We Can Find Common Ground on Gay Rights and Religious Liberty

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

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:

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.

I understand your question and agree it needs to be questioned and addressed.  That is why we live in a country that votes and passes laws, that allows for dialogue in the public square.  We have a Constitution that guarantees certain civil rights.  We have a Supreme Court whose job it is to defend those guaranteed rights.  And we have a way of amending that Constitution if the majority of Americans want to change those civil rights.  We even have a way of getting rid of Supreme Court justices that have gone off the rails. We have a way our elected representatives can pass laws within that constitutional framework.  What I am not seeing is a role in Government that religion has been given to decide what the laws of this country are other than pushing and lobbying for changes within that framework.

I certainly could be persuaded to change the way a private business is allowed to operate.  I just want those changes to be across the board and not directed at any specific group.  I fight for the right of everyone to change unjust laws.  I fight for keeping government power in check.  I just want those changes to come from the framework that our government is based upon. If that requires testing laws through the judicial system, then that is exactly what should happen.  After all, that is also part of the framework of government.  

[Daniel2]

56 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

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

 

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.

I'll work on responding to the rest of your posts, but wanted to answer the CFR first:

I searched for the post in question, and was wrong on two counts: a) the word you used was repugnant (not disgusting) and b) I misread the sentance as applying to the employee (and his homosexual behavior), but upon verifying, you actually were referring to the employer's behavior of firing someone because of being gay as what was actually repugnant:

The actual quote was ""Homosexual" being a reference to being attracted to a person of the same sex. The employer's behavior, while repugnant to you and me, is not prohibited by the Civil Rights Act."

 

As you can see, I misread your quote and wrongly took it for the exact opposite of what you had intended to say.  My apologies. 

[california boy]

34 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

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

There is NO person who speaks for the LGBT community no matter who they are, what position they hold or how many books they have written.  Even GLADD doesn't speak for the LGBT community.  They speak for their organization within the LGBT community.  We don't have a hierarchy that rules over us.  If someone wants to present an idea or a belief and claim it is a generally held belief, the only way to do that honestly is by sighting poll numbers that actually reflect a general majority of opinion answered by those identifying as LGBT.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

I was specifically responding to the core of your post

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.

Not so fast ! I'll list them out to make it easy:

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 [that you are seeking] on a par with civil rights and their protection?

I ask these questions because you objected to my observation that organized religion and individual identity can be placed on equal ground by recognizing that feelings are the basis of both religion and self-identity; that property, life, limb, safety, etc. (civil rights) can typically be preserved without coerced material transactions with an unwilling party; and,  both religion and identity are more sacred than setting the bar at material transactions.

You also objected to my suggestion that duty to rescue laws could be expanded.

So I asked these questions, but I didn't see anything addressing them. Maybe post your reply next to each question so that I might see the tie-in. Thank you!

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

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.

So it sounds like you are saying that you believe businesses should be allowed to discriminate however they like. Whatever makes them comfortable. I disagree. Not only is that kind of discrimination unjust but that kind of lack of diversity also weakens an organization

I'm not aware of any quotas for hiring, BUT if a lawsuit is brought showing that your business hires only whites, or only men then you will have to justify that and/or face some consequences.

I don't want to live in a society where I walk down the street and see signs saying "whites only" or "no gays". That's the world of the past and that element was ugly. I'm reminded of the song Signs. "The signs says long-haired hippy people, need not apply". Just because any person can put a sign in front of their business saying something like "we reserve the right to deny service to non-whites" or whatever, doesn't make it acceptable. In my opinion the market will weed out those small shops fast enough, but there is still systemic discrimination in large organizations that shouldn't be allowed. If employers misbehave and act in bigoted ways they will and should be held accountable.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

57 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Do you believe that church leaders have accepted reality and moved on? They have fought and continue to fight for every inch until they lose it. Taking a step back to prepare for the next battle isn't really moving on   If anything, I believe the members are pushing the church towards positive change. Leadership is flowing upwards.

I guess I would disagree with the characterization that fighting the continued battles for equal civil rights would amount to gnawing "on old controversies". Legal judgement was passed but it will be challenged in numerous ways. Those being discriminated against will undoubtedly face many tests as they push back against the discrimination. Until society actually changes these battles will continue.

 

[Daniel2]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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.?

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.

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.

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

Hmm.  Your suggestion to  "1. Let Each Side Speak for Itself" and toi "stop presuming to speak for the other side" didn't last more than two pages, did it....?

No, I can't point to any criticisms about or rebuttals to Ms. Gessen's remarks by other LGBT writers, leaders, etc---------because as I just reiterated in my last post, I've never even HEARD of her at ANY rally, meeting, fundraiser, dinner, gathering, etc. EXCEPT on this board, when anti-LGBT writers have dried to 'dig up dirt' on what the REAL motives are by those of us who want equal civil rights and claim to "know better" than I as to what my real goals and motivations are.

How can I point to other LGBT writers and leaders rebutting something and someone who hasn't even been the smallest part of my own LGBT experience?

Moreover, beyond acknowledging Ms. Gessen's words reflect her own views (as the words of any others who sympathize or agree with her only reflect their own views) why must I be forced to defend and justify my actions, motivations, and experiences, as well as the views of other LGBT individuals and groups with whom I've had direct experience with, in the face of what such others have said?

How is that in keeping with your plea to "Let Each Side Speak for Itself"?

As I've said, in over 10 years of activism to secure equal marital, employment, housing, and public accommodations protections for myself and others, and in interacting with thousands of other individuals, activists, organizations, and leaders, not once has anyone ever mentioned this woman, nor her goals.  We want to be treated as equal citizens.  Equal civil marriage of same-sex relationships does not destroy anyone else's marriages; Ms. Gessen's views on marriage and her ultimate goal to destroy it do not change my committment to my husband or children or grandchildren; her goal is not my goal, her views and those who agree with her are their own. 

I can authoritatively say that I have probably interacted with a lot more members of the LGBT community than most of you here on this board (with some possible exceptions), and in that vast experience, this woman does not reflect the goals of those that fight for LGBT equality.

If you want to dismiss what I'm saying and believe Ms. Gessen and those others that agree with her, then.... well.... I guess you may want to revisit your "Let Each Side Speak for Itself" idea.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Daniel2

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Quote

Quote

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

CFR, please.

I'll work on responding to the rest of your posts, but wanted to answer the CFR first:

I searched for the post in question, and was wrong on two counts: a) the word you used was repugnant (not disgusting) and b) I misread the sentance as applying to the employee (and his homosexual behavior), but upon verifying, you actually were referring to the employer's behavior of firing someone because of being gay as what was actually repugnant:

The actual quote was ""Homosexual" being a reference to being attracted to a person of the same sex. The employer's behavior, while repugnant to you and me, is not prohibited by the Civil Rights Act."

 

As you can see, I misread your quote and wrongly took it for the exact opposite of what you had intended to say.  My apologies. 

No worries.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 24, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Wow.  Your suggestion to  "1. Let Each Side Speak for Itself" and toi "stop presuming to speak for the other side" didn't last more than two pages, did it....?

I don't understand.

8 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

No, I can't point to any criticisms about or rebuttals to Ms. Gessen's remarks by other LGBT writers, leaders, etc---------because as I just reiterated in my last post, I've never even HEARD of her at ANY rally, meeting, fundraiser, dinner, gathering, etc. EXCEPT on this board, when anti-LGBT writers have dried to 'dig up dirt' on what the REAL motives are by those of us who want equal civil rights and claim to "know better" than I as to what my real goals and motivations are.

Okay.

8 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

How can I point to other LGBT writers and leaders rebutting something and someone who hasn't even been the smallest part of my own LGBT experience?

You were asserting that she has no standing in the community.  Prof. George says she does, so I was wondering if you could substantiate your position.

8 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Moreover, beyond acknowledging Ms. Gessen's words reflect her own views (as the words of any others who sympathize or agree with her only reflect their own views) why must I be forced to defend and justify my actions, motivations, and experiences, as well as the views of other LGBT individuals and groups with whom I've had direct experience with, in the face of what such others have said?

I'm not asking you to do that.

8 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

How is that in keeping with your plea to "Let Each Side Speak for Itself"?

See above.

8 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

If you want to dismiss what I'm saying and believe Ms. Gessen and those others that agree with her, then.... well.... I guess you may want to revisit your "Let Each Side Speak for Itself" idea.

Quoting Ms. Gessen is not in conflict with letting each side speak for itself.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.

Okay.

You were asserting that she has no standing in the community.  Prof. George says she does, so I was wondering if you could substantiate your position.

I'm not asking you to do that.

See above.

Quoting Ms. Gessen is not in conflict with letting each side speak for itself.

Thanks,

-Smac

While I never said Ms. Gessen has "no standing" in the community (I believe I said she was a fringe voice, which others you have quoted may disagreed with), it is true that she certainly has no standing with any of the members of the LGBT movement that I've interacted with.  FWIW, I can't and wouldn't presume to be the sole voice of the entire LGBT community, and my words reflect only my experience, and the experiences I've had with others.

I've already explicitly said there was no problem in Islander's quoting Ms. Gessen.

In fact, I specifically said, "Islander quoted her as "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 realize you think I overstated it when I implied he was suggesting her words spoke on behalf of, "the entire LGBT Civil Rights movement in America."  But even if I overstated exactly what he was or wasn't implying,  I think it's hard to miss that anytime I've seen anyone invokes Ms. Gessen's quote, it sure seems like they're doing so at the very least in an attempt to imply her views are broadly but secretly reflective of 'the real' aim of a hidden majority of the LGBT movement.

I think I'm done for the day.  Peace out.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Daniel2

[smac97]

Just now, Daniel2 said:

While I never said Ms. Gessen has "no standing" in the community (I believe I said she was a fringe voice, which others you have quoted may disagreed with), it is true that she certainly has no standing with any of the members of the LGBT movement that I've interacted with.

I've already explicitly said there was no problem in Islander's quoting Ms. Gessen.

In fact, I specifically said, "Islander quoted her as "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 realize you think I overstated it when I implied he was suggesting her words spoke on behalf of, "the entire LGBT Civil Rights movement in America."  But even if I overstated exactly what he was or wasn't implying,  I think it's hard to miss that anytime I've seen anyone invokes Ms. Gessen's quote, it sure seems like they're doing so at the very least in an attempt to imply her views are broadly but secretly reflective of 'the real' aim of a hidden majority of the LGBT movement.

I think I'm done for the day.  Peace out.

You're in a tough spot, Daniel.  The "LGBT community" is pretty amorphous.  There is no structure to it.  No particular or authoritative "leader" or leadership structure.  There is likely a very broad spectrum of viewpoints in that community, some of which conflict with each other.

You are asking that you not be held accountable for the words of Ms. Gessen.  That is a reasonable request.  I will honor it.

At the same time, I think there is a legitimate question of whether Ms. Gessen's remarks are - as you claim - fringy and extremist, or whether they are - as Prof. George indicates - fairly mainstream and uncontroversial in the community, even if not shared by "the entire LGBT Civil Rights movement in America" (emphasis added).

Your anecdotal experience in that community means something.  I acknowledge that.  I will take it under advisement.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Not so fast ! I'll list them out to make it easy:

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 [that you are seeking] on a par with civil rights and their protection?

I ask these questions because you objected to my observation that organized religion and individual identity can be placed on equal ground by recognizing that feelings are the basis of both religion and self-identity; that property, life, limb, safety, etc. (civil rights) can typically be preserved without coerced material transactions with an unwilling party; and,  both religion and identity are more sacred than setting the bar at material transactions.

You also objected to my suggestion that duty to rescue laws could be expanded.

So I asked these questions, but I didn't see anything addressing them. Maybe post your reply next to each question so that I might see the tie-in. Thank you!

So here is where I will agree with you.

If it is against the law for bakeries to discriminate against gay couples

If it is against the law for wedding venues to discriminate against gay couples

If it is against the law for photographers to discriminate against gay couples

If it is against the law for any business open to the public to discriminate against gay couples

Then, my compromise is: I will be willing to give religion owned non profit businesses not funded by the government much more latitude in allowing discrimination.

I have a good friend that teaches drama at a Catholic girls school and has for the last 14 years.  He is gay and has been with his partner for decades.  When marriage became legal in California before Prop 8, they got married.  He knows he can be fired at any time simply because he is gay.  Do I think that is unfair?  Yes.  But compromise is about give and take on both sides.  There is a legitimate argument to be made that he knew that when he took that job.  Religion has broad range of rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Just how broad those rights are is open to debate.

When religion starts to enter the public square and a store owner starts demanding that they are entitled to discriminate against anyone in their businesses open to the public because of personally held religious beliefs, then I have a problem.  If any business or organization including religion operated businesses accepts government funding, but still discriminate, I have a problem.

If laws need to be passed to clarify those grey areas, then I would suggest no discrimination in any business open to the public that is not directly owned by a religious institution.  And codify in law that religious organizations and their non profit businesses that are not subsidized by the federal funds be allowed to discriminate against whoever they want.  

Keep in mind, I don't speak for the whole LGBT community.  It is just my opinion.  And it is my opinion that I don't think the two groups are that far off that a compromise is not possible.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In my opinion the market will weed out those small shops fast enough,

Depends on the community.  One only has to look at the internet to see that many positions we think are fringe have enough of a base to survive and spread (racial and sexism views, but also ones on science and other topics).

[CV75]

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

So here is where I will agree with you.

If it is against the law for bakeries to discriminate against gay couples

If it is against the law for wedding venues to discriminate against gay couples

If it is against the law for photographers to discriminate against gay couples

If it is against the law for any business open to the public to discriminate against gay couples

Then, my compromise is: I will be willing to give religion owned non profit businesses not funded by the government much more latitude in allowing discrimination.

I have a good friend that teaches drama at a Catholic girls school and has for the last 14 years.  He is gay and has been with his partner for decades.  When marriage became legal in California before Prop 8, they got married.  He knows he can be fired at any time simply because he is gay.  Do I think that is unfair?  Yes.  But compromise is about give and take on both sides.  There is a legitimate argument to be made that he knew that when he took that job.  Religion has broad range of rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Just how broad those rights are is open to debate.

When religion starts to enter the public square and a store owner starts demanding that they are entitled to discriminate against anyone in their businesses open to the public because of personally held religious beliefs, then I have a problem.  If any business or organization including religion operated businesses accepts government funding, but still discriminate, I have a problem.

If laws need to be passed to clarify those grey areas, then I would suggest no discrimination in any business open to the public that is not directly owned by a religious institution.  And codify in law that religious organizations and their non profit businesses that are not subsidized by the federal funds be allowed to discriminate against whoever they want.  

Keep in mind, I don't speak for the whole LGBT community.  It is just my opinion.  And it is my opinion that I don't think the two groups are that far off that a compromise is not possible.  

It is difficult for me to follow you or understand what you mean when my questions aren't answered directly and you use the word "discriminate" in a rhetorical and polemic way and not in its legal context, easily conflating the two at least on an emotional or visceral level.

So I am left to assume that a "gray area" for you is not a civil right, and that the clarifying laws you are seeking are for defining how people must legally interact when "fairness" in religious and identity feelings are involved, paramount rights that everyone already has to express. Yet you seem to advocate for "clarifying laws" with the intensity of protecting civil rights.

I understand that in politics the best we can hope for is to compromise, where neither side gets all it wants, but the courageous and perhaps idealistic will explore win-win possibilities. Now that would be an interesting thread.

You objected to what I posted because you say nothing changed, and that no one is compromising anything (actually, it seems you meant that religion is not compromising anything but I'm being generous  ). I don't see any compromise between religion and identity in your suggestions either. It looks like what SLC already did with housing and employment, and federal funds do not go to any "discriminating" entity when the feds think it is not worth the benefit (this has been done also). Or maybe you can point out how both interests are compromising (as in giving up something or settling for less) realistic and fair expectations in these suggestions, the most basic being their protected and civil rights.

Somethings are best left at the local level (e.g. SLC's compromise) and others qualify for federal attention (e.g. funding where Congress is setting the compromise). Things that "work" will take time to adopt in each community, and needs to reflect its united mores.

 

[Islander]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

 

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.

You keep missing the point. You do not get to define what I should find objectionable. These are my rights under the Constitution, my faith, my beliefs, my worldview. Your thoughts and ideas as to what I should object to are not relevant. That is the issue at hand. Some people believe I should "compromise" my beliefs and alter my behavior in order to accommodate theirs. But not when it comes to matters of faith. It will not do. No matter what legislative gymnastics come out of the SCOTUS. 

“When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.” Frederic Bastiat

 

[Islander]

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

Here is the quote from her

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/state-dept-lgbt-speaker-we-dont-want-gay-marriage-we-want-no-marriage-ian-tuttle/

[Islander]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

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?

True, and there is no argument there. But your rights end where mine begin. The Constitution addresses the rights of ALL people. The issue here is that suddenly that is not enough. So, people have decided that new rights should be created to accomodate new behaviors, thoughts, feelings and desires. And what they have done is create them out of thin air since the Constitution was not framed to address those, given that they did not exist, even as a concept, at the time. The problem arises when those newly created rights encroach and threaten those right that were already THERE, codified in the founding document and thought to be essential and unalienable for ALL people.  

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Islander said:

You do not get to define what I should find objectionable.

I am not. I am saying your argument (attempt to persuade others) that presented them as if legally and logically equivalent (because a black person finds celebrating lynching disgusting and all recognize asking them to do so is inappropriate, that equally holds for someone who sees same sex marriage as disgusting) is faulty as the categories of murder and marriage (valid or invalid) are too distinct in our society, both legally and morally.   Celebration of something illegal at the very least is categorically different than celebration of something legal.     I believe the logic fallacy employed is one of false equivalency.
 

Now if you want to argue for most people that it is inappropriate to require someone to celebrate a polygynous marriage of an 80 year old man and a 18 year old woman when they find that offensive  and they would back a baker refusing to to do so, therefore they should also back a baker refusing to celebrate/contribute to a same sex marriage...that is a more comparable situation and a valid argument imo since both situations deal in general with marriage involving consenting adults. Though some might disagree based on the first is illegal still, in that case remove the polygyny. 
 

That I find your argument logically faulty does not mean I think your comment that they are offensive to you is invalid.  I am well aware and not telling you that you can’t feel that way.  You can celebrate a lynching for all I care. (Will put you in the category of people I refuse to associate with, but in terms of me telling you what you should think or feel...not my job. Not your mom and I don’t even do that with my own kids.). 
 

I do think if you are trying to persuade others your view is reasonable and not irrational, equating murder and marriage as you originally did will backfire in most cases 

[Islander]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not. I am saying your argument (attempt to persuade others) that presented them as if legally and logically equivalent (because a black person finds celebrating lynching disgusting and all recognize asking them to do so is inappropriate, that equally holds for someone who sees same sex marriage as disgusting) is faulty as the categories of murder and marriage (valid or invalid) are too distinct in our society, both legally and morally.   Celebration of something illegal at the very least is categorically different than celebration of something legal.     I believe the logic fallacy employed is one of false equivalency.
 

Now if you want to argue for most people that it is inappropriate to require someone to celebrate a polygynous marriage of an 80 year old man and a 18 year old woman when they find that offensive  and they would back a baker refusing to to do so, therefore they should also back a baker refusing to celebrate/contribute to a same sex marriage...that is a more comparable situation and a valid argument imo since both situations deal in general with marriage involving consenting adults. Though some might disagree based on the first is illegal still, in that case remove the polygyny. 
 

That I find your argument logically faulty does not mean I think your comment that they are offensive to you is invalid.  I am well aware and not telling you that you can’t feel that way.  You can celebrate a lynching for all I care. (Will put you in the category of people I refuse to associate with, but in terms of me telling you what you should think or feel...not my job. Not your mom and I don’t even do that with my own kids.). 
 

I do think if you are trying to persuade others your view is reasonable and not irrational, equating murder and marriage as you originally did will backfire in most cases 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on how you are approaching the issue.

There is absolutely nothing more important to a human being that his/her faith. It answers ALL of life's existential questions; origin, meaning, morality and destiny. Who I am as a person is defined by these axioms. No law is going to change that. It will not be redefined, bent or pushed aside to accomodate anything or anyone. There is no argument you can bring, logic or not, that can alter that position.

There are many things that "celebrate" violence in every day society. Violent sports and its emblems, military memorabilia, firearm stickers, you name it. The cake with a burning cross or a hanging noose is no different. The issue is that you should not force an African American baker to produce such a representation because of how he interprets it. Although NOBODY in his family (or mine) has been subject to it in recent history and he has never witness such an event. It is not about logic. Rather about violating a right to be in control of one's own thoughts, feelings and convictions rather than being threaten by the law and forced to trample one's own conscience in the process, by being part of something that you find objectionable. 

You do not agree and see it that way. So we disagree on that issue. And for the purpose of the forum, I think we have taken the exchange as far as it can productively be taken.  

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do you believe that church leaders have accepted reality and moved on? They have fought and continue to fight for every inch until they lose it. Taking a step back to prepare for the next battle isn't really moving on   If anything, I believe the members are pushing the church towards positive change. Leadership is flowing upwards.

I guess I would disagree with the characterization that fighting the continued battles for equal civil rights would amount to gnawing "on old controversies". Legal judgement was passed but it will be challenged in numerous ways. Those being discriminated against will undoubtedly face many tests as they push back against the discrimination. Until society actually changes these battles will continue.

 

I think you misunderstood the end there. I was talking about church members gnawing on old controversies.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Islander said:

Here is the quote from her

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/state-dept-lgbt-speaker-we-dont-want-gay-marriage-we-want-no-marriage-ian-tuttle/

That is a very fringe belief.

I wonder why the National Review likes to showcase it so much. I guess it is just a mystery.

Edited June 25, 2020 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Islander said:

True, and there is no argument there. But your rights end where mine begin. The Constitution addresses the rights of ALL people. The issue here is that suddenly that is not enough. So, people have decided that new rights should be created to accomodate new behaviors, thoughts, feelings and desires. And what they have done is create them out of thin air since the Constitution was not framed to address those, given that they did not exist, even as a concept, at the time. The problem arises when those newly created rights encroach and threaten those right that were already THERE, codified in the founding document and thought to be essential and unalienable for ALL people.  

The Constitution originally gave rights to some people. We cut the pieces about 3/5ths of a person when slavery ended. We added an amendment intended to guarantee rights to all (men) but that was reinterpreted later. We have been changing how the constitution works since the beginning and many of those changes are improvements. Acting like it is some golden standard we have strayed from is silly revisionist history. The right you are holding as “codified in the founding document” and hold to be fundamentally inviolable was not even part of the original constitution. It was an early amendment promised In the federalis/antifederalist debates to help with ratification and was codified later.

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, Islander said:

Here is the quote from her

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/state-dept-lgbt-speaker-we-dont-want-gay-marriage-we-want-no-marriage-ian-tuttle/

I already found the quote. It was not my CFR. Please provide the requested references:

[Daniel2]

16 hours ago, Islander said:

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on how you are approaching the issue.

There is absolutely nothing more important to a human being that his/her faith. It answers ALL of life's existential questions; origin, meaning, morality and destiny. Who I am as a person is defined by these axioms. No law is going to change that. It will not be redefined, bent or pushed aside to accomodate anything or anyone. There is no argument you can bring, logic or not, that can alter that position.

There are many things that "celebrate" violence in every day society. Violent sports and its emblems, military memorabilia, firearm stickers, you name it. The cake with a burning cross or a hanging noose is no different. The issue is that you should not force an African American baker to produce such a representation because of how he interprets it. Although NOBODY in his family (or mine) has been subject to it in recent history and he has never witness such an event. It is not about logic. Rather about violating a right to be in control of one's own thoughts, feelings and convictions rather than being threaten by the law and forced to trample one's own conscience in the process, by being part of something that you find objectionable. 

You do not agree and see it that way. So we disagree on that issue. And for the purpose of the forum, I think we have taken the exchange as far as it can productively be taken.  

One thing is certain: many of us do not see the world the way you do.

While I once shared your views, today I find the concept that "there is nothing more important to a human being than his/her faith."

I have stood by and watched families disintegrate because religious-minded people chose 'faith' over 'family.'  I've watched the mother of my children and grandchildren sever all ties with those who's lives no longer conform with her religious expectations.  She only chooses to engage with those that remain faithful, and her grandchildren have learned that they really don't want anything to do with a woman who has literally (in the true sense of word) spoken to them these very words: "When it comes to choosing my family or my faith, I will choose my faith every time."

You may find that noble and honorable and God-approved (and I've no doubt some invoke Matthew 10:37 here), but as I see it, it's a false dichotomy; one need not cut one's self off from one's non-member family in order to prove to any God that one loves him more.  

One can still associate and support one's non-member friends' and families' actions; even their relationships and vocations, whether they conform with your ideals or not.  

FWIW, I wouldn't want to work for an employer who disparaged or thought less of my husband's and my relationship, marriage, and family; I wouldn't wait around to be fired--I'd quit.

That said, so long as the law prohibits discrimination based on religion, sex, race, color, and national origin, then what's good for the goose must be good for the gander; if one cannot fire someone based on their choice of religion, one should not be able to fire someone based on the sex of their choice of spouse.

[Daniel2]

19 hours ago, california boy said:

So here is where I will agree with you.

If it is against the law for bakeries to discriminate against gay couples

If it is against the law for wedding venues to discriminate against gay couples

If it is against the law for photographers to discriminate against gay couples

If it is against the law for any business open to the public to discriminate against gay couples

Then, my compromise is: I will be willing to give religion owned non profit businesses not funded by the government much more latitude in allowing discrimination.

I have a good friend that teaches drama at a Catholic girls school and has for the last 14 years.  He is gay and has been with his partner for decades.  When marriage became legal in California before Prop 8, they got married.  He knows he can be fired at any time simply because he is gay.  Do I think that is unfair?  Yes.  But compromise is about give and take on both sides.  There is a legitimate argument to be made that he knew that when he took that job.  Religion has broad range of rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Just how broad those rights are is open to debate.

When religion starts to enter the public square and a store owner starts demanding that they are entitled to discriminate against anyone in their businesses open to the public because of personally held religious beliefs, then I have a problem.  If any business or organization including religion operated businesses accepts government funding, but still discriminate, I have a problem.

If laws need to be passed to clarify those grey areas, then I would suggest no discrimination in any business open to the public that is not directly owned by a religious institution.  And codify in law that religious organizations and their non profit businesses that are not subsidized by the federal funds be allowed to discriminate against whoever they want.  

Keep in mind, I don't speak for the whole LGBT community.  It is just my opinion.  And it is my opinion that I don't think the two groups are that far off that a compromise is not possible.  

I've been thinking about some of the comments about 'compromise.'

I'm uncomfortable with that verbiage, and here's why:

I don't think people should be expected to or required to 'compromise' their values on the basis of their religion unless absolutely necessary, and certainly not as some sort of back-and-forth bartering in an exercise of "I'll conceed this to you, if you conceed that to me."

In the context of this discussion and in the United States of America, I define "absolutely necessary' (as per the sentence above) as 'that which is required by our Constitution, our laws, and our understanding/application of both the Constitution and our laws as per court rulings.'

In similar fashion, I don't think people should be expected to or required to 'compromise' their values on the basis of their race, color, national origin, or sex (whether 'on the basis of sex' that is related to their gender, gender identity/expression, or the gender of their spouse) unless absolutely necessary, and certainly not as some sort of back-and-forth bartering in an exercise of "I'll conceed this to you, if you conceed that to me."

While compromise is admirable in most aspect of our lives, when it comes to Constitutionally-mandated, legally-authorized, and judicially supported civil rights, I think most people won't want to compromise those, especially when they've fought for said freedoms, as all of us have done to one degree or another.

As related to civil rights, I think the best we can do is strive our best for civility, kindness, patience, and empathy towards one another when new rights clash with what we thought were actions that were previously seen as acceptable. But civility, kindness, patience, and empathy should not be excuses for diligently and purposefully moving forward with laying claim to those civil rights that are afforded to all of us, as citizens of the United States of America.

My two cents...

D