Search the Community

How come there aren't as many women Sunday school presidents or councillors etc, likewise men on primary presidencies ? What about 'non practicing' Temple recommend holding gay men teaching, or being on a primary presidency or auxiliaries ? Or non practicing gay women in auxiliary presidencies ? Mixed presidencies in non priesthood callings . Also on another subject why do sisters still have to 'vail their faces' in a certain part of an ordinance in the Temple ?

A California bill proposes to remove religious universities and colleges from exemptions on complying with bias-laws, unless their sole purpose is to train clergy. Nearly 50 schools would lose their religious exemptions, allowing them to prohibit extramarital sex, define gender based on birth physicality, require chapel attendance, require agreement with statements of faith, etc. Even more worrisome, what California does now, many states will do in the near future. The bill has passed the state's senate, and is now in its house. http://religiondispatches.org/will-sb-1146-end-lgbt-discrimination-in-californias-religious-schools/ There is little question in my mind that if this bill is enacted into law, and passes a court challenge, the BYU system will eventually face the same challenges. Thoughts?

American society has concluded that bigotry and discrimination cannot happen in the public square. Further, it is quickly reaching the place where gender orientation is protected the same as race. One possible conclusion the courts may make (I'm not agree or disagree--just predicting): 1. A business (not a church or other house of worship, but church-run ones would be included) cannot be allowed to refuse product or service to customers on the basis of protected categories. So, certainly no denying business because, "I don't serve Pagans, LBGT, or races I don't agree with/like." 2. On the issue of LBGT weddings it may end up depending on the venue and the officiant. If the wedding is secular (Justice of the Peace offciates), then a religiously-oriented vendor might be required to provide services/products. If the wedding is religious, but is not of the same religion as the vendor, then the vendor may be required to provide services/products. HOWEVER, if the wedding is religious, and is of the same religion as the vendor, then the vendor may be able to claim RFRA protection. Why? Let me provide an example. I bake cakes, and I belong to an A/G (or LDS) church. An LBGT couple comes to my shop and says they are having a wedding over at the Methodist Church, and could I bake a cake for them. I say I will not, because, as a Christian, I believe the Bible prohibits same-sex marriages. Since this wedding is happening in a Christian church, I find the ceremony to be profane and sacrilegious. Kill me or jail me, but I will not be a part of it! I could see a judge siding with the defendant. His/her religious belief and practice would be substantially burdened forced participation. The government does not have a compelling interest in forcing that. There are other sources for cakes. Even if the wedding party had to ship one in, that would be less of a burden than requiring a religious person to engage in what s/he views as a corruption of a sacrament. THOUGHTS?

I've been thinking dark thoughts of late. Since California's public university system is de-recognizing student clubs that discriminate on the basis of religion (i.e. they stipulate that leaders of the club actually affirm specific religious doctrines) http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/09/11/California-State-University-Derecognizes-Campus-Christian-Organization, and since Gordon College was recently asked by its regional accrediting agency to officially explain its policy of requiring staff and students to adhere to sexual abstinence outside of heterosexual marriage (ahem, this appears discriminatory on the face of it...), http://www.christianpost.com/news/gordon-college-dont-sell-your-soul-for-secular-accreditation-127520/ me wonders where these trends are leading? 1. Will chaplains become extinct? It's easy to imagine a plaintiff suing a government agency for paying--with their tax dollars--to employ clergy who teach that their lifestyle (gender identity) is sin. 2. Will religious schools who have moral/spiritual codes of conduct lose their accreditation, since they have institutionalized their discriminatory beliefs? I hope everyone realizes that I oppose and abhor these ideas. Yet, they seem to be the logical conclusion to the trends we're seeing.