Jump to content

Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

The privileged view that ‘I know best’ who needs protection is the same attitude that men use to excuse catcalls because they just ‘know’ women like to be complimented about their looks and plying women with drinks because they will enjoy themselves more.  It is an immature and self centered view, a teenage fantasy. 
 

It takes a minute or less to ask.  Unless an attack is already in motion and not just in set up mode or you recognize the person is a known predator, moving into protect is wrong. If you have to, intercept the potential predator rather than hover around the woman. 
 

You want to think yourself a hero, go rescue some cats or better yet contribute time and money to a charity. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

So when we talk about the diseparate impact the BYU Honor Code (and by extension, the Law of Chastity) has on different students, why do we not also criticize the way it discriminates against marital status? At BYU a married student is allowed to have sex while an unmarried student is not. Isn't this every bit as unjust as what this law suit is about? 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I probably qualify for that in most ways save medical, but I was aware from my early teens of potentials dangers of assault. There is a lot of baggage that goes along with being labeled the “weaker sex”.

It's only going to get worse, I don't envy parents of young children.  It's so expensive to raise them in a safe neighborhood with good schools.  

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

You have no clue if the man is going to attack her

Ok, you win calm. I promise if I am in a Walmart parking lot and a man on a bicycle is circling a woman, I'll stand really far away so he (the possible criminal) and the woman both know I'm not a threat. Can I at least call 911 and wait the 5 to 10 minutes to give my statement and tell the police what direction the guy on the bicycle went after mugging the woman?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So when we talk about the diseparate impact the BYU Honor Code (and by extension, the Law of Chastity) has on different students, why do we not also criticize the way it discriminates against marital status? At BYU a married student is allowed to have sex while an unmarried student is not. Isn't this every bit as unjust as what this law suit is about? 

One big difference - an unmarried hetereosexual person can change their status to married (with someone else's consent, of course) and still be in compliance with the HC. A homosexual person cannot. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

The privileged view that ‘I know best’ who needs protection is the same attitude that men use to excise catcalls and plying women with drinks because they will enjoy themselves more.  It is an immature and self centered view, a teenage fantasy. 
 

It takes a minute or less to ask.
 

You want to think yourself a hero, go rescue some cats or better yet contribute time and money to a charity. 

I have my right hand raised calm, here's my pledge, I, Atlanticmike, a privileged white male who thinks I know best on every subject, especially when it comes to crime in Walmart parking lots, promise to never ever help a woman or man ever again no matter the situation. Also, I will devote the rest of my life to rescuing cats and such, except for cats that live in or around Walmart parking lots. 

   Man, maybe you are right, I feel like a weight had been lifted. I'm free! I'm free!

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Sure it applies to everyone, but it has no impact on those who have no desire to engage in homosexual sexual behaviour. 
 

In looking at discrimination, it is not simply about making sure everyone is treated the same, but that also treatment is consistent to people’s situations...that the impact of treatment is not imbalanced in inappropriate ways. Thus it is discrimination to not do medical research with women or minorities and instead just use white, college aged males as test subjects...even though this is requiring all to be treated the same.

Now one can argue that it is appropriate to require all to live the same Law of Chastity, but claiming there is no discrimination when it inherently creates a burden for one category of individuals and not for another seems to be missing the point, imo. 

I think Smac already addressed this earlier when he wrote the following, differentiating between discrimination and disparate impacts:

 

 

Now, will I acknowledge a disparate impact?  Sure.  The Honor Code has a different impact on heterosexual students as compared to homosexuals.  But then, the Honor Code also has a different impact on single heterosexuals as compared to married heterosexuals.  Same standard, disparate impacts.

  Quote

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.

If nobody was allowed to write left-handed, if the same standard applied to everyone, then everyone was held to the same standard.  Again, same standard, disparate impacts.

  Quote

Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to be the argument he's making. 

There seems to be a bit of equivocation going on.  The Honor Code "treats" everyone the same.  Nobody is allowed to engage in fornication, adultery, same-sex marriage, and so on.

Now, if a BYU student chooses to violate the Honor Code and engage in fornication, is he being "treated {} differently" from anyone else?  Nope.  Why?  Because the same standard applies to everyone at BYU.

If a married student chooses to violate the Honor Code and engage in adultery, is he being "treated {} differently" from anyone else?  Again, no.  Nobody is allowed to engage in adultery.

If a student at BYU  chooses to violate the Honor Code by engaging in homosexual behavior, is he being "treated {} differently" from anyone else?  Again, no.  Nobody is allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.

But what if the individual has a natural inclination toward prohibited behavior?  Can he say "The Honor Code says X is prohibited, but I am naturally inclined toward X, ergo I am being treated differently than other students"?  Nope.  That he is disparately impacted by the prohibition against X is clear, but that doesn't change the reality that he is being held to the same standard as everyone else.

 

Back to Scott:

 

If there are to be standards, we must accept the fact that some individuals might find it harder than others to abide by a given standard. It is altogether impractical to tailor standards to one individual’s proclivities vis á vis another’s. 
 

I think earlier Smac used the example of a pathological predisposition to alcohol abuse. Are we to make an exception for one so predisposed while requiring everyone else to abstain?
 

Some requirements I might find more challenging than others. I accept that as my lot in life. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Ok, you win calm. I promise if I am in a Walmart parking lot and a man on a bicycle is circling a woman, I'll stand really far away so he (the possible criminal) and the woman both know I'm not a threat.

This seems passive aggressive.

Why do you feel so compelled to control this woman's situation, instead of simply being available on her terms?

9 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Can I at least call 911 and wait the 5 to 10 minutes to give my statement and tell the police what direction the guy on the bicycle went after mugging the woman?

The woman couldn't have stopped you. I suppose she'd be hard pressed to stop any of the stuff you want to do on her behalf.

That said, there's a good chance she could drive away before you could unload any of your safety on her.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I have my right hand raised calm, here's my pledge, I, Atlanticmike, a privileged white male who thinks I know best on every subject, especially when it comes to crime in Walmart parking lots, promise to never ever help a woman or man ever again no matter the situation. Also, I will devote the rest of my life to rescuing cats and such, except for cats that live in or around Walmart parking lots. 

   Man, maybe you are right, I feel like a weight had been lifted. I'm free! I'm free!

Woman: "This is what we want."

Man: "No. This is what you want."

Link to comment
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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. 

 

I find the suggestion that "We told you all along that legalizing SSM would lead to stripping federal funding/discrimination lawsuits" to be the very definition of the word "gaslighting."

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Calm said:

moving into protect is wrong

These five words shows me that you and I will never see eye to eye on this subject what so ever. I'm not built to sit back and watch from afar and wait. Sorry no can do. 

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I understand where you and calm are coming from, I really do. But if we're still talking about a situation where a woman is in a Wal Mart parking lot being stalked by a strange man on a bike and I'm an innocent bystander in no harm what so ever, guess what, I have a choice, I can walk away and I can even just stand there and watch a mugging go down and call the police and wait til they arrive 5 to 10 minutes later then give my statement, most people will choose one of the two options above sadly. 

     And here's where you, calm and I see things differently. If I choose to put myself in harm's way by moving in closer toward you (you being the only person in harm's way in the parking lot) to deflect some of his attention on me instead of you, your feelings or what you want doesn't matter to me, at all because now I've also made myself a target. I have a family, my main concern now is to make sure you and I both get home safely. I'm going to make sure he has to react to my actions first, not me reacting to his first. 

Here's another way to look at it. If that guy is circling you and you're scared of him. As soon as he gets off the bike and starts walking toward you, your whole life will flash before your eyes, you'll see your kids, your husband, wonder if your husband will remarry once you're dead from a stab wound, all in about 3 to 5 seconds. At that moment, you will wish everyone in parking lots in a 10 mile radius would run to your rescue, you won't care who it is. You won't want them to care if they're making you uncomfortable or uneasy, you'll just want them to kill the xxxxer xxxxer. 

  So you see, I've been in enough fights to understand if I'm going to help you out of a terrible situation you find yourself in, I'm going to control the situation, we can talk about how you feel after the stalker leaves on the bike, in an ambulance, or a hearse. Doesn't matter to me how he leaves as long as you and I go home to our families. 

Does that help at all or are you even more upset at me now?😂😂

 

 

Yes!!  Like the bolded above says, at this point it's not even about the woman, it's about you.  You aren't doing it for her you are doing it for yourself, making yourself and your wants and your needs the most important person in the equation.  It's so refreshing to hear a man admit it.

As to the underlined part, if I was ever in that situation, I would see you walking towards me, and the guy getting off of his bike and walking towards me, as the exact same threat.  In that instance you are no different in my mind than the guy on the bike because I don't know either of you, or either of your intentions.  Whatever reaction I would have to the guy, I would have to you walking over uninvited as well. 

I know you see yourself as the hero of the situation, the one she needs even if it's against her wishes, but just because you are the hero in your story doesn't mean you are the hero in her's.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Chum said:

Something I left out is she just yelled back 'thank you' without even looking up. If I had to gauge the tone, I'd put it somewhere between distracted and dismissive. She may not have cared about him or me.

And for all I know she could have pulled that bike out from under him and beat the crap out of him with it.

That could be.  Some women bristle at the implication that they might be a damsel in distress that needs saving.  They've probably had too many experiences with the type of men who force their heroics onto them whether they are welcomed or not.  I think you handled that situation as good as you could.  You were available but not pushy.

As a woman, I would have done something similar in your situation.  Not because I'm going to take down some guy on a bike but to be another person there and aware of her, if nothing else.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I'm not built to sit back and watch from afar and wait. Sorry no can do. 

At some point this mindset becomes indistinguishable from forcing oneself on women.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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. 

Well, now I feel stupid for ever being conflicted about the Church's opposition to SSM.  It just goes to show me how inspired the Brethren were in the first place. Thank you for giving me a very concrete answer for any time I am asked what harm gay marriage does to me.  And thank you for a post like this so I can prove that "the vast majority of pro-LGBT posters" always understood that this is what would happen.

Edited by kllindley
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As a woman, I would have done something similar in your situation.  Not because I'm going to take down some guy on a bike but to be another person there and aware of her, if nothing else.

I'm reminded that sister missionaries travel in pairs and not with an armed militia.  A 2nd body is an entirely different dynamic than someone alone.

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, ttribe said:

One big difference - an unmarried hetereosexual person can change their status to married (with someone else's consent, of course) and still be in compliance with the HC. A homosexual person cannot. 

The last time I saw a poster call out the silliness of a statement like this, he was dismissed without consideration merely because he is a married, heterosexual male.

So, as a chaste, never-married (for many decades!), non-heterosexual male, please let me be the target this time.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Well, now I feel stupid for ever being conflicted about the Church's opposition to SSM.  It just goes to show me how inspired the Brethren were in the first place. Thank you for giving me a very concrete answer for any time I am asked what harm gay marriage does to me.  And thank you for a post like this so I can prove that "the vast majority of pro-LGBT posters" always understood that this is what would happen.

How does treating sexual orientation the same as race and religious affiliation when it comes to being a protected class harm you?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes!!  Like the bolded above says, at this point it's not even about the woman, it's about you.  You aren't doing it for her you are doing it for yourself, making yourself and your wants and your needs the most important person in the equation.  It's so refreshing to hear a man admit it.

This is totally backwards. If it was about me and I was worried about just myself I would stay back and just watch from afar. Because I would know at least I was going home that night, who cares about the woman, not my problem. Of course inserting yourself in a situation that could be potentially harmful for a woman or a man is about them!! It's 100 percent about them, because as the person who is standing far away from the danger zone you don't have to do anything unless you want to. 

   Here's something that happened at one of my daughters birthday parties. We had her party at a park under a canopy. 30 or so people around grilling hamburgers. 5 of the girls were playing horseshoes about  200 feet away and a guy from another canopy  approached the girls, just talking to them. He was about 45 or so and it made 3 of us dad's very uncomfortable. So we went right over and asked what he was talking to them for. He played it off and walked to his car and drove away. One of the dad's with me was a police officer and he called one of his friends working that day and had him run the guys plate. Turns out he was a sex offender and lived only 6 streets down from me. I didn't even know. 

   Are you saying I should of waited to see what happened? Should we of not approached? I'm mean, who knows, he could of just been trying to be nice and have a conversation. Were we trying to be heroes?

Does the whole situation change when it's s woman I don't knoe in a parking lot?  Is she less important than my daughter and her friends because I never met her? 

 

PS. Up to that point I had never known there was a sex offender list online. You want to see something scary, pull it up and look how many are around you, it's scary, you'll never want your kids to play outside again.

    

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Does the whole situation change when it's s woman I don't know in a parking lot?

Yes. That's how different situations work.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

How does treating sexual orientation the same as race and religious affiliation when it comes to being a protected class harm you?

You are seriously asking how stripping the ability of any religious school that upholds a sexual ethic consistent with their religion to participate in federal programs could harm me or my children?

Link to comment
Just now, AtlanticMike said:

That's cold man. 

Hang on. Checking....

Nope. Sorry. It still comes down to this. It's not okay to push yourself on a woman who doesn't want you.  Not even if something else happened, somewhere else, at another time, to other people.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Chum said:

Hang on. Checking....

Nope. Sorry. It still comes down to this. It's not okay to push yourself on a woman who doesn't want you.  Not even if something else happened, somewhere else, at another time, to other people.

So it's your opinion in this situation you stand from afar and wait to see what happens? And then if he attacks, then help?

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...