We Can Find Common Ground on Gay Rights and Religious Liberty

[Islander]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

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. 
 

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).

There is no difference. There fact that YOU do not share the same reaction is not the relevant fact. A Muslim person can get physically sick just by looking at a pig. In America they have them as ,pets. They find it extremely offensive. The fact that such does not bother you is not the issue. If something offends the religious sensibilities of a person and runs contrary to deep held convictions IS the issue. We the framers penned the Constitution, gay rights was not a concept. Judicial activism brought it into existence.But religious liberty was very much in their minds that they made sure is was spelled out.   Your attempt to find a suitable comparison is not the test.

She is just not anybody. She is a leader in the LGBT community and quite the spokesperson. Part of the braintrust of the lobby that paved the way for the current state of affairs. I take her at her word. 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Islander said:

She is a leader in the LGBT community and quite the spokesperson.

So Mitt Romney is a leader in the Utah and Latter-day Saint community. Do I have to assume every or even most Latter-day Saints agree with him?

Quote

There is no difference. There fact that YOU do not share the same reaction is not the relevant fact. 

Celebrating a death is not the same as celebrating a marriage.  That is like saying a birthday party and a funeral are the same thing. 

Edited June 24, 2020 by Calm

[Islander]

7 hours 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?

The difference is that YOU believe that I should "compromise" my religious beliefs in order to accommodate the beliefs and worldview of other people. When It comes to the word of God I will not do so. And if I must suffer in order to stand on my convictions I am ready to do so. 

The framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that religious liberty was maintained so they put it in black and white. Gay rights did not exist, even as a construct, and was created by judicial activism. These are fabricated anachronisms; injecting today's values, thoughts, beliefs and feelings into a text that never intended to be so. 

There are laws the prohibit discrimination on a host of categories. Now, a religious organization, duly organized, with such a stated purpose and intent, has the right, under existing laws, to hire people of like mind, with shared values and interests, principles, world view and expected behavior. If you do not share those you are welcome to find a job where you are a better fit. But somehow that is not enough?. Religious organizations employ barely 1.5 million people in the US. It is a fraction of the overall economy. They just want to carry out their mission according to the mandates of their particular religion and conscience joined with people that share the same values.

[Islander]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

So Mitt Romney is a leader in the Utah and Latter-day Saint community. Do I have to assume every or even most Latter-day Saints agree with him?

Celebrating a death is not the same as celebrating a marriage.  That is like saying a birthday party and a funeral are the same thing. 

If Romney speaks, in a conference to an LDS audience in and LDS sanctioned venue, it is implicit that he speaks with authority. A particular person may disagree with certain elements of the speech, but that does not negates the validity or significance of the speaker or the implications of the speech.

Let me translate: Your definition of "marriage" is offensive to me, abnormal and unnatural. It runs against my religious beliefs and convictions and it would be a violation of my rights to be forced to participate in anything I find objectionable on those grounds, if I were the baker. You may not understand it or agree but that is where I stand. No one would dares to bring such a lawsuit against a Muslim baker in Michigan or a Jewish one in NY. But Christians are fair game.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

The difference is that YOU believe that I should "compromise" my religious beliefs in order to accommodate the beliefs and worldview of other people. When It comes to the word of God I will not do so. And if I must suffer in order to stand on my convictions I am ready to do so. 

The framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that religious liberty was maintained so they put it in black and white. Gay rights did not exist, even as a construct, and was created by judicial activism. These are fabricated anachronisms; injecting today's values, thoughts, beliefs and feelings into a text that never intended to be so. 

There are laws the prohibit discrimination on a host of categories. Now, a religious organization, duly organized, with such a stated purpose and intent, has the right, under existing laws, to hire people of like mind, with shared values and interests, principles, world view and expected behavior. If you do not share those you are welcome to find a job where you are a better fit. But somehow that is not enough?. Religious organizations employ barely 1.5 million people in the US. It is a fraction of the overall economy. They just want to carry out their mission according to the mandates of their particular religion and conscience joined with people that share the same values.

I totally understand your position.  We all feel that way.  I believe that YOU think I should compromise my civil rights.  I am willing to fight for those rights as well and not let religion dictate what rights I should be able to exercise and what rights I just have to abandon because I am gay.  I see just as much in the Constitution that protects my rights as you see in it protecting your rights.  And in the past couple of years, the Supreme Court has also seen those civil rights for every American, even the gay ones, guaranteed by that Constitution.

So do you believe the best course of action going forward is to only view issues from each of our own perspective and only accept laws and verdicts that support our own position?  Maybe that is a better approach than coming together and trying to find common ground.  Let the chips fall as they may.  

But for me, I see value in building relationships and try to see the rights that may be implied in the Constitution for religious beliefs as well as those guaranteed to me.   Going to war always means there will be casualties on both sides of the battle.  It doesn't always provide the best outcomes.

Edited June 24, 2020 by california boy

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

There is no difference. There fact that YOU do not share the same reaction is not the relevant fact. A Muslim person can get physically sick just by looking at a pig. In America they have them as ,pets. They find it extremely offensive. The fact that such does not bother you is not the issue. If something offends the religious sensibilities of a person and runs contrary to deep held convictions IS the issue. We the framers penned the Constitution, gay rights was not a concept. Judicial activism brought it into existence.But religious liberty was very much in their minds that they made sure is was spelled out.   Your attempt to find a suitable comparison is not the test.

She is just not anybody. She is a leader in the LGBT community and quite the spokesperson. Part of the braintrust of the lobby that paved the way for the current state of affairs. I take her at her word. 

Gay rights was not a concept when the Constitution was written, but equal protection under the law for ALL Americans was a part of the Constitution.  

And no body speaks for the gay community.  They speak for their own beliefs and their own ideas which others might or might not agree with.

Tell me, who speaks for the straight community?  Who's opinion should we accept as a straight opinion that every straight person supports or even a majority of straight people support?

[Calm]

 

2 hours ago, Islander said:

Let me translate: Your definition of "marriage" is offensive to me, abnormal and unnatural. It runs against my religious beliefs and convictions and it would be a violation of my rights to be forced to participate in anything I find objectionable on those grounds, if I were the baker.

I have no issue with that if that is what you choose, but that still even if one accepts your definition of such a legal relationship doesn't make celebration of a lynching and celebration of a relationship that you view as offensive and unnatural in any way equivalent any more than being a thief is equivalent to being a murderer.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Calm

[CV75]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

So how would you frame the legal compromise?

As I said, my point was to show an example of the precision required when framing legal compromises, but that my priority id for you to reply to my previous reply to you: Posted 15 hours ago

Then we can proceed to discuss compromises, including the one I opened the door for discussing with you.

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, Islander said:

She is just not anybody. She is a leader in the LGBT community and quite the spokesperson. Part of the braintrust of the lobby that paved the way for the current state of affairs. I take her at her word. 

Are you talking about Marsha Gessen or Masha Gessen?  If yes to the latter, I respectfully issue a CFR on your claims that Masha Gessen is the bolded three above, respectively. Please provide references. Thanks.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 hours ago, california boy said:

ok, lets start with some basics.  Do you think a church should be forced to ordain a gay clergy even if that clergy is celibate?

My compromise would be to allow all churches to be able to discriminate any way they want within their religion.  I don't care that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not allow gay marriage in their temples or their chapels.  I don't care if the church does not allow gay couples to be baptized.  I do care that they discriminate against workers gay that might work at Deseret Industries.  

How about allowing gay married couples housing at BYU?  How about prohibiting gay couples from adopting.  Does it make a difference if they are receiving federal funds for BYU or the adoption services?  I want you to think about the other side as well.  What should the LGBT community be willing to not fight against?

The problem with this is that the way religion could be defined is extremely broad. It's not just religious services, rites, ordinances etc. Part of the religious mission could be universities, charitable organizations, housing, employment etc. So finding the dividing line between what is truly part of the religious practice as opposed to what other activities is the religious organization involved in, is super sticky. And what is a "religious belief" is it any belief any person has IF they claim it is religious? If a religion teaches that gay behavior is a sin, does that also mean that the religious belief extends to believing that gay people shouldn't have the same rights to employment and housing?

In short, yes, LGBT people should be protected for employment at DI or Salvation Army or wherever. If a government license and certification is required by the government for an organization to participate in adoption placements, then yes, that group shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against gay couples. If religious organizations receive tax exemptions and/or credits or government funds, then they should not be allowed to discriminate. For example, if BYU receives federal funds, then it shouldn't be able to fire an employee or refuse a student who is gay. The church is a very large employer in Utah. Can they fire a financial analyst at the COB or an investor at one of their investment firms, or a janitor who works for church facilities, or a mechanic who works in the motor pool. Whatever. If they are gay, they can be fired because a church is the one doing the firing. I don't think so. If they demand to discriminate I believe any religious organization should be stripped of its federal financial backing in the forms or grants, tax exemptions etc.

I've been on the other side for the majority of my life so I understand the positions. IF religion is going to receive government funds then they should be held to the same federal standards as everyone else. If the religious organization doesn't want to be held to that standard they could reject federal funds.

It would be wrong to tell religion what they can teach and what their doctrines and beliefs should be. They can believe whatever they want. They can do whatever they want in the churches and temples. They can live or die in the free market of ideas. But what they can't do, is discriminate against people (whether black, or gay, or whatever) in ways that affect their physical well-being of housing and employment. If the church wants to be truly independent of government oversight it should rid itself of any perks they receive from the government for being a member of the society.

Lets also remember that the distinction between being gay or Same Sx attracted is a pretty recent phenomena. So discrimination against gays was more than just against people who behaved in a certain way. But fortunately that church teaching/belief has changed and now it's accepting of SSA on conditions of celibacy.

[HappyJackWagon]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

Is a protected classes under Title VII protected against discrimination in religious rights/rites?  I don't know the answer to that, but religious people sure seem to be concerned about the slippery slope going that direction.  Maybe there is nothing to fear at all.  I don't know. 

Have women ever tried to sue a church for not hiring women clergy?  Sex is a protected class, and women clearly have been discriminated against in religious hiring. 

Interestingly enough,  I just had this debate not long ago in regard to Covid and religious practices being considered "essential services".  If you ask many religious people, they would vehemently demand that religious practices be considered "essential services".  I wonder if those who argue that way are really ready to swallow that pill and all that comes with it. 

I dont' think religious rites are included. I think the slippery slope argument applies more to public perception. Once peoples views and beliefs start to change to be more accepting, it is scary for some to think about what will eventually be accepted. I think it's a fight for the hearts and minds of people, not against laws and government regulations.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I am not sure. I feel like if the purpose of the organization is towards a specific mission, then the organization should be allowed to not hire anyone who does not meet their mission.

For example, the church owns BYU, DI, Deseret News, etc. and should be allowed to only hire employees who meet their mission if they want, such as those with a current temple recommend.

Likewise, if the NAACP started a university and a thrift store, they should be allowed to not allow me to attend or hire me because I am white, even if I am the most qualified for the job.

If a liberal media organization refuses to hire the most qualified journalist who applies because they are conservative, they should be allowed to because their mission goal is to push liberalism.

If a clothing business whose entire mission is empowering women only hires women on its staff and they refuse to hire me because I am a man, they should be allowed to.

I just think that we should have the freedom to create a business, religion, or organization with a clear mission statement and be allowed to discriminate in our pursuit of this mission statement. 

I hear what you're saying, but if the religion has a mission to feed hungry children in China, should they be allowed to fire a worker who is working for that cause because he is gay? Why would being gay prevent him from doing that job or interfere with the church's mission?

I don't understand why the mission precludes gay people or how gay people could damage that mission.

No- The NAACP shouldn't be allowed to hire or fire you based on your race or gender.

No, a business shouldn't be allowed to only hire 1 gender. That's the kind of behavior lawsuits are made of. It's discrimination.

You have a right to create a business to do whatever you want but that doesn't mean you are free from the consequences of your discrimination. You will be sued and will deserve what you get.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

As I said, my point was to show an example of the precision required when framing legal compromises, but that my priority id for you to reply to my previous reply to you: Posted 15 hours ago

Then we can proceed to discuss compromises, including the one I opened the door for discussing with you.

I believe the framers of the Constitution created a country where ALL are created equally under its laws.(See 14th Amendment)  That means that a gay person, a black person, a religious person, a woman, a disabled person should always, under the law, be treated the same.  If you can't discriminate against a black person, then you can't discriminate against a gay person.  If marriage is legally allowed for one group, then marriage is allowed for all.  Religion does not dictate who can and who can not get married in this country.  There has to be legitimate reasons if there are exceptions to be made.  This seems to be also the view of the Court.

The Constitution also is pretty clear that a religion can not be restricted by what it believes and how it practices it's beliefs.  So let's say a religion believes that a black person is cursed by God.  Lets say that they believe that the Bible clearly teaches that the role for black people God has assigned is that the black race is suppose to be servants to all other races.  The religion uses these Biblical passages to support such beliefs such as Genesis 9:18-27

Quote

And the sons of Noah that went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole world overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.

Can the Federal Government forbid a religion to have such a belief?  The Constitution says no.  But does that mean that religious belief trumps all other laws of the country?  Can a person own a slave if that is their sincerely held religious belief?  Can a restaurant owned by a Christian refused service to a black person?  Can a baker refuse to bake a cake for an inter-racial wedding?  Can they refuse housing for someone because they are black?  The federal laws of this country say no to all of those examples despite a person's personally held religious beliefs.

What can a religion do.  Can a religious school refused to hire black teachers?  Can they refuse to offer housing to black students?  Can religion refuse to marry black people?  Can religion refuse to allow a black person into its temples?  Can a religion refuse to baptize black people into its church?  Can a religion subjugate women, to be subservient to their husbands within its organization?  The Constitution seems to be saying yes to all of those questions.  Religion can have any belief it wants and practice those beliefs any way it wants.  What it can't do is to use those beliefs to trump the laws of the country or impose those beliefs on the rest of the citizens of this country.

Why am I using race as the litmus test?  Because as a nation, we have already gone through much of the deciding of what a religion can and can't do in regards to how it interacts with the public based on its sincerely held religious beliefs. There is a large body of legal cases that have addressed equality and discrimination vs religious beliefs.  If the Constitution states that ALL are equal under the laws of this country then how a religion is required to treat a black person under the laws of this country both within its religion and in public should be no different than how a religion should treat a gay person under the laws of this country.  The issue is the same.  And just as the government must treat everyone equally under the laws of this country, the government is required to treat all religious beliefs equally under the law.  It took over a hundred years to sort this out when it comes to race and religious beliefs.  The hard work is already done.

Edited June 24, 2020 by california boy

[california boy]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The problem with this is that the way religion could be defined is extremely broad. It's not just religious services, rites, ordinances etc. Part of the religious mission could be universities, charitable organizations, housing, employment etc. So finding the dividing line between what is truly part of the religious practice as opposed to what other activities is the religious organization involved in, is super sticky. And what is a "religious belief" is it any belief any person has IF they claim it is religious? If a religion teaches that gay behavior is a sin, does that also mean that the religious belief extends to believing that gay people shouldn't have the same rights to employment and housing?

In short, yes, LGBT people should be protected for employment at DI or Salvation Army or wherever. If a government license and certification is required by the government for an organization to participate in adoption placements, then yes, that group shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against gay couples. If religious organizations receive tax exemptions and/or credits or government funds, then they should not be allowed to discriminate. For example, if BYU receives federal funds, then it shouldn't be able to fire an employee or refuse a student who is gay. The church is a very large employer in Utah. Can they fire a financial analyst at the COB or an investor at one of their investment firms, or a janitor who works for church facilities, or a mechanic who works in the motor pool. Whatever. If they are gay, they can be fired because a church is the one doing the firing. I don't think so. If they demand to discriminate I believe any religious organization should be stripped of its federal financial backing in the forms or grants, tax exemptions etc.

I've been on the other side for the majority of my life so I understand the positions. IF religion is going to receive government funds then they should be held to the same federal standards as everyone else. If the religious organization doesn't want to be held to that standard they could reject federal funds.

It would be wrong to tell religion what they can teach and what their doctrines and beliefs should be. They can believe whatever they want. They can do whatever they want in the churches and temples. They can live or die in the free market of ideas. But what they can't do, is discriminate against people (whether black, or gay, or whatever) in ways that affect their physical well-being of housing and employment. If the church wants to be truly independent of government oversight it should rid itself of any perks they receive from the government for being a member of the society.

Lets also remember that the distinction between being gay or Same Sx attracted is a pretty recent phenomena. So discrimination against gays was more than just against people who behaved in a certain way. But fortunately that church teaching/belief has changed and now it's accepting of SSA on conditions of celibacy.

I don't disagree with you.  As I said in the above post, all are equal under the law.  So everyone should be treated equally under the law.  The same laws that protect religion and protect a person because of their race should also protect a gay person.

As far as thrift stores and other businesses a church might own, it still operates that business under all of the laws that govern that pertain to that type of business.  It may be owned by a church, but it is still a business.  

 

[Daniel2]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

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:

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.

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.

 

Smac,

I agree with most of what you wrote above.  A few of my thoughts:

1. Let Each Side Speak for Itself: 

I fully support this concept, and heartily agree that "each side should stop presuming to speak for the other side."  In recent years, I have ardently striven to avoid accusations of "hate" or attributing any sort of motivating malintent to or on Latter-day Saints' actions and beliefs as they relate to LGBT issues, even ones that could be perceived and are often wrongly accused of being 'hateful.'  I have striven to avoid using the terms you denounce ("hater," "bigot," and "homophobe").

With the above said, it's worth pointing out that "Letting each side speak for itself" needs to flow both ways.  You've pointed out a few things you wish would occur from the pro-LGBT side.  Allow me to point out a few flowing from the pro-LDS side:   Accusations leveled against the pro-LGBT by the pro-LDS side include mischaracterizing all of us by employing both behaviors and/or statements by the most radical leftist, non-mainstream LGBT individuals. 

In fact, I didn't even have to look any further than the post immediately following yours, in this very thread, in which Islander quotes a woman named Marsha Gessen, whom he deems "a gay activist," who he says said, “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...". 

Several posts later, Calm calls him out on his appeal to the alleged authority of Ms. Gessen by saying, "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."

Rather than letting the opposing side 'speak for herself, Islander re-asserts that he knows better than Calm (or any other Pro-LGBT individuals) by saying, "She is just not anybody. She is a leader in the LGBT community and quite the spokesperson. Part of the braintrust of the lobby that paved the way for the current state of affairs. I take her at her word."   

I am tired of defending my civil rights by having to answer, rationalize, or refute extremist quotes that are trotted around by anti-LGBT individuals who assert that an entire civil rights movement should be characterized by some radical individual who does not speak for the LGBT majority, serves no meaningful position on any major LGBT civil rights organization, and is only used to paint me and those like me in the ugliest terms. 

Now, you claim that LGBT individuals "target Christians for 'lawfare'," calling it an "exercise in egregious lawfare targeting Christians," and suggesting that "the legislative process should be used more."  Smac, ironically, this is an area where you seem to me to have a blind spot, if you are unable to see that your own words, here, are an example of you impute onto the LGBT individuals "the worst of motives."  I have to ask if it's entirely outside the scope of your ability to stop from your own prejudgement and take Mr.'s Craig and Mullins at their own word that when they walked into Masterpiece Bakery, they had no malintent towards Mr. Phillips, but instead simply wanted and expected, in the United States of America, to be treated the same as any of their fellow citizens and be able to buy a wedding cake from a bakery in the same as any other couple would expect to be able to buy and with the same equal treatment.   

Even if they chose Mr. Phillips because they were aware of his intention to deny services to LGBT individuals and with the goal of asking the court to intervene, how is their intent different from those African Americans who willingly and willfully chose to 'sit in' at businesses who were on record that they would not serve blacks?  I submit that most do not condemn the actions of and attribute the worst of intentions upon those African Americans who were tired of mistreatment in the public square, and history looks back upon them as entirely justified and agents the moral right (not wrong) to sit down and demand that if they did not get equal treatment by the businesses or the legislature, that they would turn to the courts to intervene, as their last and only recourse.

In echoing your words, comments like Islander''s employment of Ms. Gessen and your own characterization of Mr.'s Craig and Mullins' actions are both implicit imputations of motives, and to impute onto the LGBT movement the worst of motives. 

As you said of our side (and with which I agree), that also needs to stop from you and yours.

And to paraphrase what you have also said: as long as LDS folks insist on speaking on behalf of members of the LGBT community, 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.

Hopefully we all can move past such.  I'll comment on the rest of your post in a subsequent reply.

D

Edited June 24, 2020 by Daniel2

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

I believe the framers of the Constitution created a country where ALL are created equally under its laws.(See 14th Amendment)  That means that a gay person, a black person, a religious person, a woman, a disabled person should always, under the law, be treated the same.  If you can't discriminate against a black person, then you can't discriminate against a gay person.  If marriage is legally allowed for one group, then marriage is allowed for all.  Religion does not dictate who can and who can not get married in this country.  There has to be legitimate reasons if there are exceptions to be made.  This seems to be also the view of the Court.

The Constitution also is pretty clear that a religion can not be restricted by what it believes and how it practices it's beliefs.  So let's say a religion believes that a black person is cursed by God.  Lets say that they believe that the Bible clearly teaches that the role for black people God has assigned is that the black race is suppose to be servants to all other races.  The religion uses these Biblical passages to support such beliefs such as Genesis 9:18-27

Can the Federal Government forbid a religion to have such a belief?  The Constitution says no.  But does that mean that religious belief trumps all other laws of the country?  Can a person own a slave if that is their sincerely held religious belief?  Can a restaurant owned by a Christian refused service to a black person?  Can a baker refuse to bake a cake for an inter-racial wedding?  Can they refuse housing for someone because they are black?  The federal laws of this country say no to all of those examples despite a person's personally held religious beliefs.

What can a religion do.  Can a religious school refused to hire black teachers?  Can they refuse to offer housing to black students?  Can religion refuse to marry black people?  Can religion refuse to allow a black person into its temples?  Can a religion refuse to baptize black people into its church?  Can a religion subjugate women, to be subservient to their husbands within its organization?  The Constitution seems to be saying yes to all of those questions.  Religion can have any belief it wants and practice those beliefs any way it wants.  What it can't do is to use those beliefs to trump the laws of the country or impose those beliefs on the rest of the citizens of this country.

Why am I using race as the litmus test?  Because as a nation, we have already gone through much of the deciding of what a religion can and can't do in regards to how it interacts with the public based on its sincerely held religious beliefs. There is a large body of legal cases that have addressed equality and discrimination vs religious beliefs.  If the Constitution states that ALL are equal under the laws of this country then how a religion is required to treat a black person under the laws of this country both within its religion and in public should be no different than how a religion should treat a gay person under the laws of this country.  The issue is the same.  And just as the government must treat everyone equally under the laws of this country, the government is required to treat all religious beliefs equally under the law.  It took over a hundred years to sort this out when it comes to race and religious beliefs.  The hard work is already done.

This has NOTHING to do with answering my questions: Posted 20 hours ago

Hot air!

[Anonymous Mormon]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I hear what you're saying, but if the religion has a mission to feed hungry children in China, should they be allowed to fire a worker who is working for that cause because he is gay? Why would being gay prevent him from doing that job or interfere with the church's mission?

I don't understand why the mission precludes gay people or how gay people could damage that mission.

No- The NAACP shouldn't be allowed to hire or fire you based on your race or gender.

No, a business shouldn't be allowed to only hire 1 gender. That's the kind of behavior lawsuits are made of. It's discrimination.

You have a right to create a business to do whatever you want but that doesn't mean you are free from the consequences of your discrimination. You will be sued and will deserve what you get.

So if the government can control who I am allowed to hire to make sure that I am not discriminating, can they also make me hire according to certain quotas (a certain percentage black, white, latino, gay, transgender, etc.)? Could they also require me to make my sure the products I make are not discriminatory (so I have to have an equal percentage of Black & White characters on my Star Wars lunch boxes I make)?

I just think it's heavy-handed for the government to tell me who I have to employee in my private business or organization. I think the NAACP or FUBU should be allowed to hire 100% black people and not be sued. I think a women's clothing company that wants to empower women should be allowed to 100% hire women. I think a LGBT media company should be able to only hire people who are LGBT. A black college should be allowed to only hire black faculty and allow black students. A women's college should be able to only hire women faculty and allow women students (according to their definition of woman).  And a religious organization should be allowed to only hire people who are actively living the precepts of that religion.

Now if you want to say that for a company to be publicly traded on a stock exchange or for an organization to receive government funding it must follow certain guidelines, I think that is a different debate and argument. Maybe this is the kind of compromise that CaBoy is looking for. If BYU lost public funds because of the honor code not allowing transgender professors, there would be more of a debate. But for the government to tell me who I can hire or what I can make, or to give me quotas, or tell me how to run my private organization is against the constitution and feels down-right communist.

[Daniel2]

On 6/23/2020 at 1:02 PM, smac97 said:

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:

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.

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

Continuing those portions I hadn't commented on in my previous post:

RE: 3. Let's Be Patient:

I wholeheartedly agree that everyone should be patient with one another, while I disagree with your characterization that "these days it seems to be more about lawfare, public shaming, and threads, rather than thorough reasoning, evidence, and efforts to persuade."

RE: 4. Ultimate Differences of Opinion:

Again, I think most pro-LGBT individuals I know aren't asking, waiting, or expecting non-LGBT-affirming religions to change your views on the morality of homosexual (or transgender) behaviors.  

I do find it ironic that you accuse LGBT-affirming efforts of being "coercive," "shaming," and "publically denouncing" others, as well as denouncing such tactics as "fundamentally immoral." 

While I don't disagree that said tactics do and are occurring, and I do agree shaming tactics and public denouncements usually aren't productive, those of us on the LGBT-affirming side endure plenty of same types of attacks from the pro-religion side.  "Abominations," "fornicators," "sodomites," "sinners," "selfish," "lovers of one's selves," "destroyers of marriage and/or family," "desirous of destroying society as we know it"... you get the idea.  In a recent post of yours, you posted about how same-sex behaviors are "disgusting" to you.  [Please disregard this sentence; CFR issued and answered in subsequent posts; Smac did not say that same-sex behaviors are "disgusting" rather that the behavior of an employer who would fire an employee for being gay are repugnant]. Regardless of whether that's true (and I don't doubt it), it certainly didn't add anything productive to the conversation, and certainly struck me as adding to the culture of shame within Mormonism as it relates to same-sex relationships/behaviors.

RE: Acknowledge Changes/Improvements:

I'm not sure if you've missed my many posts on the topic, but I actively go out of my way to acknowledge, show appreciation for, and give kudos to any legal, social, and even religiously-based improvements related to the general standing of LGBT folks in society.  I've even started or commented in threads giving kudos to and for those within the LDS Faith as I've seen such advancements occur, as well as to state and federal government when they have, as well as SCOTUS (ironically, you called me 'giddy' about it.... another mis-attribution of the worst possible intent, but at least it's also an example of my giving credit where credit was due.... lol)... I know CB has likewise been vocal in such improvements, as well as other LGBT-affirming posters.  When you say, "that's not happening much," who do you feel is being remiss in seeing or acknowledging such?  

Thanks,

Daniel2

Edited June 24, 2020 by Daniel2

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Smac,

I agree with most of what you wrote above.  A few of my thoughts:

1. Let Each Side Speak for Itself: 

I fully support this concept, and heartily agree that "each side should stop presuming to speak for the other side."  In recent years, I have ardently striven to avoid accusations of "hate" or attributing any sort of motivating malintent to or on Latter-day Saints' actions and beliefs as they relate to LGBT issues, even ones that could be perceived and are often wrongly accused of being 'hateful.'  I have striven to avoid using the terms you denounce ("hater," "bigot," and "homophobe").

With the above said, it's worth pointing out that "Letting each side speak for itself" needs to flow both ways.  You've pointed out a few things you wish would occur from the pro-LGBT side.  Allow me to point out a few flowing from the pro-LDS side:   Accusations leveled against the pro-LGBT by the pro-LDS side include mischaracterizing all of us by employing both behaviors and/or statements by the most radical leftist, non-mainstream LGBT individuals. 

Okay.  It's kind of hard to define "the most radical leftist, non-mainstream LGBT individuals" and differentiate them from the rest of "the pro-LGBT side."  Given the amorphous nature of "the pro-LGBT side," could you provide some ideas as to how to affect this differentiation?  Who gets to decide what is "radical" and what is not?  What is "mainstream" and what is "non-mainstream"?

Quote

In fact, I didn't even have to look any further than the post immediately following yours, in this very thread, in which Islander quotes a woman named Marsha Gessen, whom he deems "a gay activist," who he says said, “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...". 

This quote is included in Robert R. Reilly's Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything (259 reviews on Amazon).  This usage would seem to comport with what you are saying here.  It's also used in Stand Strong America: Courage, Freedom, and Hope for Tomorrow by Alex McFarland and Jason Jimenez (5 reviews on Amazon).  And in Homosexual Terrorism: Rainbow Perversion by David A. Swincer (no reviews on Amazon).  It's also used here (2013 article), and here.

So is Masha Gessen to be dismissed as a "radical leftist, non-mainstream LGBT individual?"  Or does she have some prominence on "the pro-LGBT side?"  Well, Princeton professor Robert P. George has this to say:

Quote

Masha Gessen is a talented writer. Her widely praised (and sharply critical) biography of Vladimir Putin is only the most recent of her books across a range of subjects from Russian history, to mathematics, to the social implications of modern genetics. On top of her exertions as an author, she has served as Director of the Russian service of the U.S. government–funded Radio Liberty. She is a self-identified lesbian and a leading activist in the U.S. and Russia. (She holds citizenship in both countries.) Although she is anything but a fringe figure within the movement, she is notable for her candor in discussing its beliefs and goals. At last year’s meeting of the Sydney Writers’ Festival (audio here ) she spoke plainly:

It’s a no-brainer that (homosexuals) 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 . . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—-because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally . . . . I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three . . . . And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.

Well?  Is Gessen "a leading activist in the U.S. and Russia?"  Is she "anything but a fringe figure within the movement"?

Quote

Just imagine the uproar had, say, Rick Santorum said , ” Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what [they] are going to do with marriage when [they] get there—-because [they] lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.” But, of course, you don’t have to take it from Rick Santorum or other defenders of marriage as a conjugal union. Masha Gessen will tell you the same thing.

Although Gessen’s willingness to put the matter in terms of “lying” is startlingly frank, it is no longer uncommon for advocates of redefining marriage to acknowledge that the effect—-for them an entirely desirable effect—-of redefinition will be the radical transformation of the institution. The objective is not merely to expand the pool of people eligible to participate in it, as was long claimed. In conceding (and celebrating the fact) that redefining marriage will fundamentally alter the institution, transform its social role and meaning, and undermine its structuring norms of monogamy, exclusivity, etc., Gessen is far from out of step with other leading figures in the movement. She joins influential NYU sociologist Judith Stacey, Arizona State University professor Elizabeth Brake, “It Gets Better” founder Dan Savage, writer Victoria Brownworth, journalist E. J. Graff, activist Michelangelo Signorile, and countless other important scholars and activists.  Moreover, there seem to be very few prominent scholars and activists in the movement to redefine marriage who are criticizing Masha Gessen, Judith Stacey, Elizabeth Brake, and the others, and speaking out for the norms of monogamy and fidelity and other traditional marital and familial ideals. Many are quiet, but few actually deny that the abandonment of the conjugal understanding of marriage will have the transformative institutional and social effects that Gessen, Stacey, Brake and the others (approvingly) say it will have.

Well?  Is Gessen "out of step" with Stacy, Brake, Savage, Brownworth, Graff, Signorile "and countless other important scholars and activists?"

This article compiles a number of quotes that seem to coincide with what Gessen said:

Quote

"Opting out of marriage altogether will provide a quicker path to progress, as only the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality for all."
--  Dr. Meagan Tyler
Lecturer in Sociology at Victoria University.

"The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?"
--  David Vakalis

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. {Legalizing "same-sex marriage"} is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”
--  Michelangelo Signorile
OUT magazine,  December/January 1994

"And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit..."
-- Ryan Conrad

"But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships."
-- Sally Kohn
Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead!

"Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution? ...Scrap the civil register; make no distinction in the state's eyes between married and unmarried citizens."
--  Alex Gabriel
Politics.co.uk

"Marriage is the proverbial burning building.  Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"
--  National Conference on Organized Resistance

"We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there."
-- Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto
London, 1971, revised 1978

“Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society’s views of reality." [source]
-- Paula Ettelbruck
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Daniel, I want to give serious consideration to what you are saying here.  But it seems like you are trying to marginalize Masha Gessen not because her remarks exemplify "the most radical leftist, non-mainstream LGBT individuals," but because they are inconveniently candid and uncontroversial (in the community).

Quote

Several posts later, Calm calls him out on his appeal to the alleged authority of Ms. Gessen by saying, "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."

I don't think anyone is saying "all" LGBT folks subscribe to the sentiments expressed by Ms. Gessen.  Rather, the issue is whether her remarks are in the "LGBT" community seen as fringy and extremist, or else mainstream and acceptable.  Given the above remarks by Prof. George, and the compilation of quotes from other well-known activists (so well-known that even I have heard of them), it's hard for me to follow you in dismissing Gessen as too "radical" and "non-mainstream" to represent sentiments and ideas within the LGBT community.  Those sentiments don't need to be universally held to be noteworthy and emblematic.

Quote

Rather than letting the opposing side 'speak for herself, Islander re-asserts that he knows better than Calm (or any other Pro-LGBT individuals) by saying, "She is just not anybody. She is a leader in the LGBT community and quite the spokesperson. Part of the braintrust of the lobby that paved the way for the current state of affairs. I take her at her word."   

Well, is she a "leader" or not?  Prof. George seems to make a decent case for her standing in the community.

Are her remarks seen as "radical" and "non-mainstream" in the LGBT community?  I would think we could test that a bit.  Can you point me to any criticisms about or rebuttals to Ms. Gessen's remarks by other LGBT writers, leaders, etc.?

Quote

I am tired of defending my civil rights by having to answer, rationalize, or refute extremist quotes that are trotted around by anti-LGBT individuals who assert that an entire civil rights movement should be characterized by some radical individual who does not speak for the LGBT majority, serves no meaningful position on any major LGBT civil rights organization, and is only used to paint me and those like me in the ugliest terms. 

I understand.  The issue, though, seems to be whether Gessen is just "some radical individual" spouting ideosyncratic piffle, or whether she is a widely-known and -regarded representative of the LGBT community who is expressing ideas that are neither unique to her nor markedly controversial in that community.

Quote

Now, you claim that LGBT individuals "target Christians for 'lawfare'," calling it an "exercise in egregious lawfare targeting Christians," and suggesting that "the legislative process should be used more." 

That has happened, yes.

Quote

Smac, ironically, this is an area where you seem to me to have a blind spot, if you are unable to see that your own words, here, are an example of you impute onto the LGBT individuals "the worst of motives." 

No need to impute.  I'm familiar with the factual backstory pertaining to Mr. Phillips.

Quote

I have to ask if it's entirely outside the scope of your ability to stop from your own prejudgement and take Mr.'s Craig and Mullins at their own word that when they walked into Masterpiece Bakery, they had no malintent towards Mr. Phillips, but instead simply wanted and expected, in the United States of America, to be treated the same as any of their fellow citizens and be able to buy a wedding cake from a bakery in the same as any other couple would expect to be able to buy and with the same equal treatment.   

I have to ask if it's entirely outside the scope of your ability to stop stacking the deck.

What you are describing seems to be at odds a bit with what actually happened (see, e.g., here and here).

Quote

As you said of our side (and with which I agree), that also needs to stop from you and yours.

I agree with this sentiment.

But quoting Masha Gessen is not a violation of it.  Not on its face.  You are dismissing her as some fringy whacko, but that does not seem to be accurate.

Quote

And to paraphrase what you have also said: as long as LDS folks insist on speaking on behalf of members of the LGBT community,

Again, Islander was not "speaking on behalf of members of the LGBT community."  He quoted a member of that community.  Surely you appreciate the difference.

Quote

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.

You find Gessen's remarks to be "hateful and vicious?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 24, 2020 by smac97

[Anonymous Mormon]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

You know there are solid arguments on both sides of this issue, and I am sure you have heard them both.  Since this thread is about trying to find a middle ground, would you accept that the baker would be required to bake the cake, even if it was a special kind of cake that they bake only on demand.  Ask what color the outside frosting should be and then give them the frosting to decorate it themselves.  Neither side gets everything they want, but each side gets part of what they want.  

I agree that this kind of compromise is the best possible solution. I would hope that a true follower of Christ would look for this compromise and try to suggest it. I think this is exactly what Christ is asking of his followers when he says:

Quote

Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him

But the question becomes is it the governments job to force a private individual or a private organization / small business to do the right thing? I'm not so sure it is.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

Continuing those portions I hadn't commented on in my previous post:

RE: 3. Let's Be Patient:

I wholeheartedly agree that everyone should be patient with one another, while I disagree with your characterization that "these days it seems to be more about lawfare, public shaming, and threads, rather than thorough reasoning, evidence, and efforts to persuade."

Okay.  Sounds like we're making some progress.

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

RE: 4. Ultimate Differences of Opinion:

Again, I think most pro-LGBT individuals I know aren't asking, waiting, or expecting non-LGBT-affirming religions to change your views on the morality of homosexual (or transgender) behaviors.  

I hope that is the case.  Dan Reynolds, for example, is on record as demanding that the Church change its doctrines.  See here ("He has talked with church leaders about the issue and hopes to continue doing so but said the church's 'platitudes are empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex.").

Is he, like Gessen, to be dismissed as a fringy whacko?  

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

I do find it ironic that you accuse LGBT-affirming efforts of being "coercive," "shaming," and "publically denouncing" others, as well as denouncing such tactics as "fundamentally immoral." 

Well, I'm willing to listen.  I think "shaming" and "publicly denouncing" others by imputing motives onto them is "fundamentally immoral."  What is ironic about that?

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

While I don't disagree that said tactics do and are occurring, and I do agree shaming tactics and public denouncements usually aren't productive, those of us on the LGBT-affirming side endure plenty of same types of attacks from the pro-religion side.  "Abominations," "fornicators," "sodomites," "sinners," "selfish," "lovers of one's selves," "destroyers of marriage and/or family," "desirous of destroying society as we know it"... you get the idea. 

Yes, I do.

Still not seeing the irony, though.

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

In a recent post of yours, you posted about how same-sex behaviors are "disgusting" to you. 

CFR, please.

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

RE: Acknowledge Changes/Improvements:

I'm not sure if you've missed my many posts on the topic, but I actively go out of my way to acknowledge, show appreciation for, and give kudos to any legal, social, and even religiously-based improvements related to the general standing of LGBT folks in society.  I've even started or commented in threads giving kudos to and for those within the LDS Faith as I've seen such advancements occur, as well as to state and federal government when they have, as well as SCOTUS (ironically, you called me 'giddy' about it.... another mis-attribution of the worst possible intent, but at least it's also an example of my giving credit where credit was due.... lol)... I know CB has likewise been vocal in such improvements, as well as other LGBT-affirming posters.  When you say, "that's not happening much," who do you feel is being remiss in seeing or acknowledging such?  

No.  I have noticed your efforts, and they are appreciated.  That's why I said "that's not happening much" rather than "that's not happening at all."

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I dont' think religious rites are included. I think the slippery slope argument applies more to public perception. Once peoples views and beliefs start to change to be more accepting, it is scary for some to think about what will eventually be accepted. I think it's a fight for the hearts and minds of people, not against laws and government regulations.

This is very true. People are not so much worried about government compelling them to do anything and are more worried about being scorned for their beliefs. Somehow it has crept into the minds of many that the First Amendment is intended to protect people from having others think their beliefs are odious when the only intent is that government cannot intervene to stop you from saying it. If it ruins your reputation and costs you your friends and your job that is not the role of government to fix. California Boy is suggesting the tact that we can reach reasonable accommodations so we don't have to go down that road. While I am not optimistic that we will if it were up to me we should take it.

The Church weighed in politically on the topic. We fought. We sort of won and then we lost. The leaders have accepted reality and moved on to build what we can. Members should do the same. 

This is true of most religious freedom worries. They are going to be decided on the social level and not generally in the courts. If we are reasonable we have a better chance of holding on to things like release time seminary, the nativity display my city is involved in, being able to rent public accommodations for meetings, etc. The little things that help communities continue on. If we decide instead to gnaw on old controversies we will be sidelined and ostracized and lose what accommodations we have and holding up the constitution and crying about it won't magically make them come back.

[Daniel2]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  It's kind of hard to define "the most radical leftist, non-mainstream LGBT individuals" and differentiate them from the rest of "the pro-LGBT side."  Given the amorphous nature of "the pro-LGBT side," could you provide some ideas as to how to affect this differentiation?  Who gets to decide what is "radical" and what is not?  What is "mainstream" and what is "non-mainstream"?

This quote is included in Robert R. Reilly's Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything (259 reviews on Amazon).  This usage would seem to comport with what you are saying here.  It's also used in Stand Strong America: Courage, Freedom, and Hope for Tomorrow by Alex McFarland and Jason Jimenez (5 reviews on Amazon).  And in Homosexual Terrorism: Rainbow Perversion by David A. Swincer (no reviews on Amazon).  It's also used here (2013 article), and here.

So is Masha Gessen to be dismissed as a "radical leftist, non-mainstream LGBT individual?"  Or does she have some prominence on "the pro-LGBT side?"  Well, Princeton professor Robert P. George has this to say:

Well?  Is Gessen "a leading activist in the U.S. and Russia?"  Is she "anything but a fringe figure within the movement"?

Well?  Is Gessen "out of step" with Stacy, Brake, Savage, Brownworth, Graff, Signorile "and countless other important scholars and activists?"

This article compiles a number of quotes that seem to coincide with what Gessen said:

Daniel, I want to give serious consideration to what you are saying here.  But it seems like you are trying to marginalize Masha Gessen not because her remarks exemplify "the most radical leftist, non-mainstream LGBT individuals," but because they are inconveniently candid.

I don't think anyone is saying "all" LGBT folks subscribe to the sentiments expressed by Ms. Gessen.  Rather, the issue is whether her remarks are in the "LGBT" community seen as fringy and extremist, or else mainstream and acceptable.  Given the above remarks by Prof. George, and the compilation of quotes from other well-known activists (so well-known that even I have heard of them), it's hard for me to follow you in dismissing Gessen as too "radical" and "non-mainstream" to represent sentiments and ideas within the LGBT community.  Those sentiments don't need to be universally held to be noteworthy and emblematic.

Well, is she a "leader" or not?  Prof. George seems to make a decent case for her standing in the community.

Are her remarks seen as "radical" and "non-mainstream" in the LGBT community?  I would think we could test that a bit.  Can you point me to any criticisms about or rebuttals to Ms. Gessen's remarks by other LGBT writers, leaders, etc.?

I understand.  The issue, though, seems to be whether Gessen is just "some radical individual" spouting ideosyncratic piffle, or whether she is a widely-known and -regarded representative of the LGBT community who is expressing ideas that are neither unique to her nor markedly controversial in that community.

That has happened, yes.

No need to impute.  I'm familiar with the factual backstory pertaining to Mr. Phillips.

I have to ask if it's entirely outside the scope of your ability to stop stacking the deck.

What you are describing seems to be at odds a bit with what actually happened (see, e.g., here and here).

I agree with this sentiment.

But quoting Masha Gessen is not a violation of it.  Not on its face.  You are dismissing her as some fringy whacko, but that does not seem to be accurate.

Again, Islander was not "speaking on behalf of members of the LGBT community."  He quoted a member of that community.  Surely you appreciate the difference.

You find Gessen's remarks to be "hateful and vicious?"

Thanks,

-Smac

How many books quote a person isn't an indication of whether their views are widely accepted or not.  I could easily find quotes by Brigham Young across a plethora of literature that you would likely consider "anti-Mormon," yet I imagine you'd assert the quotes by Young aren't reflective of your beliefs as a Latter-day Saint. 

I continue to assert that whatever an author's literary contributions to LGBT/Queer thought or history, Ms. Gessen is not active as a leader in the current LGBT Civil Rights movement in the United States.  As I said in my previous posts: she "serves no meaningful position on any major LGBT civil rights organization."  As someone who's been active in the HRC (Human Rights Campaign) and Equality Utah (the two largest regional and national politically-active pro-LGBT lobbying groups) for over a decade now, I had to even Google who she is... I've never heard her discussed, her opinions voiced, or the sentiments she's advocated for as part of any platform.  She's an author and has written articles in numerous magazines; that doesn't make her a leader.  In fact, though she moved to the US from Russia in her teens, she moved back to Russia in adulthood, and is apparently known as one of "Russia's greatest LGBT advocates."  No... I don't accept that her views "lead" the LGBT Civil Rights movement in America, especially when she isn't engaged in any of the actual organizations actually working to affect change.

Yes, Islander quoted her "a member of the LGBT community;" the quote wasn't his error, nor was his 'taking her at her own word' (since, of course, she speaks for herself).'  Rather, Islander's error was in implying that Ms. Gessen's views and goals are ultimately reflective of the entire LGBT Civil Rights movement in America. 

As I said, I can find fringe comments by Mormons that are published across numerous books that I'm sure you would reject as authoritative on LDS belief and culture. But let's not pretend such naysayers reflect the views of the whole.

Thanks,

Daniel

[california boy]

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This has NOTHING to do with answering my questions: Posted 20 hours ago

Hot air!

I was specifically responding to the core of your post

Quote

What civil rights are denied in my suggestions? What more than civil rights are you seeking? What are you willing to compromise to place these laws and rights on a par with civil rights and their protection?

It is troubling for you to call a dialogue about guaranteed Constitutional rights and settled law concerning those rights hot air.  But, hey, probably easier than a thoughtful response.  So I will let it stand.

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

How many books quote a person isn't an indication of whether their views are widely accepted or not. 

You misunderstand.  I was compiling usages of the quote that support what you are saying.

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I continue to assert that whatever an author's literary contributions to LGBT/Queer thought or history, Ms. Gessen is not active as a leader in the current LGBT Civil Rights movement in the United States. 

Okay.  I previously asked, and now ask again: Can you point me to any criticisms about or rebuttals to Ms. Gessen's remarks by other LGBT writers, leaders, etc.?

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

As I said in my previous posts: she "serves no meaningful position on any major LGBT civil rights organization." 

And I quoted Prof. George as a sort of rebuttal to your assertion.  I also quoted various other prominent folks who are saying things that seem to dovetail quite easily with what Gessen said.

So your assertion is not substantiated.  Meanwhile, I think Prof. George's characterization of her prominence, and of the lack of controversy pertaining to her remarks, are compelling.

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

As someone who's been active in the HRC (Human Rights Campaign) and Equality Utah (the two largest regional and national politically-active pro-LGBT lobbying groups) for over a decade now, I had to even Google who she is... I've never heard her discussed, her opinions voiced, or the sentiments she's advocated for as part of any platform.  She's an author and has written articles in numerous magazines; that doesn't make her a leader.  In fact, though she moved to the US from Russia in her teens, she moved back to Russia in adulthood, and is apparently known as one of "Russia's greatest LGBT advocates."  No... I don't accept that her views "lead" the LGBT Civil Rights movement in America, especially when she isn't engaged in any of the actual organizations actually working to affect change.

Well, okay.  I remain stuck on A) Prof. George's assessment, B) the various other corollary quotes that seem to contextualize Gessen's remarks as being neither controversial or out of the mainstream in the LGBT community, and C) a lack of any rebuttal or rejection of Gessen's remarks by anyone else in the LGBT community.

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Yes, Islander quoted her "a member of the LGBT community;" the quote wasn't his error, nor was his 'taking her at her own word' (since, of course, she speaks for herself).'  Rather, Islander's error was in implying that Ms. Gessen's views and goals are ultimately reflective of the entire LGBT Civil Rights movement in America. 

I am not sure he was doing that.  "Reflective of the entire LGBT Civil Rights movement in America" seems to be quite an exaggeration.

Obviously the "LGBT community" has a diversity of viewpoints.  My question is whether Gessen's remarks are controversial or substantially out of step with the various other community leaders noted by Prof. George, or with the various people I quoted above (Meagan Tyler, Michelangelo Signorile, Sally Kohn, Paula Ettelbruck, etc.).  You are saying "yes," but Prof. George and my survey of quotes from various other community members would seem to elicit an alternative response.

Thanks,

-Smac