Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu

[bsjkki]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

It seems like a lot of those buildings with windows were built before 'abuse prevention' during primary was on the radar.  But then again, I don't think i've ever met in a building that had windows in the doors so maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about.  

I was in a building where the doors with windows were replaced with doors without windows. This happened as abuse prevention awareness was ticking up. I think the explanation was upgraded fire codes and the doors with windows did not meet the new local code so there are probably a lot of reasons doors do or do not have windows in church buildings and it probably has a lot to do with local building codes. I think it would be nice to have doors with windows. For Primary, we could spot check if two teachers are present without interrupting.

[secondclasscitizen]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It now appears that in your haste to make your point, you were careless in the wording of your post. I don’t think anyone seriously disputes that there are active members of the Church who fall short of their covenants, often in egregious ways relating to sexual sin. But your post seemed to imply that pedophilia is tolerated in the Church when, it is now clear, you knew very well that is not the case. 
 

That’s why I pushed back. 

Where in the world did I say the church tolerates pedophilia? I made the statement many are recommend holders and so are many men who beat their wives and kids. That doesn’t in any way say the church supports that behavior.

Edited June 3, 2021 by secondclasscitizen
Typo

[AtlanticMike]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

 

Try explaining the situation first far enough away that you can’t grab her and give her a choice.  Plus a lot of women carry these days. You playing at being hero could get a gun pointed at you, not the guy in the bike. 

So let me see if I understand this, your in a Wal Mart parking lot at 12am, a man on a bicycle is circling you and possibly thinking about doing something to you like Chum said, and you want a good Samaritan to stand 50 yards away and yell at you options and ask what your comfortable with!! If so, you and I live in different worlds. If my wife is in a Wal Mart parking lot at 12am and a man is circling her, I pray any man or woman watching would run directly to her and stand beside her. But then again, my brain hasn't been corrupted by this new strain of feminism that thinks women don't need help with anything at all. 

   By the way, as I've said on here before, my wife and girls have well over a hundred hours of range time and defensive tactic classes, your "give me options" mind set is useless in a real world situation, especially from 50 yards away.

But I'm sure it makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Edited June 3, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[secondclasscitizen]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It now appears that in your haste to make your point, you were careless in the wording of your post. I don’t think anyone seriously disputes that there are active members of the Church who fall short of their covenants, often in egregious ways relating to sexual sin. But your post seemed to imply that pedophilia is tolerated in the Church when, it is now clear, you knew very well that is not the case. 
 

That’s why I pushed back. 

Well thanks. I learned from the best. The guy who stated I couldn’t competently make the claim about the windows. Anyway thanks for the training. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by secondclasscitizen

[california boy]

I feel like I need to say something here.  I have taken some time away from this thread which has given me some space to reflect. I think I did overreact to some comments. And I apologize. 
 

I know that it is difficult for me at times to deal with many of the insensitive and hateful remarks and actions I have had to deal with both by family members and the Church. Sometimes things trigger those emotions and hurt that still remain as scars that I will probably have for the rest of my life.  Even implying that because I am gay means that people associate me with a pedophile can trigger those feelings even when it may not be intentional.  I end up fighting back and sometimes with more force that should be used  

Believe it or not, I want the church to be a better place than it was for me  When I see Church members disrespecting the gay community I want that to never happen to someone else  So I push back often harder than I should  I apologize for that  I know that my actions also cause others to push back strongly perhaps because they too have been accused of untruths just because they are members of the church   
 

I will try to do better and learn to breath and step away sooner.  Sorry.

.

[Fair Dinkum]

Can't have it both ways...take the federal money but continue to discriminate by treating multiple classes of people differently.   I see the church eventually having to choose between taking the federal money and ending their discrimination or abandoning the federal dollars and choosing to maintain their discrimination...on moral grounds of course.

[poptart]

39 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

So let me see if I understand this, your in a Wal Mart parking lot at 12am, a man on a bicycle is circling you and possibly thinking about doing something to you like Chum said, and you want a good Samaritan to stand 50 yards away and yell at you options and ask what your comfortable with!! If so, you and I live in different worlds. If my wife is in a Wal Mart parking lot at 12am and a man is circling her, I pray any man or woman watching would run directly to her and stand beside her. But then again, my brain hasn't been corrupted by this new strain of feminism that thinks women don't need help with anything at all. 

   By the way, as I've said on here before, my wife and girls have well over a hundred hours of range time and defensive tactic classes, your "give me options" mind set is useless in a real world situation, especially from 50 yards away.

But I'm sure it makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Was going to say if someone's circling me at 12am in a parking lot I'm thinking lethal force may well be the best option.  Then I read the rest of your post and well, never mind lol.  I think the same way, if all else fails shoot/stab em.  Bad people care nothing for your well being, I say return it in kind.  In other countries they teach women self defence and marksmanship.  Ex girlfriend of mine did karate in Kanagawa prefecture, in Japan karate is boxing tier brutal, they break bones.  The old stereotype of the demure Asian female is a total lie lol. 

Like what gen Mattis had to say, some people just need to be shot.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

So let me see if I understand this, your in a Wal Mart parking lot at 12am, a man on a bicycle is circling you and possibly thinking about doing something to you like Chum said, and you want a good Samaritan to stand 50 yards away and yell at you options and ask what your comfortable with!! If so, you and I live in different worlds. If my wife is in a Wal Mart parking lot at 12am and a man is circling her, I pray any man or woman watching would run directly to her and stand beside her. But then again, my brain hasn't been corrupted by this new strain of feminism that thinks women don't need help with anything at all. 

   By the way, as I've said on here before, my wife and girls have well over a hundred hours of range time and defensive tactic classes, your "give me options" mind set is useless in a real world situation, especially from 50 yards away.

But I'm sure it makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside.

How is the woman supposed to know that the guy standing 50 feet back is a good samaritan?  Are you aware that in the past men have pretended to be good samaritans before raping women?  Maybe that's something you missed by refusing to "be corrupted by the new strain of feminism."

When Cal said a woman should be given options she meant that a woman should have the chance to assess whether or not the man offering help is actually more of a threat to her than what he is saying he will protect her from.

 

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Can't have it both ways...take the federal money but continue to discriminate by treating multiple classes of people differently.  

Nobody is treated "differently."  The Law of Chastity applies to everyone in the same way.  Nobody, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.

27 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I see the church eventually having to choose between taking the federal money and ending their discrimination or abandoning the federal dollars and choosing to maintain their discrimination...on moral grounds of course.

It sure would be nice to see you step away from the loaded terms in your characterizations of the Church.  Also, I hope you have stopped beating your wife and torturing puppies for fun.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

I heard it often around the time that SSM was fighting to become legal.  That people who were worried legalized SSM would eventually cause religious institutions who had tax exempt status to lose it if they didn't support SSM were just fear mongering.  You heard that kind of stuff again when the push for certain LGBT protections be added to anti-discriminatory laws and people again worried that lose of tax exemption for religious institutions would be the result. 

So while not everyone who was pro-LGBT made those types of arguments they were fairly common in some circles. 

Yes, I do agree that there have been many that have suggested/called for removing some churches' tax exempt status based on said churches' discriminatory practices against protected classes.  And conversely, there are many who feel that churches' tax exempt status is both justifiable and/or even a right who have viewed these calls as not only concerning, but as a legitimate threat to religious liberty.

However, I don't believe there is any actual legal precedence suggesting that churches who choose to discriminate against protected classes ARE actually at risk of losing their tax exempt status.  

In fact, historically, the exact opposite is true.  In the 57 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, churches remain entirely free to discriminate against (as in, refuse to perform, admit, or recognize) marriages of interracial and/or black couples without legal penalty or censure; their tax exempt status remains firmly intact.  A few examples: click on any the following underlined years linking to specific incidents in which different churches continue to refuse to marry, allow membership, or recognize marriages of interracial and/or black couples: 1991. 1996,  2000, 2011, 2012, 2019.

In the majority opinion of the Supreme Court ruling recognizing civil marriage for same-sex couples, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote:

Quote

"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."

In sum, while some pro-LGBT advocates have called for the removal of tax exempt status for churches who deny equal access or membership for LGBT individuals, and some perceive that as a credible threat, there is no legal precedence of such, in so far as it relates to churches themselves.

As mentioned previously, that a church-owned school or university that previously accepted public funds and taxes will likely end up facing losing said federal/tax-payer funding and/or tax exemption status (as per the Bob Jones University precedent), which is the topic of this thread, HAS long been foreseen and predicted by many on both sides of this issue. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Daniel2

[Chum]

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

And here's the BUT, and my 2 cents because I hire a lot of guys who probably have at one point in their life been the guy on the bicycle possibly thinking about robbing the lady so he can get his next fix.

Nah. He was almost certainly one of our many, many homeless. Assuming the best, she was probably the most interesting thing available to him, at midnight.

Which is one of my points. She was a thing. She was interesting. He was using her for entertainment w/o her consent.

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

First, in the mind of the guy on the bicycle, you being 50 yards away, he doesn't give one thought of what you're doing there. 50 yards is an eternity for you or anyone else to get to that lady. He can stab her and grab her purse and get back on his bike before you're 1/2 way there.

This is overthinking the situation. Of all the things that could have happened, these are the least likely. Erroneously pretending she was about to be attacked and sounding the klaxons would have added to her stress, not reduce it. Those were the unhelpful actions I considered and discarded (in the 8 seconds available to me).

4 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Anyways, I still like what you did, I agree a lot of men these days wouldn't do anything and the number who will is getting smaller and smaller.

Guys love feeling like heroes, many would gladly volunteer for guard duty or something.

This issue is that women experience a wide spectrum of poor treatment from men, with violence being the extreme example. Guys typically only care about those edge cases were we can come to the rescue - while are bored by the other 99% of stress we cause or enable.

4 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

what you did for that lady is awesome, you probably made her feel safe while loading her car, your a true gentleman. 

I supplied one band-aid during endless onslaught. Where do I get my laurel wreath?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Well thanks. I learned from the best. The guy who stated I couldn’t competently make the claim about the windows. Anyway thanks for the training. 

Let’s be clear: I said you couldn’t competently claim that “everyone knows” the “primary” reason for the windows was to prevent abuse. Unless you can cite a definitive survey, I still don’t see how you can competently make that claim. 
 

As others have indicated here, there are multiple possible reasons the windows are in place, and people might differ as to which they think is the “primary” one. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Where in the world did I say the church tolerates pedophilia? I made the statement many are recommend holders and so are many men who beat their wives and kids. That doesn’t in any way say the church supports that behavior.

If they were allowed to hold recommends while engaging in such behavior, that would be tantamount to the Church tolerating it. 
 

Only after I had scrutinized your statement did you subsequently acknowledge that an individual guilty of such behavior would be apt to lose his recommend. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If they were allowed to hold recommends while engaging in such behavior, that would be tantamount to the Church tolerating it. 
 

Only after I had scrutinized your statement did you subsequently acknowledge that an individual guilty of such behavior would be apt to lose his recommend. 

I've known 3 Mormons who were pedophiles. One was an ex-Mormon, one was a marginally active member, and the last was a "pillar of his community" type of member. I don't think you can make broad statements about who these folks are. Unfortunately, they are everywhere, in and out of every religious group.

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nobody is treated "differently."  The Law of Chastity applies to everyone in the same way.  Nobody, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.

It sure would be nice to see you step away from the loaded terms in your characterizations of the Church.  Also, I hope you have stopped beating your wife and torturing puppies for fun.

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you asserting that a Gay couple holding hands and kissing on BYU's campus is treated the same as a straight couple exhibiting the same romantic behavior is treated by BYU?  Sorry sir but you are just plain wrong in this regard. Nothing will happen to the straight couple while the gay couple will be kicked out of school, potentially lose their on campus employment, housing and all accumulated credits at BYU for doing the same exact behavior as the straight couple.  This is NOT equal.  NOTE: Neither couple is breaking the Law of Chastity

Edited June 3, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Are you asserting that a Gay couple holding hands and kissing on BYU's campus is treated the same as a straight couple exhibiting the same romantic behavior is treated by BYU?  Sorry sir but you are just plain wrong in this regard. Nothing will happen to the straight couple while the gay couple will be kicked out of school, potentially lose their on campus employment, housing and all accumulated credits at BYU for doing the same exact behavior as the straight couple.  This is NOT equal.  NOTE: Neither couple is breaking the Law of Chastity

I think he's saying that a straight person is not allowed to engage in homosexual behavior, so they are treated exactly the same as gay people. Kind of tortured reasoning. 

ETA: My dad and his twin brother are both left-handed. When they were in elementary school, they were punished if they wrote with their left hands. By Spencer's reasoning, my dad and his brother were treated no differently than right-handed students, who also weren't allowed to write left-handed. Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to be the argument he's making. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by jkwilliams

[Chum]

5 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

  Next time if someone is in trouble, truly in trouble and the hair is standing up on the back of your neck, don't worry about what the lady thinks,  walk over to her and say, this guy is a creep and I think he's targeting you, I'm going to stand right beside you until your done. If your sincere, she'll be extremely happy you're there.

From her perspective, I am the exact same threat as the guy on the bike.

If I want to be helpful, I can best do that by being out of her way, by helping her gain more control by presenting useful choices. Pushing myself into her proximity takes those things away from her. I am not who needs to be in control here.

Going back to my OP, none of these things were simple for me to figure out. I'm here following situations where women who weren't too exhausted to counsel me, did so. Even then, I generally had to consider their words for a long time before they made sense.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nobody is treated "differently."  The Law of Chastity applies to everyone in the same way.  Nobody, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.

The reason why you have to keep repeating this idea is because most don’t buy into your rationalization.  (How many times in this thread have you already made this statement.)

It doesn’t really make any sense.  It is like saying everyone in the military has to have a cup of coffee in the morning in order to sta

y in the military. Since all have to abide by the same rule Mormons are treated equally.

Given your definition of discrimination it is actually impossible to discriminate. So it just doesn’t exist.  There are different rules about hugging, kissing, dating ets. that only affect LBBT students. 
 

ETA  I see JK already also just challenged this rationalization 

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by california boy

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Can't have it both ways...take the federal money but continue to discriminate by treating multiple classes of people differently.

I believe Fuller Theological Seminary receives federal funds. Do you think that obligates them to admit Latter-day Saints or Atheists into their divinity programs?

I've got to admit - I'm kind of okay if they don't. YMMV.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Are you asserting that a Gay couple holding hands and kissing on BYU's campus is treated the same as a straight couple exhibiting the same romantic behavior is treated by BYU? 

I am saying that nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior, regardless of sexual orientation.  

Quote

Sorry sir but you are just plain wrong in this regard.

Sorry, but I'm not.  There is no sexual-orientation-based differentiation in the Honor Code.  It's a one-size-fits-all sort of thing.

A gay person cannot engage in homosexual behavior as a BYU student.  Neither can a heterosexual person.

Quote

Nothing will happen to the straight couple while the gay couple will be kicked out of school, potentially lose their on campus employment, housing and all accumulated credits at BYU for doing the same exact behavior as the straight couple. 

You are simply wrong here.  The Honor Code is applied to individuals, not couples.  BYU students sign the Honor Code individually.  They are bound to it as an individual.

Quote

This is NOT equal. 

This IS equal.  No individual at BYU is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.  Just like no individual is allowed to drink booze, smoke, or use "profane and vulgar language."

Quote

NOTE: Neither couple is breaking the Law of Chastity

NOTE: One of them is, since homosexual behavior per se violates the Law of Chastity: "Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual activity is a serious sin..."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 3, 2021 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've known 3 Mormons who were pedophiles. One was an ex-Mormon, one was a marginally active member, and the last was a "pillar of his community" type of member. I don't think you can make broad statements about who these folks are. Unfortunately, they are everywhere, in and out of every religious group.

OK.  
 

Did you expect an argument from me about this? 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

OK.  
 

Did you expect an argument from me about this? 

No, why do you ask? 

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

Nobody is treated "differently."  The Law of Chastity applies to everyone in the same way.  Nobody, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.

The reason why you have to keep repeating this idea

Is because people keep misrepresenting the Church and its teachings, hence the need to keep repeating this correction of those misrepresentations.

Quote

is because most don’t buy into your rationalization.

Good luck finding a provision that differentiates based on sexual orientation.  

If you can find something that says "Heterosexuals can engage in homosexual behavior, but homosexuals cannot," then present it and let's talk.

We both know that no such differentiation exists.  But one of us wants to nevertheless act as if there is.

Quote

(How many times in this thread have you already made this statement.)

As long as people persist in misrepresenting the Church, I'll persist in correcting such misrepresentations.

Quote

It doesn’t really make any sense.  

It really does.  And the persistent "playing dumb" routine just doesn't work.

Everyone knows that homosexual behavior is not allowed at BYU.  By anyone.

Quote

It is like saying everyone in the military has to have a cup of coffee in the morning in order to stay in the military.

I don't understand the comparison.  Its application is not self-evident.

Quote

Since all have to abide by the same rule Mormons are treated equally.

Mormons being compelled to violate their religious beliefs as a condition for remaining in the military would indeed be a problem.  Such a rule would violate the First Amendment.  The disparate impact would accrue from that.

But there is no constitutional right to engage in homosexual behavior at BYU.

Quote

Given your definition of discrimination it is actually impossible to discriminate.

Sure it is.  If BYU said "White students can drink and smoke, but black students cannot," that would constitute a race-based double standard.  As it is, however, nobody is allowed to drink and smoke while at BYU.

The problem you have is that you are trying to pound a round peg (discrimination) into a square hole (BYU's Honor Code).  You are trying to argue that the Honor Code treats heterosexual students differently from homosexual students as pertaining to homosexual behavior.  But the peg won't fit, because the same standard applies to everyone.  Nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior at BYU, just like nobody is allowed to smoke, drink, swear, etc.

Quote

So it just doesn’t exist.  

Yes.  That is my point.  Discrimination based on sexual orientation "doesn't exist" in the BYU Honor Code.

Quote

There are different rules about hugging, kissing, dating ets. that only affect LBBT students. 

Nobody can engage in homosexual behavior, including heterosexuals.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 3, 2021 by smac97

[Daniel2]

17 hours ago, kllindley said:

I absolutely acknowledge that. That is why my comment said nothing about all pro-LGBT individuals. I said it had happened multiple times.

It would be equally false to imply that expressions of concern about religious freedom have never been dismissed as slippery slope hysterics on this board.  

My intent in responding in this thread is to clarify what routinely HAS been asserted would never happen with what routinely HASN'T been asserted would never happen...

I admit it's certainly possible that some pro-LGBT advocates may have suggested to you or others that schools like BYU would never face losing tax-exempt status or federal tax funding... but if that’s the case, especially from what I’ve witnessed over the last 20 years here on this board, the vast majority of pro-LGBT posters have long-expected and been quite vocal in predicting that LGBT-equality and civil rights would directly parallel and play out how racial equality and civil rights played out, and specifically that BYU would very likely ultimately face these same types of sanctions as it did during the Civil Rights era. 

Perhaps your initial comment refers to conversations you've had elsewhere....  I'm just pointing out that as far as most of the pro-LGBT posters' predictions that I've seen here over the last two decades, the topic of this thread (BYU facing losing federal funding/tax exempt status) doesn't fall into the cateory of "Well, gee.... They repeatedly told us this would never happen."  

Most here have said exactly the opposite. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No, why do you ask? 

Because you made the comment in the context of my conversation with SCC. I didn’t know whether you meant it in support of him or of me or merely as a peripheral observation. I have no quarrel with what you said on its face. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Scott Lloyd