Jump to content

Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Jamie said:

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?

As a private entity BYU can make any decisions about BYU is run that they want, as long as the behaviour is not illegal (so no human sacrifices etc).

They could change it to be male only, church members only, any number of things, but the government might start stripping them of various educational accreditations and other schools might stop recognising transferred credits entirely.

This lawsuit won't mandate any policy changes at BYU. If the plaintiffs win, the only outcome will be that they (and other schools) cannot use a religious exemption to title ix.

Link to comment
45 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. 

In the same way, segregation laws could be said to apply equally to both races. If you took an interstate bus, for example, when you stopped at a station, you had to stay in the section/restaurant/bathrooms marked for your race. The law was equally applied in that white people were not allowed in black areas, and vice versa. Equal but not equal. 

I expect that Smac will respond to this better than I could, but I will reply that this analogy is far from apt. 
 

Jim Crow laws and segregation were applied unjustly against United States citizens WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT and in contravention of their constitutional rights. By contrast, the Honor Code requirements are accepted voluntarily by individuals to whom they apply. In effect, some of those individuals now demand license to breach the contract and to do it with impunity. What is worse, they seek to have their breaching of the contract protected through government coercion in blatant violation of the rights of the other party to the contract. 
 

Maybe you think the contract itself (the Honor Code) to be unworthy of being honored, but you have already indicated otherwise when you said you were not disparaging it, “just the arguments being made.”

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

This is an incomplete characterization of the Honor Code that represents it unfairly and implies a sinister motivation which isn't there. Motive in this case is not yours to attribute. 

The Honor Code is designed to cultivate an environment, both on campus and in the lives of the students, which is consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ and conducive to the presence of the Spirit and the patterning of our lives according to His direction. That is the motivation, and I will not let it be re-narrated. 

We've talked enough about the "full range of human relationship" distinction to the point that more vastly more heat then light will be created by discussing it further.  

But speaking of your friend, I presume you have talked to him about why he makes the choice that he does.  I presume that he's a rational actor and therefore he has made choices for reasons. Your evaluation of his choices is not authoritative, his is. What is he seeking in making the choices he has? Being in a state of right relationship with God has rewards of its own, after all. Whether or not you judge those rewards to be significant has no bearing on the rest of us. 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Many Jim Crow laws were the same for blacks and whites, perfectly fair, as you say.

No, they weren't.  To the contrary, Jim Crow laws treated blacks differently from whites, whereas the Honor Code imposes the same behavioral standards on everyone.

This is an unserious comparison.

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

There is no corollary in the Honor Code to the "separate but equal" rationale in Jim Crow laws.  There are no separate public facilities (schools, public spaces, drinking fountains, restrooms, restaurants, etc.) or transportation resources for gay students at BYU.  There is no sexual-orientation-based differentiation in terms of funding for or services provided to students at BYU.

There is no corollary in the Honor Code to enforced segregation as contemplated in Jim Crow laws.  The Honor Code imposes the same behavioral constraints on everyone.

There is also no ulterior motive underlying the Honor Code.

Wow.  You are really bent on poisoning the well here.  My guess for your next comparison: The Mormons and their Honor Code are just like the way the Nazis treated Jews!

Just go ahead and do it.  Having invoked Jim Crow to disparage BYU's Honor Code, you may as well go ahead and invite Mr. Godwin into the conversation.

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The Honor Code is designed to deny expression of love and relationships to those with same-gender orientation.

It's designed to constrain voluntarily-enrolled students at BYU to previously-established parameters regarding sexual behavior.

For the umpteenth time: Nobody can engage in homosexual behavior at BYU.  

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

You continue to misrepresent things here.

You are characterizing "the full range of human relationship" as including homosexual behavior.  There is no set or "class of students" who are "enabled and encouraged" to engage in such behavior.  Nobody can engage in homosexual behavior at BYU.  

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think of my friend in his forties who is lonely and miserable.

Why?  Is he a student at BYU?

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Has the church treated him “unfairly”?

I have no idea.  If by "unfairly" you mean "Has the Church with which he is voluntarily associated taught him about God's commandments pertaining to sexual behavior, and has it asked and expected him to follow those commandments along with everyone else in the Church?", then the answer is . . . 

I'm losing track of how many logical fallacies you've presented here.  This one is called "special pleading."  It doesn't work.  The majority of the adult members of the Church are not married, all of whom are still expected to live within the parameters set by the Law of Chastity.  If they, at some point, feel "lonely and miserable," do such feelings create an exemption from the Law of Chastity?

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Does he have the same ability to love and be loved as heterosexual members? Obviously not.

What about members of the Church who are in unhappy marriages?  By your reckoning, can a husband who is emotionally/sexually estranged from his wife step out on her?  

What on earth are you saying here?  That God's commandments should only be followed when they are convenient?  

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

By your reasoning, single members are free to fornicate.  By your reasoning, married members are free to commit adultery.  The Law of Chastity can be disregarded at any time because it "den{ies} fulfillment."

Libertinism.  That's what you are advocating.  And you are vilifying the Church for not going along with it.

The mind reels.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I expect that Smac will respond to this better than I could, but I will reply that this analogy is far from apt. 
 

Jim Crow laws and segregation were applied unjustly against United States citizens WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT and in contravention of their constitutional rights. By contrast, the Honor Code requirements are accepted voluntarily by individuals to whom they apply. In effect, some of those individuals now demand license to breach the contract and to do it with impunity. What is worse, they seek to have their breaching of the contract protected through government coercion in blatant violation of the rights of the other party to the contract. 
 

Maybe you think the contract itself (the Honor Code) to be unworthy of being honored, but you have already indicated otherwise when you said you were not disparaging it, “just the arguments being made.”

You don’t seem to disagree with my premise: laws applied “equally” can still be discriminatory if designed to be so. 

I frankly don’t care a fig about the Honor Code. I take issue with the insistence that it applies equally and fairly to everyone and thus is not in any way discriminatory. The university and church can do what they want. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jamie said:

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.

This law suit has to do with equal protection guarantees under the Constitution. While individuals and organizations can discriminate, the federal and state governments can not. We will see if

1. BYU’s honor code discriminated against LGBT students

2. If religious institutions do discriminate, can they still receive federal funds

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, they weren't.  To the contrary, Jim Crow laws treated blacks differently from whites, whereas the Honor Code imposes the same behavioral standards on everyone.

This is an unserious comparison.

There is no corollary in the Honor Code to the "separate but equal" rationale in Jim Crow laws.  There are no separate public facilities (schools, public spaces, drinking fountains, restrooms, restaurants, etc.) or transportation resources for gay students at BYU.  There is no sexual-orientation-based differentiation in terms of funding for or services provided to students at BYU.

There is no corollary in the Honor Code to enforced segregation as contemplated in Jim Crow laws.  The Honor Code imposes the same behavioral constraints on everyone.

There is also no ulterior motive underlying the Honor Code.

Wow.  You are really bent on poisoning the well here.  My guess for your next comparison: The Mormons and their Honor Code are just like the way the Nazis treated Jews!

Just go ahead and do it.  Having invoked Jim Crow to disparage BYU's Honor Code, you may as well go ahead and invite Mr. Godwin into the conversation.

It's designed to constrain voluntarily-enrolled students at BYU to previously-established parameters regarding sexual behavior.

For the umpteenth time: Nobody can engage in homosexual behavior at BYU.  

You continue to misrepresent things here.

You are characterizing "the full range of human relationship" as including homosexual behavior.  There is no set or "class of students" who are "enabled and encouraged" to engage in such behavior.  Nobody can engage in homosexual behavior at BYU.  

Why?  Is he a student at BYU?

I have no idea.  If by "unfairly" you mean "Has the Church with which he is voluntarily associated taught him about God's commandments pertaining to sexual behavior, and has it asked and expected him to follow those commandments along with everyone else in the Church?", then the answer is . . . 

I'm losing track of how many logical fallacies you've presented here.  This one is called "special pleading."  It doesn't work.  The majority of the adult members of the Church are not married, all of whom are still expected to live within the parameters set by the Law of Chastity.  If they, at some point, feel "lonely and miserable," do such feelings create an exemption from the Law of Chastity?

What about members of the Church who are in unhappy marriages?  By your reckoning, can a husband who is emotionally/sexually estranged from his wife step out on her?  

What on earth are you saying here?  That God's commandments should only be followed when they are convenient?  

By your reasoning, single members are free to fornicate.  By your reasoning, married members are free to commit adultery.  The Law of Chastity can be disregarded at any time because it "den{ies} fulfillment."

Libertinism.  That's what you are advocating.  And you are vilifying the Church for not going along with it.

A few posts ago you apologized for being intemperate, but then you come along and equate the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity to Jim Crow.

I wonder if California Boy finds that comparison a bit offputting.

The mind reels.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

This is an incomplete characterization of the Honor Code that represents it unfairly and implies a sinister motivation which isn't there. Motive in this case is not yours to attribute. 

The Honor Code is designed to cultivate an environment, both on campus and in the lives of the students, which is consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ and conducive to the presence of the Spirit and the patterning of our lives according to His direction. That is the motivation, and I will not let it be re-narrated. 

We've talked enough about the "full range of human relationship" distinction to the point that more vastly more heat then light will be created by discussing it further.  

But speaking of your friend, I presume you have talked to him about why he makes the choice that he does.  I presume that he's a rational actor and therefore he has made choices for reasons. Your evaluation of his choices is not authoritative, his is. What is he seeking in making the choices he has? Being in a state of right relationship with God has rewards of its own, after all. Whether or not you judge those rewards to be significant has no bearing on the rest of us. 

I’m not talking about motivation. I know why the church does what it does. I apologize if anything I said implied sinister motives. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You don’t seem to disagree with my premise: laws applied “equally” can still be discriminatory if designed to be so. 

I disagree with the premise.  It is fundamentally flawed.

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I frankly don’t care a fig about the Honor Code.

Says the guy who just a few hours ago was saying that he "ha{s} a visceral response to casual dismissal of the real hurt people do to each other."

Well!  Nothing models avoidance of casually causing "real hurt" like . . . . coming to a Latter-day Saint message board and comparing them and their Church and their doctrines about sexual ethics to the segregationist south and Jim Crow.

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I take issue with the insistence that it applies equally and fairly to everyone and thus is not in any way discriminatory. The university and church can do what they want. 

I previously asked for "a reasoned and evidence-based argument."  What you have said here . . . isn't that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

 

I used Jim Crow for one purpose: it illustrates how equal application of the law can still be discriminatory. The courts have agreed with me. 

As for the rest, I have not once claimed sinister motivations on the part of the church, nor have I called for libertinism, though I do like the band with Pete Doherty. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, poptart said:

Bad people care nothing for your well being,

Exactly, thank you. A lot of people don't understand that there are people in this world who would stab you for ten dollars then go home and sleep like a baby. 

    

  

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not talking about motivation. I know why the church does what it does. I apologize if anything I said implied sinister motives. 

Drawing a direct comparison between the Honor Code and Jim Crow wasn't intended to imply sinister motives?

Just how stupid do you think we are, JK?

-Smac

Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

Drawing a direct comparison between the Honor Code and Jim Crow wasn't intended to imply sinister motives?

Just how stupid do you think we are, JK?

-Smac

I said why I used that example. Feel free to believe I lied. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You don’t seem to disagree with my premise: laws applied “equally” can still be discriminatory if designed to be so. 

I frankly don’t care a fig about the Honor Code. I take issue with the insistence that it applies equally and fairly to everyone and thus is not in any way discriminatory. The university and church can do what they want. 

They can do what they want so long as your favored class — individuals who want to breach a contract they agreed to — get their way. 

Link to comment
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

They can do what they want so long as your favored class — individuals who want to breach a contract they agreed to — get their way. 

Nope. Why would you think I want that? 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I said why I used that example. Feel free to believe I lied. 

Thanks.  I will.

I find in incredible (as in lacking in credibility) that a person of your intellect would not immediately understand the risible and provocative and necessarily-offensive nature of such a comparison.

A few pages back California Boy was complaining, justifiably, about gays being compared to pedophiles.  I agreed with him that "comparing gay marriages to pedophiles" is wrong, and also said that his request that people "{q}uit comparing gay marriages with pedophiles" is "reasonable" because "such comparisons tend to inflame and offend more than they illustrate and clarify." 

And one day later, you come along and compare the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity to Jim Crow.  And you expect us to believe that comparison was innocuous?  

Again, just how stupid do you think we are?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.  

Yes.

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

How did that argument work out when it went before every single federal district judge in the country including the Supreme Court?  

It worked out in a few cases, actually.

But then SCOTUS saw the writing on the wall and fabricated a new "right" out of thin air.  Ah, well.

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.

So much for the whole "live and let live" mentality, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

Thanks.  I will.

I find in incredible (as in lacking in credibility) that a person of your intellect would not immediately understand the risible and provocative and necessarily-offensive nature of such a comparison.

A few pages back California Boy was complaining, justifiably, about gays being compared to pedophiles.  I agreed with him that "comparing gay marriages to pedophiles" is wrong, and also said that his request that people "{q}uit comparing gay marriages with pedophiles" is "reasonable" because "such comparisons tend to inflame and offend more than they illustrate and clarify." 

And one day later, you come along and compare the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity to Jim Crow.  And you expect us to believe that comparison was innocuous?  

Again, just how stupid do you think we are?

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m reading a trilogy about the civil rights movement, and your earlier post reminded me of what certain southern governors told Bobby Kennedy: the laws weren’t discriminatory because they applied equally to all. That’s why it came to mind.

I understand that the analogy carries a lot of loaded imagery, so in that sense, I realize it was a conversation stopper. Sorry about that. But to say I think the law of chastity is evil like unto segregation—well, that’s silly.

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m reading a trilogy about the civil rights movement, and your earlier post reminded me of what certain southern governors told Bobby Kennedy: the laws weren’t discriminatory because they applied equally to all. That’s why it came to mind.

I understand that the analogy carries a lot of loaded imagery, so in that sense, I realize it was a conversation stopper. Sorry about that. But to say I think the law of chastity is evil like unto segregation—well, that’s silly.

So the next time California Boy takes exception to comparisons of gays to pedophiles, will you step in and say that his taking exception to that is "silly?"

Or is it only "silly" when a obviously and necessarily risible and offensive comparison involves the Latter-day Saints and their beliefs? 

It's okay when you do it, I guess.

-Smac

Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

So the next time California Boy takes exception to comparisons of gays to pedophiles, will you step in and say that his taking exception to that is "silly?"

Or is it only "silly" when a obviously and necessarily risible and offensive comparison involves the Latter-day Saints and their beliefs? 

It's okay when you do it, I guess.

-Smac

No, I fully understand why you are upset. I’m saying you are inferring malicious intent that isn’t there. 

But I retract the comparison as it clearly obscured what I think is a valid point.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, bluebell said:

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?

Anyone who has ever been in a fight or a life threatening situation like Chum talked about, will tell you it's better to be in an offensive position than a defensive position when it comes to fighting. Look at it this way, you have a woman in a parking lot and a guy is circling her possibly going to jump off his bike and rob her. Him jumping off the bike and stabbing her, grabbing her purse and jumping back on the bike takes about 5 seconds. If your 50 yards or even 50 feet away while this is going down you're basically a witness, that's it!

    

     

     

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Anyone who has ever been in a fight or a life threatening situation like Chum talked about, will tell you it's better to be in an offensive position than a defensive position when it comes to fighting. Look at it this way, you have a woman in a parking lot and a guy is circling her possibly going to jump off his bike and rob her. Him jumping off the bike and stabbing her, grabbing her purse and jumping back on the bike takes about 5 seconds. If your 50 yards or even 50 feet away while this is going down you're basically a witness, that's it!

But, this guy used his defensive position to his advantage! 😉

ufiiHw.jpg

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...