Oh Harry!

[carlimac]

LDS Church responds to inquiries about Harry Reid comment | Deseret News

[Just_A_Guy]

Would it be apostate of me to indicate that I wish these press releases were much more carefully worded?

I didn't know we had a "doctrine" about traditional (secular) marriage. I thought we had a "doctrine" about the law of chastity and whether or not same-gender sexual relations are a per se violation of that doctrine; and a coinciding doctrine about "celestial marriage". Those are the core issues, IMHO; and the new release says nothing about either of them. Imprecise PR releases like this can create the impression that we're deliberately leaving plausible deniability in case we ever change our minds; and as such I think they're worse than useless.

/curmudgeonry

Edited November 8, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[beefche]

JAG, what am I missing? You've read the Proclamation on the Family, right?

[Jenamarie]

The context of his comment is about a non-discrimination bill. I don't know any church doctrine that says gay people shouldn't be allowed to hold jobs. And what he said about church memberships views of gay rights shifting is accurate, from what I've seen. Of course we know what the Church as an institution says about marriage, but it's either been silent or in favor of protections for gay persons so that they can have equal access to housing and other such necessities of life (meaning, their sexual orientation wouldn't block them from acquiring housing that they're otherwise completely qualified for).

[Just_A_Guy]

Sure, Beefche. And fair point, regarding doctrine of a traditional marriage being spelled out in the Proclamation on the Family.

But the Proclamation itself says that it's teaching an ideal that will vary as circumstances may require. Lots of outside observers--and even some of our co-religionists--don't think it prevents an eventual embracing of same-sex relationships within Mormonism; either because they get all technical on the verbiage ("'procreative powers' are inherently non-procreative if deployed between members of the same gender, so the Proclamation doesn't ban gay sex at all!") or because they downplay the long-run authoritativeness of the Proclamation itself ("the Church didn't canonize it with the new edition of the scriptures, and Elder So-And-So's statement about the document being scripture didn't make it into the Ensign, so the Church must be planning to de-emphasize it").

If the Church's newsroom wants people--particularly outsiders and also the Church's own liberal wing--to know, unequivocally, that the Church's position is and always will be that gay sex is per se sinful, then I fear that merely talking about the "doctrine of traditional marriage" as outlined in the Proclamation will be insufficient.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[LittleWyvern]

Oh joy, now I get to hear another week of "Excommunicate Ried!" comments from my fellow BYU students and facebook friends.

[pam]

I'm actually in agreement with the bill. The bill keeps those from being discriminated based on sexual orientation. If someone is qualified, they are qualified.

What I don't like about the whole Harry Reid thing is he doesn't speak for the church nor does he speak for its members.

[Still_Small_Voice]

So would the Employment Non-Discrimination Act law open the door to financially crippling lawsuits and the possible closures of thousands of religious organizations or businesses?

I tend not to trust what Harry Reid supports because of his stance on so many issues.

[pam]

So would the Employment Non-Discrimination Act law open the door to financially crippling lawsuits and the possible closures of thousands of religious organizations or businesses?

I tend not to trust what Harry Reid supports because of his stance on so many issues.

According to what I read about the bill, it excludes religious organizations.

[LittleWyvern]

According to what I read about the bill, it excludes religious organizations.

That's correct. More specifically, this bill has the exact same religious exemptions that are stated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, the bill pretty much says "just use those exemptions over there:"

19 SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

20 This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association,

21 educational institution or institution of learning, or society

22 that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions

23 of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pursuant (42

24 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of

25 such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e–1(a), 2000e–2(e)(2)).

You can read the text of the bill over here. It's really short, but mostly because it uses the "whatever the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said" strategy in many more places than just this one.

[bytebear]

I don't like discrimination, but I also think the idea of freedom of assembly means you should be able to choose who you assemble with. I don't like the idea of a business being forced to accommodate and support things they don't like. From making a wedding cake for a gay couple, to making a birthday cake to Hitler. You should be allowed to say no to both.

[Soulsearcher]

I don't like discrimination, but I also think the idea of freedom of assembly means you should be able to choose who you assemble with. I don't like the idea of a business being forced to accommodate and support things they don't like. From making a wedding cake for a gay couple, to making a birthday cake to Hitler. You should be allowed to say no to both.

So just to clarify, you are completely ok with someone who has had an employee working for them for a few years and then finds out that that person is LDS and fires them on the spot?

[LittleWyvern]

I don't like discrimination, but I also think the idea of freedom of assembly means you should be able to choose who you assemble with. I don't like the idea of a business being forced to accommodate and support things they don't like.

This bill is strictly about non-discrimination in employment, and says nothing about freedom of association or customer service.

From making a wedding cake for a gay couple, to making a birthday cake to Hitler. You should be allowed to say no to both.

From start of thread to Hitler took only 11 posts.

[Just_A_Guy]

The thing is, guarantees of religious freedom aside, you've got to look at the *administrative* powers that run with this bill.

My understanding is that PPACA required, by legislative fiat, that existing health care plans not be changed. But it also empowered HHS to write all kinds of administrative rules which eventually did just that--statutory guarantees notwithstanding.

That says something about the way a Presidential administration can--and this one in particular does--operate. I think there's a very real possibility that you'll see the EEOC sicced on religious organizations regardless of the language of the bill quoted earlier in this thread.

And, for SS: as a libertarian, my answer is "yes". I am free to negotiate a contract preventing that kind of thing at hiring, and seek remedy through the courts if it's violated. And given the current bureaucratic structure, he'd have to pay my unemployment anyways. If my boss wants to use my religion as an excuse to pay me to do no work for him for a few months while I find another job, I'm not going to complain.

[Vort]

From start of thread to Hitler took only 11 posts.

In an important sense, Godwin's Law is stupid. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid argumentation technique, showing by analogy or comparison that a way of thinking (and not just a specific argument) is invalid when taken to a reasonable extreme. Hitler and Naziism are obvious extremes from recent generations in our society.

The main problem with doing so, and thus the main benefit of recognizing Godwin's Law, is that specifically using Hitler and Naziism tends to obscure rather than enlighten, because people simply are not smart enough or disciplined enough to kee in mind that it's a comparison or analogy, not an equation.

If bytebear were claiming "Making a cake for homosexuals is just like making a cake for Hitler!", then objection would be meaningful, because the comparison fails. But that is not what bytebear claimed. He was very clearly stating that if you don't like what something represents, you should not (in his estimation) be forced to do any work in its favor. If you disagree with this line of argumentation, you should refute it, not just try to poison it by decrying the use of a Hitler analogy.

[LittleWyvern]

Oh great, in noting something I found confusing and mildly amusing I've made Vort gleefully pounce on an argument I'm clearly and obviously not trying to make and now this thread is full of Hitler.

That says something about the way a Presidential administration can--and this one in particular does--operate. I think there's a very real possibility that you'll see the EEOC sicced on religious organizations regardless of the language of the bill quoted earlier in this thread.

Let's look at the quoted sections in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, just for fun.

702(a)This title shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, or society of its religious activities or to an educational institution with respect to the employment of individuals to perform work connected with the educational activities of such institution.

703(e)(2)it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.

I guess we could test the effectiveness of this exemption by seeing how it's worked in the past. Was the church ever sued/kept from making employment decisions/fined/etc. in the period between the passing of this act and the lifting of the Priesthood ban in 1978? I'm asking this as a serious question, because I wasn't alive then. :)

Edited November 9, 2013 by LittleWyvern

[Backroads]

So just to clarify, you are completely ok with someone who has had an employee working for them for a few years and then finds out that that person is LDS and fires them on the spot?

I, like JaG, am quite libertarian and have to say "yes". Though "completely ok" might be the wrong description. But rather than a total "That's unfair!" I'd be thinking "What a jerk." Just like I'd probably think "What a jerk!" over someone who fired a homosexual for being a homosexual. But yes, the libertarian in me believes that an employer ought to have the right to hire and fire according to his whims. Largely, I think necessity as well as public opinion will keep a lot of issues in check.

As for the bill itself in our current government with current protections, I like the bill. And from what I understand of it, religious organizations needn't fear.

[Vort]

Oh great, in noting something I found confusing and mildly amusing I've made Vort gleefully pounce on an argument I'm clearly and obviously not trying to make

You apparently misunderstand my intent. There was no glee or pouncing involved; on the contrary, I tried to make a rational, low-key observation, not an incisive criticism.

[Just_A_Guy]

I guess we could test the effectiveness of this exemption by seeing how it's worked in the past. Was the church ever sued/kept from making employment decisions/fined/etc. in the period between the passing of this act and the lifting of the Priesthood ban in 1978? I'm asking this as a serious question, because I wasn't alive then. :)

Well, as I read it, section 702 exempts only discrimination based on religion, not race or gender. There's a significant Supreme Court decision called Corp of Presiding Bishopric v. Amos (483 U.S. 327, 1987) in which the Church was sued for firing an employee who had lost his temple recommend. The Church won at SCOTUS, but had previously lost the first appeal.

Also, the Civil Rights Act applies to commerce, employment and education; not religious liturgy. I'm not aware that the Church ever discriminated based on race or gender in those particular spheres during the period in question.

But the Civil Rights Act also cleared the way for an IRS regulatory change in the 1970s that denied Bob Jones University its tax-exempt status because, on religious grounds, it denied admission to students involved in interracial marriages (though it did admit minority students). SCOTUS upheld that change on the grounds that "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs."

[bytebear]

So just to clarify, you are completely ok with someone who has had an employee working for them for a few years and then finds out that that person is LDS and fires them on the spot?

Bringing back the Hitler analogy, how many people have been fired for having Nazi sympathies? So, yes, I think if someone is so offended at the LDS lifestyle they feel the need to let an employee go, they should have that right. The only difference is cultural acceptance of the group.

[bytebear]

"Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs."

And this is how the government can skirt the constitution, by using the tax codes to punish or reward based on their beliefs. We saw that in the 2012 election when tax exempt "tea party" groups were illegally targeted. We also see it in state's rights issues, from EPA regulations to Common Core to traffic speeds. All are outside the jurisdiction of the Federal government but all are enacted at the threat of loss of state funds. Funds, by the way, which were taken from the state's citizens through Federal taxes. We are being robbed and then bribed/punished with our own money.

I don't like anti-discrimination laws because I don't like the government deciding what is and what isn't culturally acceptable. Can I fire someone for being a Red Sox fan? Can I fire someone for not being a vegetarian? For being a nudist? For being a Tea Party supporter? For being a Nazi sympathizer? The only difference is how culturally acceptable each of these are, but the government gets to decide which is most egregious. I don't want them to have that power because they tend to abuse it.

[carlimac]

Government overreach IMO. Aren't there already rules on the books that prevent this kind of thing from happening but LGBTs want it specifically naming them?

From what I've read and heard, Boehner isn't even going to bring it for a vote in the house.

[LittleWyvern]

Government overreach IMO. Aren't there already rules on the books that prevent this kind of thing from happening but LGBTs want it specifically naming them?

Nope. Unless your state forbids it, it's perfectly legal to fire someone for being homosexual or to hire only straight people (it's also legal to fire someone for being straight for the same reason).

[bytebear]

I am reminded of a recent law on domestic violence. The Democrats used it to show how Republicans were against women. But the law did nothing that wasn't already on the books and had just enough pork to annoy the Republicans. People seem not to care about the actual effects of a law, but only the presumed intentions. They are "feel good" laws, used only for posturing.

In this case, a lot of Republicans are using this law to show they aren't anti-gay.

I wish we had a party that was "hey, go figure out your own social issues."

[Backroads]

Nope. Unless your state forbids it, it's perfectly legal to fire someone for being homosexual or to hire only straight people (it's also legal to fire someone for being straight for the same reason).

I read an article citing a poll that revealed a majority thought such a law existed already.