We Can Find Common Ground on Gay Rights and Religious Liberty

[smac97]

On 6/26/2020 at 2:07 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

I think when religionists say and do bigoted things, it is appropriate to call it out.

I think LGBT folks have gone to that well far too often.  

It's not "bigoted" to disagree, on religious and reasoned grounds, with the morality and propriety of homosexuality homosexual behavior or same-sex marriage.  {EDIT: I have edited this because I erred in referencing "homosexuality" rather than "homosexual behavior").

Quote

Calling it out and fighting back against those things is not bullying. 

You are assuming all such "calling outs" are justified and legitimate.

I am proposing that a lot of these accusations are slanderous, damnably false, and intended to shame and coerce religionists into capitulating on their beliefs, or else into silence.

Quote

So IMO a religionist supporting lesser rights for LGBT people is bigoted just like it would be bigoted for a religionist to oppose equal rights for other minorities.

See?  See?

No room for principled disagreement.  No room for reasonable minds to disagree.  It's your way or the highway.  I must agree with or capitulate to you and yours, 'cuz if I don't I'll be branded a bigot and homophobe.  You're doing it in this thread.  CB is doing it.

Religionists are living under the constant threat of their reputations, livelihoods, relationships, etc. being damaged or destroyed by self-appointed, mind-reading zealots who presume to impute bigotry and hate onto them for any reason or no reason at all.  Dare disagree in any meaningful way (or even in mild ways) on any substantive "LGBT" issue and you'll find out how it works.  Shoot, you're demonstrating how it works.

-Smac

Edited June 30, 2020 by smac97

[Ahab]

LGBT advocate: My husband and I enjoy same sex sexual relations.  We believe it is good and helps us to feel closer as a couple and we don't see anything wrong with it at all.

Religious advocate: Okay, well, that may be how you and your husband see things, but God teaches us, both personally and through his prophets, that same sex sex and marriage is wrong and an abomination to him.

LGBT advocate: If that is really what God thinks and how he feels about it, then that makes God a bigot.  I don't believe God thinks that or feels that way about it, though.  I believe your religion is what is wrong. 

Religious advocate: Hmm, well, okay, I suppose you can think and feel that way if you want to.  I think you and your religion are wrong, so I suppose that puts us on common ground, with both of us thinking religion can be wrong.

[Islander]

On 6/25/2020 at 1:14 PM, Daniel2 said:

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.

Well, there is the word of God and then there is man. People are certainly free to do as they please and most do. But God has spoken. And although there is usually no reason why we should cut ourselves from family even if there are religious differences, we are called to do so when it comes to critical priorities. The message of the Gospel is inherently offensive to human wisdom. We are to submit fully to the will of God and devote our energies, mind, soul and strength to His cause and His work. Few actually do. Christ asks that we'd be ready to die for Him, if necessary. We must be willing to surrender our priorities, including family, friends, personal ambitions and everything else in between. Those are His terms for discipleship and those that tried to dictate some other terms were routinely turned away.

The other issues relating to protected categories have been discussed exhaustively in the thread. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

41 minutes ago, Ahab said:

First, I notice you seem to have a tendency to refer to religions rather than religious adherents, which seems strange to be when referring to how anyone is treated, whether LGBT or not. 

I think of a religion as a way of life, rather than as a person or a people/

I will say that, generally speaking, most religions or ways of living do not favor sexual relations between people of the same sex, or consider sexual relations of that nature to be equal to sexual relations between people of opposite sex.

That doesn't mean religious adherents should treat LGBT people badly, though, even when they regard same sex sexual relations to be abhorrable and an abomination of sexual relations as it should be. 

Christianity, for example, advocates for all people loving everybody, regardless of creed or color or sex, but that doesn't mean all people should have sexual relations with other people regardless of creed, color or sex.

We generally say we love and should love everybody but while hating all forms of sin.

I'm viewing religions largely as organizations with beliefs, doctrines, policies, practices, politics, leadership etc, and the adherents that subscribe to that religion.

It's difficult to see a doctrine of loving all and treating all equally while that same religious group attempts to carve out the right to discriminate against people in the workplace, in college admissions, housing etc. They can say it all they want but if they exempt themselves from following it, I don't place much stock in their words.

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Islander said:

Well, there is the word of God and then there is man. People are certainly free to do as they please and most do. But God has spoken. And although there is usually no reason why we should cut ourselves from family even if there are religious differences, we are called to do so when it comes to critical priorities.

I'm not sure wha tyou mean by "cut ourselves from family."  I don't think we should be shunning family members who are same-sex attracted, or anything like that.  I think we need to be as kind and inclusive as possible, while simultaneously adhering to the revealed doctrines.

8 minutes ago, Islander said:

The message of the Gospel is inherently offensive to human wisdom. We are to submit fully to the will of God and devote our energies, mind, soul and strength to His cause and His work. Few actually do. Christ asks that we'd be ready to die for Him, if necessary. We must be willing to surrender our priorities, including family, friends, personal ambitions and everything else in between. Those are His terms for discipleship and those that tried to dictate some other terms were routinely turned away.

I think this sort of thing is to be deployed in an ultimate sense.  We can and should maintain, and even strengthen, relationships with loved ones who take substantially divergent paths.

Sadly, there are some rare instances where an individual is called upon to choose one or the other.  I am concerned when this arises amongst the Saints, where they feel they are obligated to choose A) the Gospel and the Church that houses it or B) a relationship with someone who is same-sex attracted.  Where they see the choice as one to the exclusion of the other.  I don't think that's the way it is or ought to be.  It's not what the Church teaches us to do.  But I think some folks in the Church create or contributed to that conundrum.  I also think some LGBT folks create it or contribute to it, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think LGBT folks have gone to that well far too often.  

It's not "bigoted" to disagree, on religious and reasoned grounds, with the morality and propriety of homosexuality or same-sex marriage.

You are assuming all such "calling outs" are justified and legitimate.

I am proposing that a lot of these accusations are slanderous, damnably false, and intended to shame and coerce religionists into capitulating on their beliefs, or else into silence.

See?  See?

No room for principled disagreement.  No room for reasonable minds to disagree.  It's your way or the highway.  I must agree with or capitulate to you and yours, 'cuz if I don't I'll be branded a bigot and homophobe.  You're doing it in this thread.  CB is doing it.

Religionists are living under the constant threat of their reputations, livelihoods, relationships, etc. being damaged or destroyed by self-appointed, mind-reading zealots who presume to impute bigotry and hate onto them for any reason or no reason at all.  Dare disagree in any meaningful way (or even in mild ways) on any substantive "LGBT" issue and you'll find out how it works.  Shoot, you're demonstrating how it works.

-Smac

Sure it is. The beliefs may offer a justification that some may find sufficient, but it's still bigoted.

[smac97]

On 6/26/2020 at 3:04 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

It's not "bigoted" to disagree, on religious and reasoned grounds, with the morality and propriety of homosexuality or same-sex marriage.

Sure it is.

It is not.

Quote

The beliefs may offer a justification that some may find sufficient, but it's still bigoted.

It is not.  "Bigotry" is "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

Latter-day Saint approaches to same-sex attraction do not fit within that definition.

You are again proving my point about bullying.  And about the apparent futility of attempting to seek "compromise" with an ideological group that is steadfastly determined to label anyone who dares disagree with them as bigots.

-Smac

Edited June 30, 2020 by smac97

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Islander said:

Well, there is the word of God and then there is man. People are certainly free to do as they please and most do. But God has spoken. And although there is usually no reason why we should cut ourselves from family even if there are religious differences, we are called to do so when it comes to critical priorities. The message of the Gospel is inherently offensive to human wisdom. We are to submit fully to the will of God and devote our energies, mind, soul and strength to His cause and His work. Few actually do. Christ asks that we'd be ready to die for Him, if necessary. We must be willing to surrender our priorities, including family, friends, personal ambitions and everything else in between. Those are His terms for discipleship and those that tried to dictate some other terms were routinely turned away.

The other issues relating to protected categories have been discussed exhaustively in the thread. 

 

There is a quote that has been at the bottom of my post for years

Quote

I just think it's interesting that God seems to hate the same people his followers do. And he always seems to think exactly the way they do. A cynical person might be suspicious. - Justin Werner

I think you believe your God loves everyone, so you love everyone.  In fact, I would guess that EVERYTHING you believe about religion, your God also believes.  Religion tends to build a God in their own vision of what they think God would do.  Yet no one has any proof that their God actually believes exactly the same as they do.

Quote

I will say that, generally speaking, most religions or ways of living do not favor sexual relations between people of the same sex, or consider sexual relations of that nature to be equal to sexual relations between people of opposite sex.

According to Pew Research Center 61% of Americans approve of gay marriage.  About two-thirds of white mainline protestants (66%) now support gay marriage, and 61% of Catholics.  Almost half of the members of the Church support gay marriage.  Over half in the younger generation.

It is way more accurate to post actual numbers rather than speculation.  

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by california boy

[Islander]

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think when religionists say and do bigoted things, it is appropriate to call it out. Calling it out and fighting back against those things is not bullying. So IMO a religionist supporting lesser rights for LGBT people is bigoted just like it would be bigoted for a religionist to oppose equal rights for other minorities.

The issue here is of attribution. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that goes against LGBT orthodoxy is labeled "bigoted and homophobic". It is a common tactic perfected by the communists (I ought to know -- I was raised behind the "Iron Curtain") in order to discredit the opposition. Not satisfied with that, the next phase in the attack is to damage the reputation, social standing and even economically by seeking their professional dismissal. And those are well documented facts. 

[Islander]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure wha tyou mean by "cut ourselves from family."  I don't think we should be shunning family members who are same-sex attracted, or anything like that.  I think we need to be as kind and inclusive as possible, while simultaneously adhering to the revealed doctrines.

I think this sort of thing is to be deployed in an ultimate sense.  We can and should maintain, and even strengthen, relationships with loved ones who take substantially divergent paths.

Sadly, there are some rare instances where an individual is called upon to choose one or the other.  I am concerned when this arises amongst the Saints, where they feel they are obligated to choose A) the Gospel and the Church that houses it or B) a relationship with someone who is same-sex attracted.  Where they see the choice as one to the exclusion of the other.  I don't think that's the way it is or ought to be.  It's not what the Church teaches us to do.  But I think some folks in the Church create or contributed to that conundrum.  I also think some LGBT folks create it or contribute to it, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

I was rather responding to Daniel2's post. There are instances when we must sever a relationship that is toxic, dangerous or detrimental to the well being and integrity of our family. I have a sister in law that is a rather violent defender of Marxist ideology and never wasted opportunity to try and communicate with my children on her political leanings. After repeated appeals from us not to involve the children in the political debate and her reluctance to do so, we decided to sever the relationship. We send postcards on her birthday and never neglect to mention her in our prayers. What will happen to/with her is only God's concern for we did everything we could to maintain that relationship but she would not. 

There is a myriad of issues and topics to discuss and approach in life that encompass the human experience. We need not to duel on the same sex issue with it comes to family and friends. We do so every day at work with co-workers. Once we know and understand where every one stand there is no need to create a wedge. 

[Daniel2]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure wha tyou mean by "cut ourselves from family."  I don't think we should be shunning family members who are same-sex attracted, or anything like that.  I think we need to be as kind and inclusive as possible, while simultaneously adhering to the revealed doctrines.

I think this sort of thing is to be deployed in an ultimate sense.  We can and should maintain, and even strengthen, relationships with loved ones who take substantially divergent paths.

Sadly, there are some rare instances where an individual is called upon to choose one or the other.  I am concerned when this arises amongst the Saints, where they feel they are obligated to choose A) the Gospel and the Church that houses it or B) a relationship with someone who is same-sex attracted.  Where they see the choice as one to the exclusion of the other.  I don't think that's the way it is or ought to be.  It's not what the Church teaches us to do.  But I think some folks in the Church create or contributed to that conundrum.  I also think some LGBT folks create it or contribute to it, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

While I agree with pretty much everything you wrote in your post above, to clarify my initial post on the subject of our kids' mom choosing her faith over her family, I was referring to our kids who've chosen to leave Mormonism behind of their own accord and having nothing to do with homosexuality/same-sex attraction.  I'm talking about our straight kids, their spouses, and our grandkids, whose LDS mother no longer visits, calls, or celebrates holidays (i.e. birthdays), since they've left the LDS church, but are not involved in same-sex relations at all.  Just was clarifying. 

[Daniel2]

16 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sure it is. The beliefs may offer a justification that some may find sufficient, but it's still bigoted.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

It is not.

It is not.  "Bigotry" is "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

Latter-day Saint approaches to same-sex attraction do not fit within that definition.

You are again proving my point about bullying.  And about the apparent futility of attempting to seek "compromise" with an ideological group that is steadfastly determined to label anyone who dares disagree with them as bigots.

-Smac

This exchange is a great example of why allegations of 'bigotry' (as well as 'hatred'/'hate') are pretty pointless, do nothing to further dialogue or understanding, and should be avoided, IMO.

[Daniel2]

16 hours ago, Islander said:

I was rather responding to Daniel2's post. There are instances when we must sever a relationship that is toxic, dangerous or detrimental to the well being and integrity of our family. I have a sister in law that is a rather violent defender of Marxist ideology and never wasted opportunity to try and communicate with my children on her political leanings. After repeated appeals from us not to involve the children in the political debate and her reluctance to do so, we decided to sever the relationship. We send postcards on her birthday and never neglect to mention her in our prayers. What will happen to/with her is only God's concern for we did everything we could to maintain that relationship but she would not. 

There is a myriad of issues and topics to discuss and approach in life that encompass the human experience. We need not to duel on the same sex issue with it comes to family and friends. We do so every day at work with co-workers. Once we know and understand where every one stand there is no need to create a wedge. 

I agree that there are times when we need to terminate toxic relationships. 

My post wasn't about those... it was about our kids' mother choosing faith over family.  Since three of our four kids have chosen to leave the LDS church, she no longer engages with them or their children (our granchildren).  Unlike our one child and his family (who remain actively LDS), she doesn't visit or call our other (straight) married kids and their kids (our grandkids) or celebrate their birthdays, who no longer believe.  She has specifically told them she feels she must "choose her faith over family," even though none of our kids and grandkids have asked her to alter her beliefs in any way (other than they don't say a blessing over their food in their home, I suppose...?)

Their mom's decision to ostracize them is unrelated to same-sex issues; it's merely the result of their departure from Mormonism.  While we find that sad and wish she would still engage with our kids and grandkids, but what's even sadder is our kids, their spouses, and grandkids don't even care about the loss of their relationship with their grandmother because they feel if she's more willing to choose her faith over them, then they don't want to have a relationship with her anyway.

[Daniel2]

17 hours ago, Ahab said:

LGBT advocate: My husband and I enjoy same sex sexual relations.  We believe it is good and helps us to feel closer as a couple and we don't see anything wrong with it at all.

Religious advocate: Okay, well, that may be how you and your husband see things, but God teaches us, both personally and through his prophets, that same sex sex and marriage is wrong and an abomination to him.

LGBT advocate: If that is really what God thinks and how he feels about it, then that makes God a bigot.  I don't believe God thinks that or feels that way about it, though.  I believe your religion is what is wrong. 

Religious advocate: Hmm, well, okay, I suppose you can think and feel that way if you want to.  I think you and your religion are wrong, so I suppose that puts us on common ground, with both of us thinking religion can be wrong.

Speaking as an LGBT advocate: I entirely support your freedom to believe whatever you want about same-sex relationships and whatever you believe about how God approaches such.  It's none of my business to be judging you or your heart or intentions, and adherents of divergent religions are likely to differ on what God thinks on any given topics.  Religious freedom means we're all free to believe what we want to believe.  The ONLY problem I have is when anyone seeks to enshrine their personal religious beliefs into any law which would clash with others' Constitutionally and legally-protected freedoms and/or equal civil rights, protections, and responsibilities as mandated by our government.   I wish you and your chosen family all the best!

[Daniel2]

On 6/26/2020 at 8:30 AM, smac97 said:

I appreciate that Daniel is trying to go against this flow.  Truly.  But I'm concerned he's swimming upstream against a raging current.  Mostly by himself.

 

Yep.  Have LGBT folks re-examined their posture toward Jack Phillips and those who are situated like him?  Or is there an intention to double down and go after him, endlessly, until he capitulates?  We know the answer.  We saw what happened after Jack Phillips prevailed at the Supreme Court: After 7 Years of Legal Battles and 2 Wins, Jack Phillips Has Been Sued AGAIN

Can calls for "compromise" really be taken seriously when this sort of thing continues to happen?  Is there any significant part of the LGBT crowd that is speaking against what Jack Phililps has endured?  Has anyone in that crowd spoekn in defense of the two bakers in Oregon?  Did anyone in that crowd speak out against the threats leveled by Beto O'Rourke?

Daniel?  Can you point us to such things?

Yep.  That's pretty much how I see calls for "compromise."  Unilateral surrender of religious protections.

Here Stanton loses me a bit.  Here merely asserts, and does not explain or demonstrate, problems inherent in the Utah Compromise.  However, other critics of it have weighed in.  See, for example, this article in Slate:

Ah.  "Troubling exemptions for religious groups."  No "compromise" can have such things, I guess.

See also this article from ThinkProgress:

"Her starting place is compromise."  Compromise by the LGBT side.  Didn't they get the memo?  Calls for "compromise" are a one-way street.  The religionists are supposed to compromise and capitulate on their rights and convictions, and the LGBT folks are supposed to accept those compromises and capitulations.  

See also this critique by Alliance Defending Freedom, which criticizes the Utah Compromise from the other direction.

All three of these seem to say the same thing, just in different ways.  The Utah Compromise represents concessions that allow for religious protections.  Slate and ThinkProgress complain about it because the concessions didn't go far enough.  Alliance Defending Freedom complains that the concessions went too far.

Personally, I am generally in favor of the Utah Compromise.  It's a good faith effort.  It improves protections for LGBT folks, while still protecting religious liberties.  And perhaps most important, it was passed by the state legislature.  It was not an executive or judicial fiat.  It was not a nationwide, one-size-fits-all, put-the-federal-government-in-charge-of-everything solution.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, I'm a bit puzzled by you suggesting that I'm "going against this flow," and have asked me to "point to such things" (I think you mean, 'compromise'?) in the face of the court proceedings against those who claim their religious liberties are being denied if the law forces them to sell goods and services for same-sex weddings...

Did you mean to direct the post above to CaliforniaBoy? He's the one calling for 'compromise.' 

In case you missed it, I actually agreed with you that in some cases, compromise isn't possible, and I also suggested that there are times that the law and/or courts will have to settle matters of disagreement that cannot be bridged by compromise.  Here's what I said earlier in this same thread:

Quote

 

As Smac acurately pointed out earlier in this thread, however, at some point, two opposing parties may reach a point where we have to allow for differences of belief and opinion; where compromise may no longer bridge any gap.

When two sides alledge a right to something which conflict with one another, it is the role of the courts to weight the competing viewpoints against the Constitution, the law, precedent, and decide how the law is and should be applied.

When it comes to civil rights, I'm on record as not claiming or expecting any more or less legal protections for myself on the basis of sex (including the gender of my spouse) than the same protections that I likewise fully support and expect for all other citizens on the basis of their sex, race, religion, or national origin. 

When it comes to our shared inherent worthiness for equal protection from discrimination on the basis of any of those characteristics, I believe the law should treat us all equally. 

Since the law has found that as a gay man, SCOTUS has clarified that the law and Constitution require that, on the basis of sex, I am entitled to the same non-discrimination and civil rights that all others also enjoy, I don't see where a need for compromise exists.

 

I'm also generally in favor of the Utah Compromise as a good faith effort... that said, everyone involved recognized it didn't address all the issues, which would ultimately have to be settled by the courts (namely speaking of public accommodation requirements of private, non-religiously-own businesses).  

Thanks,

D

Edited June 27, 2020 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

On 6/26/2020 at 3:22 PM, Islander said:

Te original draft of the Constitution was a work in progress. Thomas Jefferson, in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, directly condemned slavery in no uncertain terms. His position was excluded in order to have the southern states get on board. In sum, religious liberty is in the constitution and has been there since 1791. So, yes, it is part of the founding documents.

I am aware of Jefferson’s original draft but no, religious liberty is not part of the founding document. It was added later and was loosely interpreted to only apply to the federal government. North Carolina, being the wackos they are, toyed with declaring Christianity to be the official religion of the state. The First amendment, strictly constructed, only applies to federal congress. There is a tortured interpretation of the 14th amendment used to make 1st amendment rights universal to all levels of government.

Pretending religious liberty is some ground level stuff while civil liberties are an addendum does not hold water. Both developed.

Edited June 28, 2020 by The Nehor

[Daniel2]

On 6/23/2020 at 10:08 PM, Islander said:

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.

I've heard this mantra repeated quite a few times by some conservatives.  I'm genuinely puzzled by this statement, other than viewing it as an attempt by Christians to suggest the Christian Faith is somehow being targeted...

Do you have any data to support the claim that "no one dares" to bring a lawsuit "a muslim baker in michigan" or a "Jewish one in NY"...?

Are there specific bakers you're thinking of that are on record as being unwilling to follow public accommodation law that haven't yet been sued? 

If so, upon what do you base this claim that "no one dares" to sue them?  It seems to imply some sort of fear of retribution or retaliation, if a member of either the Muslim or Jewish faiths were sued. 

Consider the above a CFR, please.  Thank you!...

EDITED TO ADD:

OK, so I've been doing some research after posing my question to you, and I think I've stumbled across where these comments of yours are coming from, as well as similiar sentimenets I've heard expressed by others:

From what I can tell, in April of 2015 (five years ago, and several months before the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision legalized civil marriage for all couples, regardless of gender), a conservative comedian by the name of Steven Crowder, host of a podcast called "Louder with Crowder," decided to run a segment for his podcast posing as a gay man and asking a bunch of local Muslim bakeries if they would be willing to bake a cake for he and his boyfriend's same-sex wedding.  While some of those bakeries said yes, others said they would not do so. (see here and here).

This led to a different conservative radio talk-show host, Dana Loesch, claiming that same month that "There is a witch hunt now for Christian business owners."

The second article I found (linked above) shared the following interesting commentary:

Quote

Along with cheers from the right, the video has drawn a backlash from the left, where columnist Wes Williams of IfYouOnlyNews.com charged Mr. Crowder with being “homophobic, AND racist,” calling the expose “an attempt to smear Muslims.”

First, while I know nothing else about Mr. Crowder, there is one comment he made that certainly seems to be racially insensative, to say the least: 

Quote

For Christians it only took one lawsuit, yet the media never acknowledges the giant, burqua’d elephant in the room,” Crowder said. [italics added]

Second, I find it ironic that Mr. Crowder is suggesting LGBT individuals are targeting or singling out Christians when it is he who's actually engaged in religious profiling (that is, he's the one singling out bakeries owned by individuals of a specific religion-Islam), without providing any evidence that LGBT individuals are overlooking Muslim-owned businesses in an effort to single out or attack Christians.

Third, this seems to be a shock-jock comedic stunt to garner attention for his podcast and enflame the base of his viewership that a) is over 5 years old now, and b) is not evidence that I think any legal professional would find compelling to actually support the claim that LGBT individuals are targeting or singling out Christians.  

Finally, from what I understand, as long as the law treats everyone equally (regardless of which religion, or lack thereof), it doesn't necessarily take into account the specific religion of the defendants in any given case... unless it could be shown that the law was singling out any one individual based on animus (as it so-ruled in the case of Masterpiece, which actually defended the Christian defendant and ruled in his favor).

Even with all of the above said, though, Islander, if there's more evidence that such is happening, I'd be totally interesting in learning more about it, and am happy to listen to any evidence you have that supports your claim.

Thanks,
D

Edited June 28, 2020 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am aware of Jefferson’s original draft but no, religious liberty is not part of the founding document. It was added later and was loosely interpreted to only apply to the federal government. North Carolina, being the wackos they are, toyed with declaring Christianity to be the official religion of the state. The First amendment, strictly constructed, only applies to federal congress. There is a tortured interpretation of the 14th amendment used to make 1st amendment rights universal to all levels of government.

Pretending religious liberty is some ground level stuff while civil liberties are an addendum does not hold water. Both developed.

Great points, Nehor.

Additionally, even if something was allegedly "ground level" vs something that was changed later, it doesn't really hold any legal weight.  

That which the law now requires is most important; it doesn't matter if it was 'in the original document."

Were it otherwise, it would likewise follow that Caucasian Americans have a greater legal claim to their citizenship, voting, marital, and personal property rights than Americans of other races (and especially African Americans) since "only whites were granted full legal standing in such matters in the first drafts of our founding documents, and blacks were explicitly excluded therefrom.  Even though blacks were excluded, one would be hard pressed to find anyone today earnestly advancing any serious legal claim or arguement that American whites deserve more rights than blacks since whites 'were what the Founding Fathers were really protecting first.' 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Great points, Nehor.

Additionally, even if something was allegedly "ground level" vs something that was changed later, it doesn't really hold any legal weight.  

That which the law now requires is most important; it doesn't matter if it was 'in the original document."

Were it otherwise, it would likewise follow that Caucasian Americans have a greater legal claim to their citizenship, voting, marital, and personal property rights than Americans of other races (and especially African Americans) since "only whites were granted full legal standing in such matters in the first drafts of our founding documents, and blacks were explicitly excluded therefrom.  Even though blacks were excluded, one would be hard pressed to find anyone today earnestly advancing any serious legal claim or arguement that American whites deserve more rights than blacks since whites 'were what the Founding Fathers were really protecting first.' 

Hate to be a contrarian but a small correction. African American citizenship is a little more complex then that in early America. They were not explicitly excluded from citizenship by federal law but voting rights were established by state and in five states of the original 13 they could vote if they met the requirements (basically owning property and/or not being too poor depending on the state). When suffrage was extended to those without property it usually only applied to whites and slowly the northern states chipped away at the rights of Blacks to vote.

It wasn't until the Dred Scott decision that citizenship was forbidden to African Americans and slavery sort of legalized everywhere by judicial overreach. Dred Scott and his wife were slaves who were taken into territory where slavery was prohibited and he sued for his freedom. The decision also went ahead and nullified the Missouri Compromise for funsies as well. The irony is that the court seemed to think they were 'helping' to cool tensions by finally making a broad ruling on slavery. Except in the slave states the decision was greeted almost universally with a lot of anger. Ironically if the Dred Scott case had occurred in Missouri or Louisiana which were the most likely states to hear the case Dred Scott and his family probably would have been freed based on previous court precedents. There is a reason Dred Scott tops every serious list of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time.

[Daniel2]

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

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'm quoting the above portion of your previous post, but my words aren't necessarily directed at you, personally, but to everyone reading the thread, generally, so anyone/everyone is welcome to respond:

I've been pondering this idea that's been rolled around by a few different people posting that Christians are being targeted unfairly by LGBT individuals and that they are the true victims and the LGBT individuals are the real bullies in these anti-discrimination lawsuits.

Additionally, some have pointed out that since Jack Phillips prevailed in the Masterpiece ruling, that his view that he is free to refuse to bake and decorate a cake for gay couples as a function of the alleged free exercise of religion, and people should "leave him alone."

Based on several comments, it seems that some consider LGBT individuals who pursue legal actions against business owners who violate public accommodation laws as bullies. While not alone in these implications, Smac, your comment above is one of the most pointed; accusing said LGBT individuals as "egregious lawfare," demanding that "these things need to stop," and conclude by saying "the legislative process should be used more."

A couple comments:

1.  All individuals are free to purse due process of law when they feel their rights are being violated.

 

2.  In those lawsuits that I've seen wind their way through full court proceedings thus far (the three most notable which we've discussed on this board include Masterpiece, Arlene's Flowers, and Bostock) have all been legitimate cases involving actual legal issues that have needed to be resolved.

 

3.  I believe it's just as wrong to suggest/demand that LGBT individuals "need to stop" pursuing due process of their rights when dealing with businesses who choose to violate public accommodation and non-discrimination laws by refusing to serve/hire/marry/rent to them as it would be and have been to suggest/demand that black Americans "need to stop" pursing due process of their rights when dealing with the same types of discrimination.

 

4. The comment that "the legislative process should be used more" seemingly ignores the reality that Mr. Phillips (of Masterpiece) and Ms. Stuzman (of Arlene) both refused service

even though the legislature had already enacted non-discriminatory public accommodation protections for LGBT individuals

.... so the implication that LGBT individuals were unjustly bullying businesses that had some sort of Constitutional or legal right to refuse services or that the LGBT individuals were only using the courts 'to pass legislation' is patently false.  The legislation was already in place; religious business owners are the ones who were claiming a right to not to have to follow the law.  See my signature for what Alito had to say about that 20 years ago.

Finally, the following legal analysis in the wake of Masterpiece on the American Bar Association's website examines the underlying the above problematic thinking on these points, as they relate to alleged religious liberty rights, and which does a great job re-emphasizing what that court decision did say, didn't say, and left unsaid for an as-yet future ruling:

Quote

The Underlying Unresolved Issues

The Court’s decision is narrow and leaves unresolved the key question of whether forcing businesses to provide services for gays and lesbians, or others, violates free exercise of religion or free speech rights of owners who wish to refuse to provide such services. The issue is sure to come up again, perhaps in cases involving florists who won’t make flower arrangements or photographers who won’t take pictures at same-sex weddings. Interestingly, the Court had the chance to take such a case after its decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop that involved a florist who refused to make flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding, but the Court remanded the case in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop. In Arlene’s Flowers v. Washington, the Washington State Supreme Court came to the same conclusion as the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals.

There were two questions presented in Masterpiece Cakeshop that were not resolved by the Court: Would requiring services violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment? Would requiring services be impermissible compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment?

As to the former, the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) seemingly answers the question. That case involved Native Americans in Oregon who argued that a state law prohibiting consumption of peyote infringed their free exercise of religion. They said that their religion required use of peyote in religious rituals. 

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled against the Native Americans and concluded that there was no violation of free exercise of religion because the Oregon law was neutral in that it was not motivated by a desire to interfere with religion and because it applied to everyone in the state. The Court held that the free exercise clause cannot be used to challenge such a neutral law of general applicability. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, rejected the claim that free exercise of religion required an exemption from an otherwise valid law. Scalia said that “[w]e have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.” Scalia thus declared “that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”

Likewise, Colorado’s law that prohibits business establishments from discriminating is a neutral law of general applicability. Colorado’s antidiscrimination law was not motivated by a desire to interfere with religion, and it applies to all business establishments. Businesses that want to discriminate based on the owners’ religious beliefs thus cannot prevail on their religious freedom claim unless the Supreme Court overrules Employment Division v. Smith or significantly changes the law of the free exercise clause.

If the Court overrules or limits Employment Division v. Smith, the implications will be great. Then any person could claim that his or her religion requires discrimination. The Court long has held that the focus in religious freedom cases is whether a particular person has a sincerely held religious belief, not what the religion teaches. There would be no way to keep a business owner from saying that his or her religion requires not serving women or Jews or Muslims or any group.

Although the Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop did not resolve this issue, it did indicate that claims like that of Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop were unlikely to prevail under the free exercise clause and Employment Division v. Smith. Justice Kennedy’s opinion suggested that the free exercise clause will not provide a basis for such refusals of service when there is not the expression of hostility to religion. The Court declared: “while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”

The other issue—whether requiring service violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment—has potentially even broader implications. Phillips argued that baking a cake is inherently expressive activity. He described himself as a “cake artist.” He says that to force him to design and bake a cake is to compel him to engage in speech. Compelled speech violates the First Amendment.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in an opinion joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, accepted this argument and said that forcing the baker to make a cake would be impermissible compelled speech. He wrote: “Forcing Phillips to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex marriages requires him to, at the very least, acknowledge that same-sex weddings are ‘weddings’ and suggest that they should be celebrated—the precise message he believes his faith forbids. The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from requiring Phillips to ‘bear witness to [these] facts,’ or to ‘affir[m] . . . a belief with which [he] disagrees.’” 

I question whether baking a cake should be regarded as expressive activity and whether a company can make such a speech claim. But, if so, then almost any kind of work can be seen as being a form of expression. If baking a cake is speech, then so is cooking food or, as in other cases that have arisen, taking pictures or making floral arrangements. Any business could refuse to serve gay weddings—or for that matter anyone—by claiming that the antidiscrimination law constitutes impermissible compelled speech.

For example, Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits restaurants and other public accommodations from discriminating based on race. A restaurant owner could claim that forcing it to cook food for African-Americans is impermissible compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. Any business that wants to discriminate would be able to say that forcing it to provide services is compelling its expression. In fact, why couldn’t an employer say that it can hire only men to express a view about the type of work that should be done by the sexes or that women’s role should be in the home? Enforcing antidiscrimination law and forcing the employer to hire women would thus be impermissible compelled speech.

At the oral argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Justice Stephen Breyer said that accepting the speech argument would create a basis for an exception to every civil rights law adopted since “day two.” I don’t know why Justice Breyer chose “day two” in his comment, but the underlying point is surely right: An inherent tension exists between liberty and equality. The application of all antidiscrimination laws infringes the freedom to discriminate. But for decades, the law has made the choice that ensuring equality is worth sacrificing the liberty to discriminate. Put in constitutional terms, ending discrimination is a compelling government interest. Enforcing antidiscrimination laws thus should not be seen as a violation of free exercise of religion or freedom of speech.

 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Hate to be a contrarian but a small correction. African American citizenship is a little more complex then that in early America. They were not explicitly excluded from citizenship by federal law but voting rights were established by state and in five states of the original 13 they could vote if they met the requirements (basically owning property and/or not being too poor depending on the state). When suffrage was extended to those without property it usually only applied to whites and slowly the northern states chipped away at the rights of Blacks to vote.

It wasn't until the Dred Scott decision that citizenship was forbidden to African Americans and slavery sort of legalized everywhere by judicial overreach. Dred Scott and his wife were slaves who were taken into territory where slavery was prohibited and he sued for his freedom. The decision also went ahead and nullified the Missouri Compromise for funsies as well. The irony is that the court seemed to think they were 'helping' to cool tensions by finally making a broad ruling on slavery. Except in the slave states the decision was greeted almost universally with a lot of anger. Ironically if the Dred Scott case had occurred in Missouri or Louisiana which were the most likely states to hear the case Dred Scott and his family probably would have been freed based on previous court precedents. There is a reason Dred Scott tops every serious list of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time.

I appreciate you sharing and educating a bit more on the status of African American citizenship.  Certainly, if there's anything I've learned to take away from the BLM movement, it's that my own awareness and education in racial injustice is left wanting, for sure.  It's been a few decades since my American History classes in school and college; I obviously need to do better! ha.

That said (and with my full appreciation for the history!), my basic point intended to say that the 'first draft' of government that our Founding Fathers' didn't recognize the same federally-mandated equal civil rights for African Americans that are widely accepted and unchallenged today, and, upon the basis of which, few whites would attempt to make a credible legal argument that the rights of whites should have more legal consideration over that of black Americans, since "ours was in the Constitution first"... if that makes sense. 

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I appreciate you sharing and educating a bit more on the status of African American citizenship.  Certainly, if there's anything I've learned to take away from the BLM movement, it's that my own awareness and education in racial injustice is left wanting, for sure.  It's been a few decades since my American History classes in school and college; I obviously need to do better! ha.

That said (and with my full appreciation for the history!), my basic point intended to say that the 'first draft' of government that our Founding Fathers' didn't recognize the same federally-mandated equal civil rights for African Americans that are widely accepted and unchallenged today, and, upon the basis of which, few whites would attempt to make a credible legal argument that the rights of whites should have more legal consideration over that of black Americans, since "ours was in the Constitution first"... if that makes sense. 

If anything the more correct argument would be wealthy landowner's rights should have more consideration because they got their rights first in more states. Some would argue they do still get more consideration.  

[Islander]

On 6/27/2020 at 8:45 AM, Daniel2 said:

I agree that there are times when we need to terminate toxic relationships. 

My post wasn't about those... it was about our kids' mother choosing faith over family.  Since three of our four kids have chosen to leave the LDS church, she no longer engages with them or their children (our granchildren).  Unlike our one child and his family (who remain actively LDS), she doesn't visit or call our other (straight) married kids and their kids (our grandkids) or celebrate their birthdays, who no longer believe.  She has specifically told them she feels she must "choose her faith over family," even though none of our kids and grandkids have asked her to alter her beliefs in any way (other than they don't say a blessing over their food in their home, I suppose...?)

Their mom's decision to ostracize them is unrelated to same-sex issues; it's merely the result of their departure from Mormonism.  While we find that sad and wish she would still engage with our kids and grandkids, but what's even sadder is our kids, their spouses, and grandkids don't even care about the loss of their relationship with their grandmother because they feel if she's more willing to choose her faith over them, then they don't want to have a relationship with her anyway.

Ostracizing people just because they don't share the faith any longer strikes me as rather cold and cruel. As converts, we have lots of family (most, in fact) that are not members of the Church. We do our best to love them and to involve them in our lives and activities. We have found that, over time, our love and affection towards them has been of much greater  influence than the doctrine. They know what we believe and what we stand for so we only need to invest in strengthening the bonds of family, true affection and care for them. Some of their children (our nephews/nieces) have become members and gone on the serve missions and marry in the Temple. In time, these children have been the chosen instruments of the Lord to convert their parents. That is how some of my in-laws have come to the church after decades of contact with us as a family.

I think people fail to understand the scriptures and do all sorts of misguided things in that regard. 

[Islander]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am aware of Jefferson’s original draft but no, religious liberty is not part of the founding document. It was added later and was loosely interpreted to only apply to the federal government. North Carolina, being the wackos they are, toyed with declaring Christianity to be the official religion of the state. The First amendment, strictly constructed, only applies to federal congress. There is a tortured interpretation of the 14th amendment used to make 1st amendment rights universal to all levels of government.

Pretending religious liberty is some ground level stuff while civil liberties are an addendum does not hold water. Both developed.

Well, the history of the SCOTUS legislating outside the original intent of the Constitution is long and painful. Just like any important document, the Constitution has been amended and enhanced in order to address and clarify  issues that the founders thought were of paramount importance. What is clear is that it has been stretched to encompass "rights" that did not exist even as a concept at that time. And that is where we find ourselves today. Arguing if a right thought of as universal and of critical import for ALL should be done away to accomodate a new "right" for very-very few. 

[Daniel2]

20 minutes ago, Islander said:

Ostracizing people just because they don't share the faith any longer strikes me as rather cold and cruel. As converts, we have lots of family (most, in fact) that are not members of the Church. We do our best to love them and to involve them in our lives and activities. We have found that, over time, our love and affection towards them has been of much greater  influence than the doctrine. They know what we believe and what we stand for so we only need to invest in strengthening the bonds of family, true affection and care for them. Some of their children (our nephews/nieces) have become members and gone on the serve missions and marry in the Temple. In time, these children have been the chosen instruments of the Lord to convert their parents. That is how some of my in-laws have come to the church after decades of contact with us as a family.

I think people fail to understand the scriptures and do all sorts of misguided things in that regard. 

I agree... her behavior does seem cold and cruel, and that's how our three ex-LDS kids, and their spouses and children, perceive it, as well.  They often mention why she even thinks they'd have any interest in returning to the Church when that's the example she has set.  We all certainly have our own struggles and none of us can truly understand what someone else is going through, but it is hard to empathize with her or see how she cannot see how her behavior is driving the rift in both their relationship and their interest in the Church.

On the other hand, my husband and I continue to be inclusive and supportive of our remaining LDS son, his wife, and their three younger children, despite the fact that we have no desire in returning to church membership.  And they have been supportive of and involved in our lives, including attending our wedding 6 years ago and joining us at family celebrations, dinners, and events.  We likewise attend their important family and LDS milestones, youth fundraisers, etc.  In fact, our youngest granddaughter just turned 8 and is getting baptized this coming week.  Our son and daughter-in-law asked my husband and I to lead the music and play the piano at her baptism (since COVID has limited local church gatherings to groups of 20 or less, it'll only be family, and I'm the only one that plays piano in the group... go figure! ha).  For us, love, support, and acceptance of one anothers' lives and choices flows both ways. 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Daniel2