Jump to content

Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Meh, don't worry about it. Sometimes things really get to me here. I wish they didn't, but some things just hurt the heart. If that makes me a terrible person, so be it. 

Your problems deserve a bigger violin. | Sympathy Ecard

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Meh, don't worry about it. Sometimes things really get to me here. I wish they didn't, but some things just hurt the heart.

I think I understand.

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If that makes me a terrible person, so be it. 

I haven't called you a terrible person, nor do I think you are.

Meanwhile, you have trotted out all sorts of nasty remarks about me and my character.  Publicly.  Repeatedly.

  • "It's been a long time since I felt embarrassed for an argument someone else made."
  • "I find your lack of humanity here embarrassing and cringeworthy."
  • "I do have a visceral response to casual dismissal of the real hurt people do to each other."
  • "I'm . . . {j}ust expressing my dismay and disgust."
  • "I think you're a better person than the argument you're making."
  • "And you're making arguments that really put the church in a bad light."

The irony here is . . . strong.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

I think I understand.

I haven't called you a terrible person, nor do I think you are.

Meanwhile, you have trotted out all sorts of nasty remarks about me and my character.  Publicly.  Repeatedly.

  • "It's been a long time since I felt embarrassed for an argument someone else made."
  • "I find your lack of humanity here embarrassing and cringeworthy."
  • "I do have a visceral response to casual dismissal of the real hurt people do to each other."
  • "I'm . . . {j}ust expressing my dismay and disgust."
  • "I think you're a better person than the argument you're making."
  • "And you're making arguments that really put the church in a bad light."

The irony here is . . . strong.

Thanks,

-Smac

I apologize for the second statement. It's the argument that makes me angry, not your character.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You're right. I'm angry and disgusted.

Well, I hope you can get past such things. 

If you have a reasoned and evidence-based argument, I'd like to hear it.  But if all you can present is raw, subjective, you're-wrong-because-I'm-angry emotionalisms, then there's not much to say.

Quote

I make no apologies for that. 

I'm not really looking for apologies (though I appreciate them when freely offered).  I'm looking for reasoned discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I apologize for the second statement. It's the argument that makes me angry, not your character.

His argument is good, though.  Great, even.  Why is what he said making you angry?  It shouldn't make you angry.  Why would a really really good argument make you angry?  Think about that until you figure it out.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I apologize for the second statement.

Apology accepted.  Thanks.

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's the argument that makes me angry, not your character.

If my argument is wrong, I'd like you to demonstrate it.  That my argument elicits your anger doesn't illuminate anything.  And your efforts to shame/guilt me into silence will not work.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Jamie said:

Your problems deserve a bigger violin. | Sympathy Ecard

Jamie,

Let's not resort to ridicule.  This is a sensitive and difficult topic.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Jamie,

Let's not resort to ridicule.  This is a sensitive and difficult topic.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Okay.  Let's not.  We all have problems and I'm sure we all deserve some sympathy and compassion even though we should always want to do only that which is morally right and good.  The BYU Honor Code certainly deserves no ridicule.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Not on this board, I don't. Sorry to disappoint.

wherever you go, there you are, whatever name and names you have and have had.  And yet I can still honestly say that this name I am using now is not Ahab, and never will be.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Jamie said:

Okay.  Let's not.  We all have problems and I'm sure we all deserve some sympathy and compassion even though we should always want to do only that which is morally right and good.  The BYU Honor Code certainly deserves no ridicule.

I agree.

I also find it overwrought, substantially inaccurate, and even absurd to characterize the Honor Code, as JD did, as causing "hurt," as "inhumane," as "dismay{ing}" and "disgust{ing}," and so on.

For pete's sake.  It's been around forever.  It's a matter of public record.  It's congruent with both the teachings of the Church and the broader Judeo-Christian consensus regarding sexual ethics and morality.  It's reasonable.  And attending BYU is entirely voluntary.  And there are oodles of alternative schools for those who don't agree with the Honor Code.

The caustic and emotionalistic calumnies against the Church, the Honor Code, the Law of Chastity, and those who speak in defense of these things are unreasoned and unfair.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I agree.

I also find it overwrought, substantially inaccurate, and even absurd to characterize the Honor Code, as JD did, as causing "hurt," as "inhumane," as "dismay{ing}" and "disgust{ing}," and so on.

For pete's sake.  It's been around forever.  It's a matter of public record.  It's congruent with both the teachings of the Church and the broader Judeo-Christian consensus regarding sexual ethics and morality.  It's reasonable.  And attending BYU is entirely voluntary.  And there are oodles of alternative schools for those who don't agree with the Honor Code.

The caustic and emotionalistic calumnies against the Church, the Honor Code, the Law of Chastity, and those who speak in defense of these things are unreasoned and unfair.

Thanks,

-Smac

To be fair, I did not refer to the Honor Code as any of those things. Just the arguments being made.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

To be fair, I did not refer to the Honor Code as any of those things. Just the arguments being made.

So the Honor Code isn't causing "hurt" and isn't "inhumane" "dismay{ing}" or "disgust{ing}?"

Arguments advocating for the Honor Code are characterized in all these terrible ways, but the Honor Code itself is just fine?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.

I also find it overwrought, substantially inaccurate, and even absurd to characterize the Honor Code, as JD did, as causing "hurt," as "inhumane," as "dismay{ing}" and "disgust{ing}," and so on.

For pete's sake.  It's been around forever.  It's a matter of public record.  It's congruent with both the teachings of the Church and the broader Judeo-Christian consensus regarding sexual ethics and morality.  It's reasonable.  And attending BYU is entirely voluntary.  And there are oodles of alternative schools for those who don't agree with the Honor Code.

The caustic and emotionalistic calumnies against the Church, the Honor Code, the Law of Chastity, and those who speak in defense of these things are unreasoned and unfair.

Thanks,

-Smac

As I am sure you understand, maybe even better than I understand it, the complaint against BYU and the BYU Honor Code is against the idea that BYU has the right to dictate what BYU deems to be honorable behavior.  BYU considers homosexual behavior to be immoral, and the complainers are arguing that BYU should consider homosexuality to be honorable and acceptable behavior because it is accepted as legal and therefore permitted by the laws of the government.  A government that provide funds to BYU on behalf of BYU students, so the complainers are saying that since the government says homosexual behavior is okay, then BYU should also say it is okay.  That is their argument, as I understand it.  The complainers want the government to decide what is permitted and what is not, rather than BYU making that decision, and so now we have this pending court case.  And so, guess what, who do you think is going to decide this now?  The government, or BYU?  With lawyers on both sides of the aisle.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Does the school receive federal funding or does the student receive the funding? Or do both get federal funds?

I don't know how that is determined with Pell Grants and Stafford Loans, which are awarded through the school to the student.  

I am thinking more of research grants. In general, I think that the government really loses out if they no longer have BYU doing research for them. It's not as though the Federal Government is handing out this money as charity. They believe the benefit of the research being done is worth the (significantly discounted) cost of having universities do this research.

And I admit that the students at BYU also lose out on getting the opportunity to do the research.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

The only reason that counts is what the church said the reason was for. They said it was an abuse prevention measure and the measure was to allow people to see into the room. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Many Jim Crow laws were the same for blacks and whites, perfectly fair, as you say. Property requirements, citizenship tests, and even the requirement to have an official address were applied to black and white potential voters. They were designed, however, such that equal application of the law would result in unequal ability to exercise the rights of citizenship. 

The Honor Code is designed to deny expression of love and relationships to those with same-gender orientation. One might say it is applied equally, but the end result is that one class of students is enabled and encouraged to develop the full range of human relationship. The other class is not. 

I think of my friend in his forties who is lonely and miserable. Has the church treated him “unfairly”? Does he have the same ability to love and be loved as heterosexual members? Obviously not.

Does the church have a right to deny fulfillment to its gay members? Of course. Are they going to change anytime soon? Nope. 

That is the basic question, as I see it.  Does BYU get to decide what is and is not acceptable and honorable behavior at BYU, or must BYU abide by government mandates over and above what BYU may decide for itself. 

Who is to rule at BYU?  Who are the ultimate decision makers in regard to policies and codes at BYU?  BYU leaders?  Or government representatives, we the people in the general population of our country as represented by government leaders and judges?

I suppose the decision will be decided by a judge and a 12 person jury.  Or does our government have some other way of deciding such things?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Nobody can engage in homosexual behavior, including heterosexuals.

Thanks,

-Smac

I remember a similar argument made to justify not allowing gay marriages.  It went something like this. 


Gays are not being discriminated against because everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex and no one can marry someone of the same sex.  Therefore there is no discrimination.  
 

How did that argument work out when it went before every single federal district judge in the country including the Supreme Court?  They see things a bit different than you do. If that is the argument used to not allow government funds to schools that discriminate, then your post gives me encouragement.

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

The only reason that counts is what the church said the reason was for. They said it was an abuse prevention measure and the measure was to allow people to see into the room. 

Did the Church say that was the only reason, or even that it was the “primary” reason? What is your source? I saw that you cited a newspaper article, but a newspaper report has no authoritative weight except to the extent that it accurately and contextually quotes official sources. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
5 hours 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.  

Apparently the government thinks you can (as long as you're tied to a religious organisation).

Edited by JustAnAustralian
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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: 19911996,  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:

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. 

I think we are misunderstanding each other.  Maybe?

In the past, when some members of the church (or certain other churches) fought against SSM or other anti-discrimination laws focused on lgtbq, one of the reasons that they sometimes gave for fighting against them was that creating those kinds of laws would open up the way for people to go after religious institutions for discriminating against lgtbq people because of their religious beliefs.  Basically, they made the argument that these laws were going to create a slippery slope that would eventually make it possible for someone to sue religious institutions (like BYU or the church) for discrimination, and force them to either accept lgtbq behavior (for lack of a better term) or be stripped of federal funds and privileges.

Sometimes, when that slippery slope reason for fighting against SSM/lgtbq rights was brought up, those who disagreed would claim that there was no reason to worry about that, that such a thing couldn't happen, and that people who claimed it was likely to happen were being dumb/irrational/flat out lying to sway people.

So while the bold may be true for some on both sides, it was not true for everyone.  I personally heard people (more than a few) say that it was such a scam for anyone to suggest that people shouldn't vote to support SSM because people would use those laws to go after religious institutions on the grounds of discrimination was stupid. 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...