Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu

[ttribe]

22 hours ago, provoman said:

I will post this again, knowing someone - I think ttribe or D Crocket responded.

 

But does a School recieve Federal funding? Or does the student apply to request the Federal Government for a loan, with the agreement that if the loan is granted it will go to specified school? 
 

So when a loan is granted the Federal money is "converted" to monies in the students name.  And so while ultimately the money goes to the school, the money was the students, and so Federal money did not go to the School.

Wasn't me; I'm afraid I don't know the answer.

[ttribe]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

By whom?

Are you generalizing statements or did someone say this?

The time is always right for hyperbole.

[OGHoosier]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

All about sex? I think you have it backwards. It is the church that frames the purposes of life as contingent upon one kind of sex. But given the other values it espouses, hopefully one day charity will win out, ideally sooner rather than later to limit the damage its narrow view does.

I take exception to this view. The purpose of life is to love God and love thy neighbor, learning from one's experiences on earth. The Church teaches that constraints on sex are required in order for it to be conducive to that purpose. 

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I take exception to this view. The purpose of life is to love God and love thy neighbor, learning from one's experiences on earth. The Church teaches that constraints on sex are required in order for it to be conducive to that purpose. 

However you want to frame it, comparing the church's view on sex to the view that same-sex love is valid, it's unfair to call the latter "all about sex"--as mgy401 was doing--without saying the church's is "all about sex," and it's arguable that the church's view is much moreso "about sex." Mgy401's remarks also bely a deep misunderstanding about homosexuality. 

[Amulek]

On 5/30/2021 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

I'm curious as to how Title IX works vis-à-vis private religious schools imposing constraints on sexual behaviors (the "religious exemption" referenced here).

According to the Department of Education, "Title IX does not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization to the extent that application of Title IX would be inconsistent with the religious tenets of the organization. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(3); C.F.R. §34 106.12(a)."

 

Quote

And again, not impressed the author of the article.  An exemption from the law means the law does not apply to a party.  Characterizing this as "ignore some parts of it" is slanted risible.

Quite so. Religious owned universities which are exempt from enforcing portions of Title IX aren't "ignoring" the law any more than minor children are ignoring the IRS when they don't have enough income to necessitate filing tax returns.

 

Quote

The challenge, though, is that these narratives, running heavily into the I'm-a-victim territory, are sort of hard to square with BYU being pretty much an open book when it comes to the Law of Chastity and the Honor Code.

I agree. While it may be the case that not all universities are as explicitly clear about the rules, BYU is pretty transparent about what is expected of students.

 

Quote

I will be interested to see how this case turns out.

Same. My initial thinking is that it's too early for such a suit to be successful, but I guess we'll see. 

 

Quote

Thoughts?

Some time ago there was talk about efforts to make Brandeis more diverse by making it distinctively less Jewish, and I remember reading a well articulated point by Ilya Somin about the conflict between diversity within institutions as opposed to diversity across institutions [link]:

Those who argue for diversity in higher education implicitly envision a school that has a "critical mass" of whites, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and other groups. Such a university may well be internally diverse (at least in an ethnic sense), but if every school pursues this ideal, than they will all look more or less alike on the ethnic dimension, or whatever other criterion is chosen as the focus of diversity promotion. There will be diversity within institutions, but very little diversity across institutions.

By contrast, if Brandeis continues to be a distinctively Jewish school, Brigham Young continues to be a distinctively Mormon school, and so on, these schools can make unique contributions to American higher education that might otherwise be lost. Although Brandeis and BYU may not be internally diverse, they definitely add to the overall diversity of the American higher education system in two important ways. First, they give students who want to attend a distinctively Jewish or Mormon school an option they would not have if all schools stick to the internal diversity model. Second, faculty at a distinctively Jewish or Mormon school might well pursue research on subjects that are ignored or at least deemphasized at other types of institutions. Brandeis' traditional focus on hiring faculty who study the history of Judaism and the Jewish people is an example of the latter.

To be sure, a school built around a particular group identity will have weaknesses as well as strengths. But the weaknesses are offset by the fact that there will always be hundreds of other schools that do not try to foster a distinctive group identity. Students and faculty who don't want to be associated with a distinctively Jewish school have plenty of options, even if they can't attend Brandeis. The question is not whether there should be a large number of internally diverse schools, but whether all schools should be that way. Both students and scholars will be worse off if we exalt diversity within institutions to such an extent that diversity across institutions is eliminated.

 

Edited May 31, 2021 by Amulek

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/30/2021 at 10:31 AM, smac97 said:

Here:

Not particularly impressed with the article, which begins by equivocating on kep concepts.  "Openly queer" in this context does not necessarily mean having an innate sexual attraction on one's own gender, but I think the article pretty clearly intends to give that impression.

I'm curious as to how Title IX works vis-à-vis private religious schools imposing constraints on sexual behaviors (the "religious exemption" referenced here).

And again, not impressed the author of the article.  An exemption from the law means the law does not apply to a party.  Characterizing this as "ignore some parts of it" is slanted risible.

What follows are three stories laden with emotions and feelings.  Genuine ones, but emotions and feelings nonetheless. 

The challenge, though, is that these narratives, running heavily into the I'm-a-victim territory, are sort of hard to square with BYU being pretty much an open book when it comes to the Law of Chastity and the Honor Code.

I will be interested to see how this case turns out.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Another challenge is that the stores are . . . pretty vague.  

Markowski apparently had no qualms about applying and accepting admission to and, presumably, taking the tithing-funded subsidy for enrollment at a school where she now says she felt anxious about being prohibited from “being [her]self.”

[smac97]

On 5/30/2021 at 2:55 PM, secondclasscitizen said:

The law of chastity thing begs the question though:

are heterosexual students allowed to hug, kiss, hold hands in and engage in limited PDA on byu campus or according to the honor code? If so, is that a violation of the law of chastity and the honor code.? If not why can’t gay kids engage in it? 

Nobody, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to engage in same-sex behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

[secondclasscitizen]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nobody, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to engage in same-sex behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

Agreed... at byu. Federal govt doesn’t really care what the church or any other church believes.  Courts will decide whether or not they want to subsidize campuses that discriminate . We will see. 

[smac97]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

Option 4

Dont allow straight couples to hold hands, kiss, or date at BYU. If anyone marries they can no longer attend BYU.  

After all, if gay students are expected to live by those rules it doesn’t seem to be any big deal to also have straight students follow the same rules.  

Everyone applying to BYU knows what is expected of them.  It is their choice to attend or not.

All students are required to live by "the same rules."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Quote

Nobody, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to engage in same-sex behavior.

Agreed... at byu. Federal govt doesn’t really care what the church or any other church believes.  Courts will decide whether or not they want to subsidize campuses that discriminate . We will see. 

Discriminate against...?

Thanks,

-Smac

[mgy401]

16 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

All about sex? I think you have it backwards. It is the church that frames the purposes of life as contingent upon one kind of sex. But given the other values it espouses, hopefully one day charity will win out, ideally sooner rather than later to limit the damage its narrow view does.

Wait—so, we’re sexual libertines because the Mormon Church says we should be?  

Umm . . . Do we even hear ourselves here?

Your allegation is precisely backwards.  The Church’s view is that a major purpose of sex is the creation of life (with corollaries being that a) sex can be a powerful means of bonding for people who are in an eternal covenant, and b) that some sexual outlets are inherently wrong no matter how powerfully a person wants to engage in them).  It takes a certain kind of predisposition to walk out of an LDS church meeting or read an LDS scripture or listen to an LDS conference talk and think “ya know what God wants me to do right this minute in order to have a useful, fulfilled life?  Have sex—and in the precise way that my own libido tells me I should!!!”

This business that “if I don’t get laid the way I want I may as well DIE”, didn’t come from the Church; and the underlying assumption that “God would never create a person with sexual desires He expected them to repress” fails the test of common experience.  Having personally spent a bit of time ministering to folks afflicted with inclinations towards pedophilia—I’ll take your pleadings about “charity” and “compassion” seriously, when you can come up with a coherent theological reason that God would do to those folks what (you maintain) He would never do to a LGBTQ person.

Edited June 1, 2021 by mgy401

[secondclasscitizen]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Discriminate against...?

Thanks,

 

same sex behavior

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

same sex behavior

Are you saying discrimination against behavior is unlawful?

The Honor Code also prohibits the consumption of alcohol.  Is that "discrimination" too?

Thanks,

-Smac

[AtlanticMike]

5 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The Church teaches that constraints on sex are required in order for it to be conducive to that purpose.

Personally, I think we would have more people join the church if, instead of teaching constraints on sex, we would teach about restraints when talking about sex.

 

[secondclasscitizen]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you saying discrimination against behavior is unlawful?

The Honor Code also prohibits the consumption of alcohol.  Is that "discrimination" too?

Thanks,

 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

Wait—so, we’re sexual libertines because the Mormon Church says we should be?  

Umm . . . Do we even hear ourselves here?

Your allegation is precisely backwards.  The Church’s view is that a major purpose of sex is the creation of life (with corollaries being that a) sex can be a powerful means of bonding for people who are in an eternal covenant, and b) that some sexual outlets are inherently wrong no matter how powerfully a person wants to engage in them).  It takes a certain kind of predisposition to walk out of an LDS church meeting or read an LDS scripture or listen to an LDS conference talk and think “ya know what God wants me to do right this minute in order to have a useful, fulfilled life?  Have sex—and in the precise way that my own libido tells me I should!!!”

This business that “if I don’t get laid the way I want I may as well DIE”, didn’t come from the Church; and the underlying assumption that “God would never create a person with sexual desires He expected them to repress” fails the test of common experience.  Having personally spent a bit of time ministering to folks afflicted with inclinations towards pedophilia—I’ll take your pleadings about “charity” and “compassion” seriously, when you can come up with a coherent theological reason that God would do to those folks what (you maintain) He would never do to a LGBTQ person.

Engaging in homosexual sex does not make one a libertine, nor is it comparable to pedophilia. Full stop.

[2BizE]

On 5/30/2021 at 2:55 PM, secondclasscitizen said:

The law of chastity thing begs the question though:

are heterosexual students allowed to hug, kiss, hold hands in and engage in limited PDA on byu campus or according to the honor code? If so, is that a violation of the law of chastity and the honor code.? If not why can’t gay kids engage in it? 
 

 

 

 

You sir are not a second class citizen for thinking rationally.  If kissing and holding hands is not against the law of chastity, which is having sexual relations  with someone who is not your spouse....then I believe it should be fine for gay people as well.   I think the court may look at that exact point as well on how gay people are treated differently an these religious schools.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Engaging in homosexual sex does not make one a libertine, nor is it comparable to pedophilia. Full stop.

Reminder: The major risk to children has always been men - AFAIK, straight men.

That is all.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Chum

[secondclasscitizen]

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

You sir are not a second class citizen for thinking rationally.  If kissing and holding hands is not against the law of chastity, which is having sexual relations  with someone who is not your spouse....then I believe it should be fine for gay people as well.   I think the court may look at that exact point as well on how gay people are treated differently an these religious schools.

You are right. I’m actually a second class citizen in the church for not going on a mission. That’s what my then bishop told me I would be for the rest of my life before I went to boot camp. I am embracing it!

in respect to the PDA thing that is exact the same point I’m making. I don’t care about the rules at BYU but I do care about my tax dollars being applied in a discriminatory manner. They are people whether we agree with them or not. I would also question anyone’s sanity who wants to go to BYU if they are a doubter, gay, black, non Mormon or any number of things that are an issue at that school. I agree with others who say they know what they are getting into, but it does not make the treatment they receive appropriate. 
 

 

 

[secondclasscitizen]

20 hours ago, mgy401 said:

 

That said: it seemed to me that the point you were making is that the LDS concept of “chastity” boils down to technical compliance with a checklist of particular verboten actions, 

Have you ever had to confess a sexual sin to a bishop? You will be asked lots of details in order to determine whether or not you have committed the sin which is next to  murder in seriousness . Details and verboten actions matter. Oh and just to make sure you really are repentant you must tell the bishop who you did it with. 

Edited June 1, 2021 by secondclasscitizen

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Engaging in homosexual sex does not make one a libertine, nor is it comparable to pedophilia. Full stop.

I don't see where he says that in his post.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, secondclasscitizen said:

I would also question anyone’s sanity who wants to go to BYU if they are a doubter ...

Indeed. It's a bit like enlisting when one doesn't believe America is worth defending.

Quote

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

How exactly do those who falsely swear the above get treated? Are they discriminated against in any way, or do they have the same rights as other soldiers?

Edited June 1, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[secondclasscitizen]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It's a bit like enlisting when one doesn't believe in the goodness of America, hey?

obviously you have not been in the us military. There are plenty of personnel who don’t believe in the goodness of America. See exhibit one below: they eventually kicked him out but he kept it mum until he graduated West Point. 

How exactly do those who falsely swear the above get 'treated'? Are they discriminated against, or do they have the same rights as everyone else?

Falsely swear? I suppose they would have to act out on it. I have yet to meet anyone in the military who goes around saying they falsely swore their enlistment or commissioning oath. I suppose they would get kicked   Out for not doing their job. 
 

doesnt matter what the military would do, that is governed by the constitution. The court will also decide if it is constitutional to knowingly allow federal funds to be divvied out according to your sexual orientation. I’m betting they will side with the gays as they should. Lots of tithing out there to make up for the free govt money. That way the church can then continue to discriminate against homosexuals all they want because that’s what Jesus would have us do. See win win. Seriously where is the downside of not getting govt money? I thought Mormons were all about being independent. When they don’t pay you they have a hard time dictating things you have to do. At least that is the way I was raised. 
 

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

obviously you have not been in the us military.

No, thankfully. I am a citizen of a much different nation.

Quote

Falsely swear? I suppose they would have to act out on it. I have yet to meet anyone in the military who goes around saying they falsely swore their enlistment or commissioning oath. I suppose they would get kicked   Out for not doing their job. 

Expecting people to hide how they feel or face getting 'kicked out' if they act on it sounds terribly discriminatory to me. I hope no one is using public funds to support this ugly injustice!

[JustAnAustralian]

Quote

The court will also decide if it is constitutional to knowingly allow federal funds to be divvied out according to your sexual orientation.

I thought the point was to decide whether religious exemptions to title ix enforcement are constitutional.

If schools that currently have a religious exemption are happy to accept title ix related lawsuits then school policies are unlikely to change and they will still accept the funding right?

 

Assuming the courts actually have the guts to make a ruling on it of course.

Edited June 1, 2021 by JustAnAustralian