorado, we would often find our cars littered with anti-Mormon pamphlets as we left church. We shrugged and moved on.

"More recently, we have seen the law used aggressively to force religious people and entities to subscribe to practices and policies that are antithetical to their faith.

The problem is not that religion is being forced on others. The problem is that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith.

This reminds me of how some Roman emperors could not leave their loyal Christian subjects in peace but would mandate that they violate their conscience by offering religious sacrifice to the emperor as a god.

Similarly, militant secularists today do not have a live and let live spirit - they are not content to leave religious people alone to practice their faith. Instead, they seem to take a delight in compelling people to violate their conscience.

For example, the last Administration sought to force religious employers, including Catholic religious orders, to violate their sincerely held religious views by funding contraceptive and abortifacient coverage in their health plans. Similarly, California has sought to require pro-life pregnancy centers to provide notices of abortion rights.

This refusal to accommodate the free exercise of religion is relatively recent. Just 25 years ago, there was broad consensus in our society that our laws should accommodate religious belief. 

In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – RFRA. The purpose of the statute was to promote maximum accommodation to religion when the government adopted broad policies that could impinge on religious practice. 

At the time, RFRA was not controversial. It was introduced by Chuck Schumer with 170 cosponsors in the House, and was introduced by Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch with 59 additional cosponsors in the Senate. It passed by voice vote in the House and by a vote of 97-3 in the Senate. 

Recently, as the process of secularization has accelerated, RFRA has come under assault, and the idea of religious accommodation has fallen out of favor.

Because this Administration firmly supports accommodation of religion, the battleground has shifted to the states. Some state governments are now attempting to compel religious individuals and entities to subscribe to practices, or to espouse viewpoints, that are incompatible with their religion.

Ground zero for these attacks on religion are the schools. To me, this is the most serious challenge to religious liberty. 

For anyone who has a religious faith, by far the most important part of exercising that faith is the teaching of that religion to our children. The passing on of the faith. There is no greater gift we can give our children and no greater expression of love.

For the government to interfere in that process is a monstrous invasion of religious liberty.

Yet here is where the battle is being joined, and I see the secularists are attacking on three fronts.

The first front relates to the content of public school curriculum. Many states are adopting curriculum that is incompatible with traditional religious principles according to which parents are attempting to raise their children. They often do so without any opt out for religious families.

Thus, for example, New Jersey recently passed a law requiring public schools to adopt an LGBT curriculum that many feel is inconsistent with traditional Christian teaching. Similar laws have been passed in California and Illinois. And the Orange County Board of Education in California issued an opinion that “parents who disagree with the instructional materials related to gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation may not excuse their children from this instruction.”

Indeed, in some cases, the schools may not even warn parents about lessons they plan to teach on controversial subjects relating to sexual behavior and relationships.

This puts parents who dissent from the secular orthodoxy to a difficult choice: Try to scrape together the money for private school or home schooling, or allow their children to be inculcated with messages that they fundamentally reject.

A second axis of attack in the realm of education are state policies designed to starve religious schools of generally-available funds and encouraging students to choose secular options.  Montana, for example, created a program that provided tax credits to those who donated to a scholarship program that underprivileged students could use to attend private school.  The point of the program was to provide greater parental and student choice in education and to provide better educations to needy youth.

But Montana expressly excluded religiously-affiliated private schools from the program.  And when that exclusion was challenged in court by parents who wanted to use the scholarships to attend a nondenominational Christian school, the Montana Supreme Court required the state to eliminate the program rather than allow parents to use scholarships for religious schools.

It justified this action by pointing to a provision in Montana’s State Constitution commonly referred to as a “Blaine Amendment.”  Blaine Amendments were passed at a time of rampant anti-Catholic animus in this country, and typically disqualify religious institutions from receiving any direct or indirect payments from a state’s funds."

You have presented your position on religious rights quite well.  What this thread is asking you to do is to present what you think what civil rights the LGBT should also have.  Because of the recent ruling, employment and housing discrimination is no longer allowed.  Is that it?  Not entitled to anything other than that?

As you have suggested, companies are not tolerating anti gay beliefs in the workplace.  Do you think that continuing to allow discrimination in the market place will ease some of that tension or only increase animosity towards religion.  

Religion definitely has a problem in the public square these days.  It needs to think of creative solutions to ease the animosity being directed at how religion discriminates against others and their beliefs, not only in the LGBT community but, as you mentioned, issues like birth control.  I am hoping that this thread will explore what those solutions might look like.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The problem goes much deeper. You see, the boogeyman and the Loch Ness monster are also supporters of segregation and both are as real as the "ANTIFA elite" so we are in real trouble.

Reminds me of a nightmare I had the other night in which the waters kept rising.  Now I'm thinking of Johnny Cash singing "How high's the water Mama?"  Good thing it's just my imagination.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Islander said:

Should an African American baker be forced to bake a cake for the local grand dragon of the KKK, depicting a black man hanging from a tree?

However, there is a huge difference between asking someone to create something that celebrates hate and violence and someone else asking them to help celebrate what that someone believes and intimately feels is an act of love.

The difference is too significant imo for that to be a useful comparison.  
 

Maybe the birth of an out of wedlock baby or the tenth anniversary of a couple living together without marriage would be a better comparison.

———

I am currently undecided about the issue, I get the creative part not wanting to support something one believes is immoral, but also understand if you are offering a service to celebrate marriage to the public why it should be offered to everyone. 
 

Quote

This is really what the LGBT lobby is about:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there..." Marsha Gessen, gay activist.

Don’t buy it. Just because some hold that position doesn’t mean all do. Many LGBTs from what I see want what their parents had (marriage between two people with sexual fidelity), some want that with less limits, and others want no limits (no contracts/no marriage).

Edited June 23, 2020 by Calm

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, Islander said:

See my answers above inserted into the original post text, please. Te issue is that some do not believe religion is that important. Some believe that it should be a matter to keep private; at home or church, and not to be seen or heard in the market place. They forget that it was the belief that people are endowed by God with the liberties enshrined in the Constitution that allow the current debate to take place. In some countries gay people are put to death routinely. 

There are millions of secular, non-religious business in the country. Explicitly religious organizations are a small fraction of them. This is not about LGBT rights. This is about erasing religious conviction from the marketplace and to force those that stand for their religious values into government imposed tyrannical submission. I come from a communist country and have seen it all before. There is no mistaking the signs. This is really what the LGBT lobby is about:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there..." Marsha Gessen, gay activist.

So basically you are saying screw the LGBT community.  We have all the rights because we are a religion.  And just how do you think this position will play out in the courts and the public?  How do you think people that aren't religious will view your complete unwillingness to compromise on any of the issues that are real issues being debated and discussed in the public square today?  

There was a time when religion thought they could push their belief of what marriage should be on the rest of the public.  How did that work out?  There was a time where religion thought they could hire or fire anyone they wanted to based on their beliefs.  How did that work out?  There was a time when religion thought they could refuse rent to anyone they wanted to for any reason they wanted to.  How did that work out?

I could easily dispute your rational for every single issue bring up stating that a business has no right to discriminate against who they serve.  We have heard it all before.  A cake is just a cake.  You have heard the arguments against every single issue you bring up.  What you are saying is that there is no compromise.  Religion has all the rights.  What I am saying, is that you are wrong.  Recent history is showing that very clearly.  So what positions could you compromise on.  How can you see a way past this hard line in the sand that you have drawn.

I believe that the harder that line is drawn, the harder the pushback on ALL of the things you mentioned will be.  Is there any middle ground?  I believe that without any compromise, each side will dig it's heels into the ground.  Who wins that tug-of-war depends on who has the most power when the contest starts.  Rather than both sides presenting a agreed upon compromise, either side may loose it all and animosity only increases.  In recent weeks, we have seen what happens when that animosity reaches a breaking point.  I am not calling for riots in the streets.  But what I am pointing out is that hard line stances that build resentment and tension can accelerate to the point where no one wins.  Pickets outside of bakeries, people being fired for their religious beliefs, religion being demonized as being destructive.  Tax exemptions being questioned.  I am not making threats.  I don't have that kind of power.  I am asking you to consider just how this all MIGHT play out if religion is unwilling to compromise.

That said, is there anything you could see in your list that you might give a little on?  Or are you just simply willing to see how this all plays out.  Do you see any downside for religion at all if it digs their heels into the sand on EVERYTHING?

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

So what does the LGBT community get out of your compromise?  Cause I am not seeing any compromise at all.  I see a stand that religion and religious beliefs have a right to discriminate against whoever they want, whenever they want as long as it doesn't break current law.  But one thing is certain, there are plenty of laws such as I listed above that are up for debate and clarification.  Do you really think that such a stand will work?

I actually see it as a dangerous position to take for religion itself.  It puts an us against them kind of wall up.  With the vast majority of people supporting LGBT rights to not be discriminated against, just who will end up being the bad guy and the one that is scorned by the public in the end.  And how will a younger generation who already has issues with the way religion treats the LGBT community react.  Don't you think this will push them further away from religion, increasing the downward spiral that religion has been experiencing in the past couple of decades?  I am really asking if as a religious person, do you really think this is even a good stance for religion itself.  

I think the central "compromise" -- and to me it is more of a placement of organized religion and individual identity on equal ground -- is the recognition that feelings are the basis of both religion and self-identity (i.e. race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or age). Sometimes feelings need to be put aside. As long as the common ground of property, life, limb, safety, etc. is maintained for both, religions do not need to accommodate identity-based material transactions, and one's identity is more sacred than setting the bar at material transactions with religions or the religious. So, I think "Duty to Rescue" laws (I misspoke earlier by calling them "Good Samaritan") can be expanded so that religious organizations are required the duty to rescue (and held liable when they intentionally deny basic human rescue). Seems like a fair exchange for tax-exempt status.

[HappyJackWagon]

Good post, California Boy!

And Robert Smith, great comment.

The tide has turned relatively fast on the issue of LGBTQ rights. In historical context it's pretty astonishing when you think of it. And I mean that in a good way. The fact that the majority of American now favor Civil Rights for  LGBTQ, including gay marriage is very hopeful. I think a lot of lessons have been learned by the Civil Rights movement and have been applied to LGBTQ issues and thankfully, the majority of American are trending towards Civil Rights for all. I mean, who wants to be opposed to Civil rights? So in the context of Civil Rights I don't really see how the LGBTQ community can compromise. Do they give up only certain rights in certain situations for certain groups or individuals? I don't see how that would be possible or acceptable.

For example on the issue of workplace protections, either people are protected based on race, national origin, religion, sexuality, or they're not. If religions want exemptions on the LGBTQ employment issue, what would stop them from claiming exemptions on issues of race, or religion etc.? Would anyone find it acceptable for a religious school, for example to claim a religious exemption allowing them to discriminate in employment against a certain race? Of course not. So why would it be acceptable to claim exemptions of civil rights on the basis of orientation?

This SCOTUS decision was huge. While I hope that the LGBTQ community will avoid rubbing the noses of those who have yet to accept LGBTQ as a civil rights issue, I do expect the community will be required to continue pressing for proper adherence to the law. As has been stated before, people don't have to approve or agree with an individual's behavior or lifestyle, but they do have to obey the law. We all benefit from those protections and if we are willing to bend them when it comes to LGBTQ or any other protected group, then we also risk giving up our own protections.

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good post, California Boy!

And Robert Smith, great comment.

The tide has turned relatively fast on the issue of LGBTQ rights. In historical context it's pretty astonishing when you think of it. And I mean that in a good way. The fact that the majority of American now favor Civil Rights for  LGBTQ, including gay marriage is very hopeful. I think a lot of lessons have been learned by the Civil Rights movement and have been applied to LGBTQ issues and thankfully, the majority of American are trending towards Civil Rights for all. I mean, who wants to be opposed to Civil rights? So in the context of Civil Rights I don't really see how the LGBTQ community can compromise. Do they give up only certain rights in certain situations for certain groups or individuals? I don't see how that would be possible or acceptable.

For example on the issue of workplace protections, either people are protected based on race, national origin, religion, sexuality, or they're not. If religions want exemptions on the LGBTQ employment issue, what would stop them from claiming exemptions on issues of race, or religion etc.? Would anyone find it acceptable for a religious school, for example to claim a religious exemption allowing them to discriminate in employment against a certain race? Of course not. So why would it be acceptable to claim exemptions of civil rights on the basis of orientation?

This SCOTUS decision was huge. While I hope that the LGBTQ community will avoid rubbing the noses of those who have yet to accept LGBTQ as a civil rights issue, I do expect the community will be required to continue pressing for proper adherence to the law. As has been stated before, people don't have to approve or agree with an individual's behavior or lifestyle, but they do have to obey the law. We all benefit from those protections and if we are willing to bend them when it comes to LGBTQ or any other protected group, then we also risk giving up our own protections.

I think there is still plenty of room for discussion and compromise.  LGBTQ people are now protected by Title VII, but religious liberty is also protected by the constitution.  How those two laws will interact in practice is yet to be seen. I think there are still a lot of gray areas, and I think we need to move forward working together through those gray areas as much as possible. 

Edited June 23, 2020 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

So basically you are saying screw the LGBT community.  We have all the rights because we are a religion.  And just how do you think this position will play out in the courts and the public?  How do you think people that aren't religious will view your complete unwillingness to compromise on any of the issues that are real issues being debated and discussed in the public square today?  

There was a time when religion thought they could push their belief of what marriage should be on the rest of the public.  How did that work out?  There was a time where religion thought they could hire or fire anyone they wanted to based on their beliefs.  How did that work out?  There was a time when religion thought they could refuse rent to anyone they wanted to for any reason they wanted to.  How did that work out?

I could easily dispute your rational for every single issue bring up stating that a business has no right to discriminate against who they serve.  We have heard it all before.  A cake is just a cake.  You have heard the arguments against every single issue you bring up.  What you are saying is that there is no compromise.  Religion has all the rights.  What I am saying, is that you are wrong.  Recent history is showing that very clearly.  So what positions could you compromise on.  How can you see a way past this hard line in the sand that you have drawn.

I believe that the harder that line is drawn, the harder the pushback on ALL of the things you mentioned will be.  Is there any middle ground?  I believe that without any compromise, each side will dig it's heels into the ground.  Who wins that tug-of-war depends on who has the most power when the contest starts.  Rather than both sides presenting a agreed upon compromise, either side may loose it all and animosity only increases.  In recent weeks, we have seen what happens when that animosity reaches a breaking point.  I am not calling for riots in the streets.  But what I am pointing out is that hard line stances that build resentment and tension can accelerate to the point where no one wins.  Pickets outside of bakeries, people being fired for their religious beliefs, religion being demonized as being destructive.  Tax exemptions being questioned.  I am not making threats.  I don't have that kind of power.  I am asking you to consider just how this all MIGHT play out if religion is unwilling to compromise.

That said, is there anything you could see in your list that you might give a little on?  Or are you just simply willing to see how this all plays out.  Do you see any downside for religion at all if it digs their heels into the sand on EVERYTHING?

You didn't ask me, but IMO religion is in the midst of a relevance crisis. How does religion stay relevant to those in their congregations or those they are hoping to attract? When religion drags its heals on issues of race or LGBTQ issues they only shoot themselves in the foot. They look like they are backwards, using religion to justify bigotry in whatever form. This is a problem for religion. When you combine the general trend toward non-affiliation (Nones) with organized religion with a pandemic which has prevented the positive community elements of religion then you get a cocktail which makes even religions people wonder if they truly Need organized religion. Isn't home church just as good, and without the suspect doctrines in class or improper political speeches from the pulpit?

Religion needs to be finding ways to be relevant in the lives of the people they hope to impact. If religion proves itself to be unnecessary, or as an insurmountable stumbling block to people who expect a higher level of morality from institutions teaching morality, then it will continue to lose people and will have only itself to blame.