Oh Harry!

[Guest]

Dear Anatess,

Frankenstein wasn't the monster. He was the creepy German doctor who created the monster. On behalf of creepy German doctors everywhere, I demand an apology for your lack of sensitivity and your false insinuation that creepy German doctors are monsters.

I could always sue you for mental anguish in your accusation for denying me my right to use Frankenstein in its popular usage as is used in the stage play Peggy Webling. But then I'm going to have to hire you to litigate my case...

Okay, okay... so I didn't really know about Peggy Webling. I consulted wikipedia in my search for the name of the vile monster...

[carlimac]

Church Supports Nondiscrimination Ordinances News Story — 10 November 2009 Church Supports Nondiscrimination Ordinances

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has declared its support of nondiscrimination regulations that would extend protection in matters of housing and employment in Salt Lake City to those with same-sex attraction.

The Church said the Salt Lake City Council’s new nondiscrimination ordinance “is fair and reasonable” and balances fair housing and employment rights with the religious rights of the community.

The remarks, representing the position of the Church’s leadership, were read by Michael Otterson, managing director of Church Public Affairs, as part of a public comment period discussing the ordinances at a Salt Lake City Council meeting tonight. (Read full remarks).

Otterson told city council members: “The issue before you tonight is the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against. But, importantly, the ordinances also attempts to balance vital issues of religious freedom. In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor Becker is taking on this matter.”

The Church said that while protections in housing and employment were fair and reasonable, the Church also remains “unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.” Otterson also pointed out that this position was “entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters.”

Otterson added, “I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree — in fact, especially when we disagree.”

Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage

From the Church's official website.

"Salt Lake City —

Media outlets are reporting that in an informal press gathering Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid made comments about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and gay rights.

As the Church has said before, elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position.

On the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the Church has not taken a position. On the question of same-sex marriage, the Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with kindness and understanding. If it is being suggested that the Church’s doctrine on this matter is changing, that is incorrect.

Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change."

Harry Reid has does not speak for the Church. Even if he thinks he's right and even if he got it half right. What he was saying could be easily warped.

Also the church was only referring to support of the non-discrimination acts being put forth in Salt Lake City, not ENDA.

Edited November 12, 2013 by carlimac

[Soulsearcher]

Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage

From the Church's official website.

"Salt Lake City —

Media outlets are reporting that in an informal press gathering Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid made comments about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and gay rights.

As the Church has said before, elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position.

On the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the Church has not taken a position. On the question of same-sex marriage, the Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with kindness and understanding. If it is being suggested that the Church’s doctrine on this matter is changing, that is incorrect.

Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change."

Harry Reid has does not speak for the Church. Even if he thinks he's right and even if he got it half right. What he was saying could be easily warped.

But we can at least admit the church is not against the non-discrimination from earlier actions can't we? They aren't saying no never, it's horrible, they can see some value it it being they did vocally support it in at least one case?

[Leah]

I agree with Anatess. It IS all about sex. Why would a business object to having an employee who got along great with his or her roommate and were actually fond of him/her in a brotherly or sisterly way? Once the physical intimacy (even holding hands) enters into the picture it's a whole different story.

I think heteros who don't object to gay marriage/relationships are people who either have managed to block the physical aspect out of their minds completely or who have such liberal views about sex that it doesn't phase them.

Now about this rule about not talking about families...it's beyond ridiculous. We'd all have to pretend babies came from the stork or were conceived in a test tube. I assume you don't really think that should be the rule but to even use it hypothetically is pretty silly. I know you're trying to get us to see the world through your view, but it just doesn't work. To make things "fair" for all sexual orientations would mean we'd have to deny nature. I think that's exactly what Satan wants. To neutralize us all. To remove the ability to perpetuate our Father in Heaven's work and purpose for us in life. I know talking about God just turns you off, but truly, why else would there be sex in the first place? It's absolutely necessary to keep the human race going. It's vital. It's not just about satisfying physical lust.

Now I'm just babbling.

That (the part in bold) is one of the most...ridiculous? ludicrous?....things I have ever read.

Whether an employee has any kind of roommate or not, is none of the employer's business. How they do or don't get along with them is also none of the employer's business. What gender they are is none of the employer's business. So why does it suddenly become their business...and a potential reason for termination....if they happen to be having sex with said roommate if they happen to be of the opposite gender?

I keep my covenants. I uphold the teachings of the church. But I am not in favor of witch hunts. If you don't want to associate with certain people in your personal life, fine. But to advocate that someone should be barred from employment based solely on their sexual orientation? You really think that that is okay? You really think that Heavenly Father approves of that?

And if you advocate that, then you have to be okay with any employer anywhere firing someone for any reason whatsoever....that they are this religion instead of that religion, that they are this gender instead of that, that they are this color instead of that, that they're too fat, too skinny, too ugly, they were born in the "wrong" country.....there is no end to the possibilities.

I believe that Heavenly Father did ordain marriage to be between a man and a woman. But I am not going to refuse to hire someone because their religious beliefs are different than mine. Isn't that what this boils down to? Would you like to be shut out of employment because you are LDS?

[Guest]

K so did the being married with two kids have any type of negative impact on his work? and if not as you said he's protected by law so he was able to sue right?

Nope, no impact on his work. His boss was a @#$%. We thought of suing but we didn't bother because my husband saw it as an impetus to better his station. He finished his bachelor's degree, proceeded to get his masters, all the while either taking contract work to get by or staying home to care for our very young children, and 2 years later, he found a job paying three times what he made in that sucky job.

Yeah, my husband is the type to make lemonades out of lemons without turning back.

[Guest]

It is, but it's shown precedent for protecting a choice and lifestyle. You are not born that way, it's not something you can't change. It's something you can be persecuted for, there are things that might never be known about it, but it doesn't change the facts about how you think or feel on it. So while people might have issues comparing race or gender, there can be a comparison between between religion being it fits most people assumptions about homosexuality. So while the origins of homosexuality might be up in the air it can fall somewhere along the spectrum between the already protected classes.

No, it doesn't. It is one of the main reasons we seceded from Britain. It is quite an important distinction. Now, if you secede from the US because you feel you can't succeed because of your sexual orientation and you start your own Constitution on the basis that such government can't be a respecter of sexual orientation, then sure... you can get your own special protection without having to issue one for Franken, er... the vile monster.

[Backroads]

For the record, I'm in favor of the bill despite the libertarian in me who says anyone has the right to hire/not hire anyone for any matter of frivilous reasoning.

I suppose that I am against an employer firing someone based on X. After all, Employer hired someone while I assume X was in place. I think JaG touched on this, and it would behoove an employee, upon getting a job, to argue for himself in the employment contract.

I do think everyone, including gays, should have reasonable comfort in their jobs, that they won't be fired because of non-job-related reasons. I think the aforementioned contract could take care of this. I also think the bill could take care of this.

Soulsearcher, I don't think anyone here specifically thinks anyone should be fired because they are gay. But political leanings being what they are, a lot of us don't think private employers should be legislated to about who they can and can't hire.

[Guest]

For the record, I'm in favor of the bill despite the libertarian in me who says anyone has the right to hire/not hire anyone for any matter of frivilous reasoning.

I suppose that I am against an employer firing someone based on X. After all, Employer hired someone while I assume X was in place. I think JaG touched on this, and it would behoove an employee, upon getting a job, to argue for himself in the employment contract.

I do think everyone, including gays, should have reasonable comfort in their jobs, that they won't be fired because of non-job-related reasons. I think the aforementioned contract could take care of this. I also think the bill could take care of this.

Soulsearcher, I don't think anyone here specifically thinks anyone should be fired because they are gay. But political leanings being what they are, a lot of us don't think private employers should be legislated to about who they can and can't hire.

So... where's the bill for Franken, er... vile monster?

[carlimac]

That (the part in bold) is one of the most...ridiculous? ludicrous?....things I have ever read.

Whether an employee has any kind of roommate or not, is none of the employer's business. How they do or don't get along with them is also none of the employer's business. What gender they are is none of the employer's business. So why does it suddenly become their business...and a potential reason for termination....if they happen to be having sex with said roommate if they happen to be of the opposite gender?

I keep my covenants. I uphold the teachings of the church. But I am not in favor of witch hunts. If you don't want to associate with certain people in your personal life, fine. But to advocate that someone should be barred from employment based solely on their sexual orientation? You really think that that is okay? You really think that Heavenly Father approves of that?

And if you advocate that, then you have to be okay with any employer anywhere firing someone for any reason whatsoever....that they are this religion instead of that religion, that they are this gender instead of that, that they are this color instead of that, that they're too fat, too skinny, too ugly, they were born in the "wrong" country.....there is no end to the possibilities.

I believe that Heavenly Father did ordain marriage to be between a man and a woman. But I am not going to refuse to hire someone because their religious beliefs are different than mine. Isn't that what this boils down to? Would you like to be shut out of employment because you are LDS?

Leah- I don't believe you were following the thread very attentively. As I said, I don't believe in firing someone over their sexual preferences unless it interferes with their work. I was responding to Soul's statement that "it" (whatever "it" is) is not just about sex. And I'm simply saying that yes "it" - in this case ,my objection to same sex relationships IS about the sex. I, and I assume most people who are against homosexual relationships, don't care if that person has a warm, close friendship or relationship with someone of the same gender. But when that relationship crosses over to become physically intimate- THAT CHANGES THE RELATIONSHIP from platonic and innocent to something our Father in Heaven has let us know is just plain wrong.

The "it" part has nothing to do with whether I as an employer should fire the gay worker. It is simply a definition of my objection to an active homosexual lifestyle. It's just wrong. And that is how our Church defines it, too.

Does that make more sense?

[LittleWyvern]

So... where's the bill for Franken, er... vile monster?

[carlimac]

But we can at least admit the church is not against the non-discrimination from earlier actions can't we? They aren't saying no never, it's horrible, they can see some value it it being they did vocally support it in at least one case?

Whether it's true or not, it isn't Harry's job to speak "for other members"-especially as a high profile politician. Apparently it must have caused some confusion- leading to the church needing to clarify it's position. The article said- "It responded to media inquiries with its statement." I don't know what the inquiries from the media were, but obviously, his statement must have been misconstrued or led to assumptions about our doctrine changing. Who knows? But I doubt the Church would have made a statement at all if Harry's words hadn't been taken to mean something different.

[Leah]

Leah- I don't believe you were following the thread very attentively. As I said, I don't believe in firing someone over their sexual preferences unless it interferes with their work. I was responding to Soul's statement that "it" (whatever "it" is) is not just about sex. And I'm simply saying that yes "it" - in this case ,my objection to same sex relationships IS about the sex. I, and I assume most people who are against homosexual relationships, don't care if that person has a warm, close friendship or relationship with someone of the same gender. But when that relationship crosses over to become physically intimate- THAT CHANGES THE RELATIONSHIP from platonic and innocent to something our Father in Heaven has let us know is just plain wrong.

The "it" part has nothing to do with whether I as an employer should fire the gay worker. It is simply a definition of my objection to an active homosexual lifestyle. It's just wrong. And that is how our Church defines it, too.

Does that make more sense?

This is what you wrote:

"Why would a business object to having an employee who got along great with his or her roommate and were actually fond of him/her in a brotherly or sisterly way? Once the physical intimacy (even holding hands) enters into the picture it's a whole different story. "

Why does physical intimacy between roommates (no matter their gender/orientation) have anything to wwith the workplace?

You used the example of an employer having no problem with roommates who are fond of each other in a "brotherly or sisterly way" and then stated that even if they were to merely hold hands, then it is "a whole different story".

What is the whole different story, then? What does anything to do with an employee's roommate have to do with the employer? The way it reads is that an employer should be fine with an employee with an opposite-gendered roommate, as long as there is no sex involved. The employee's roommates and what goes on between them is none of the employer's business. It's not relevant to their employment.

Whether it is roommates or another situation, unless an employee is doing something sexually inappropriate in the workplace - whether they be straight or gay - the employee's sex life is none of the employer's business.

Yes, per church teaching, homosexual sex is wrong in our Heavenly Father's eyes. But what does that have to do with employment?

You seem to not have grasped the part that this is your religious belief, but not the belief held by everyone. Do your religious beliefs trump the rights of your co-workers? What if they have a religious belief that you do not hold and want to fire you for that reason? You're cool with that, right? And you're cool with someone wanting to fire you for say...doing works for the dead...because it's not their religious belief. Right? Because if you get to impose your religious belief on someone else's ability to work, you should be subject to the same, right?

[carlimac]

This is what you wrote:

"Why would a business object to having an employee who got along great with his or her roommate and were actually fond of him/her in a brotherly or sisterly way? Once the physical intimacy (even holding hands) enters into the picture it's a whole different story. "

Why does physical intimacy between roommates (no matter their gender/orientation) have anything to wwith the workplace?

You used the example of an employer having no problem with roommates who are fond of each other in a "brotherly or sisterly way" and then stated that even if they were to merely hold hands, then it is "a whole different story".

What is the whole different story, then? What does anything to do with an employee's roommate have to do with the employer? The way it reads is that an employer should be fine with an employee with an opposite-gendered roommate, as long as there is no sex involved. The employee's roommates and what goes on between them is none of the employer's business. It's not relevant to their employment.

Whether it is roommates or another situation, unless an employee is doing something sexually inappropriate in the workplace - whether they be straight or gay - the employee's sex life is none of the employer's business.

Yes, per church teaching, homosexual sex is wrong in our Heavenly Father's eyes. But what does that have to do with employment?

You seem to not have grasped the part that this is your religious belief, but not the belief held by everyone. Do your religious beliefs trump the rights of your co-workers? What if they have a religious belief that you do not hold and want to fire you for that reason? You're cool with that, right? And you're cool with someone wanting to fire you for say...doing works for the dead...because it's not their religious belief. Right? Because if you get to impose your religious belief on someone else's ability to work, you should be subject to the same, right?

Leah, Leah...calm down. I didn't express that well. OK? Sometimes my mind jumps from one tangent to another. This topic especially boggles my mind. But you've totally missed my point again.

For one thing, I'm not even an employer or an employee ( besides of my kids :)) Let me say this again. My personal view is that IF I WERE AN EMPLOYER, no I wouldn't fire someone if I suspected they were gay. Would I object to their lifestyle? Yes! Would the knowledge that they were having sex with someone of their same gender bother me? Yes. "It" will always bother me whether I'm their employer or their neighbor or simply their friend. But would I fire them? No unless perhaps they were on the front page of the newspaper the day following a gay parade in a speedo making rude gestures. Then I'd at least be very tempted to fire the person if that photo would somehow damage my business.

It was all hypothetical. This thread is about employers and employees so I was suggesting that Joe-business owner out there might be offended by the lifestyle of their employee... Suggesting what the mindset might be is all. I was not saying this is me personally because I'M NOT AN EMPLOYER and never will be.

Why do YOU think any employer would fire someone because of sexual orientation? What do you think is going through their mind? What about it do YOU think offends an employer? Is "it" about their closeness with another of their same gender or is it about the fact that they are living together and having sex as if they were man and woman? I would suggest that IF an employer had a problem with the lifestyle of their gay employee, it's not about the closeness they have with another human being ( as Soul has often suggested on this forum. He has said on numerous occasions that being gay is more about having a bond with another guy. I disagree. ) It's ( the offense that anyone feels about homosexuality) is about the moral issues surrounding the homosexual lifestyle and about the sex.

And since you asked, just for the heck of it, here is how it might affect someone's job. If the person being gay somehow affects the business - for instance customers know the employee is gay-maybe saw him on the front page and refuse to patronize the business anymore, or it causes personal conflict between boss and employee, or goes against any specific guidelines or rules the business adheres to or whatever (use your own imagination. I'm sure there are multitudes of situations where it could be a problem) - that employee might get fired.

But my point wasn't originally about the gay worker in the workplace. It was about "it"- Gayness- what it's all about and why it's important to Soul and why it's offensive to some of us.

Nevermind. Don't try to understand. You must be a more linear thinker than I am. I'm all over the map at any given time and that comes out in my scrambled writing.

Edited November 12, 2013 by carlimac

[Backroads]

So... where's the bill for Franken, er... vile monster?

We saw the monster above!

In all seriousness, I suppose the vile monster's can petition for a bill when they feel rejected.

By all means, I would prefer employers and employees handle it themselves at hiring.

[Just_A_Guy]

@ LittleWyvern:

Well played, sir. Well played.

[NightSG]

Would you like to be shut out of employment because you are LDS?

Would you voluntarily associate with someone who only refrains from raping you because it's illegal?

I wouldn't work for someone who has to be compelled by law to employ me.

[Leah]

Leah, Leah...calm down. I didn't express that well. OK? Sometimes my mind jumps from one tangent to another. This topic especially boggles my mind. But you've totally missed my point again.

For one thing, I'm not even an employer or an employee ( besides of my kids :)) Let me say this again. My personal view is that IF I WERE AN EMPLOYER, no I wouldn't fire someone if I suspected they were gay. Would I object to their lifestyle? Yes! Would the knowledge that they were having sex with someone of their same gender bother me? Yes. "It" will always bother me whether I'm their employer or their neighbor or simply their friend. But would I fire them? No unless perhaps they were on the front page of the newspaper the day following a gay parade in a speedo making rude gestures. Then I'd at least be very tempted to fire the person if that photo would somehow damage my business.

It was all hypothetical. This thread is about employers and employees so I was suggesting that Joe-business owner out there might be offended by the lifestyle of their employee... Suggesting what the mindset might be is all. I was not saying this is me personally because I'M NOT AN EMPLOYER and never will be.

Why do YOU think any employer would fire someone because of sexual orientation? What do you think is going through their mind? What about it do YOU think offends an employer? Is "it" about their closeness with another of their same gender or is it about the fact that they are living together and having sex as if they were man and woman? I would suggest that IF an employer had a problem with the lifestyle of their gay employee, it's not about the closeness they have with another human being ( as Soul has often suggested on this forum. He has said on numerous occasions that being gay is more about having a bond with another guy. I disagree. ) It's ( the offense that anyone feels about homosexuality) is about the moral issues surrounding the homosexual lifestyle and about the sex.

And since you asked, just for the heck of it, here is how it might affect someone's job. If the person being gay somehow affects the business - for instance customers know the employee is gay-maybe saw him on the front page and refuse to patronize the business anymore, or it causes personal conflict between boss and employee, or goes against any specific guidelines or rules the business adheres to or whatever (use your own imagination. I'm sure there are multitudes of situations where it could be a problem) - that employee might get fired.

But my point wasn't originally about the gay worker in the workplace. It was about "it"- Gayness- what it's all about and why it's important to Soul and why it's offensive to some of us.

Nevermind. Don't try to understand. You must be a more linear thinker than I am. I'm all over the map at any given time and that comes out in my scrambled writing.

I am very calm. But...gee....thanks for the condescension.

It is clear some people cannot grasp what is at stake here.

[Leah]

Would you voluntarily associate with someone who only refrains from raping you because it's illegal?

I wouldn't work for someone who has to be compelled by law to employ me.

I'll say it again, some people just don't grasp what is at stake here.

It sounds like you would have applauded when Jews in Germany in the 40s got thrown out of their jobs simply because they were Jewish.

It's sad to see discrimination being advocated by members of the church.

[bytebear]

I'll say it again, some people just don't grasp what is at stake here.

It sounds like you would have applauded when Jews in Germany in the 40s got thrown out of their jobs simply because they were Jewish.

It's sad to see discrimination being advocated by members of the church.

Interestingly enough, studies have been done on that very subject. One conclusion is that Jews ended up in niche businesses and became successful because they were discriminated against and because they chose to work only with each other. They became better and had to rely on each other. They didn't have affirmative action to fall back on, so to get into good schools and do business with gentiles, they had to work that much harder. In your world, they would be forced to integrate with non-Jews and not have been able to thrive in niche trades. Their culture would have been eroded as well. And, of course, academic achievement would come second to diversity.

Edited November 14, 2013 by bytebear

[carlimac]

I'll say it again, some people just don't grasp what is at stake here.

It sounds like you would have applauded when Jews in Germany in the 40s got thrown out of their jobs simply because they were Jewish.

It's sad to see discrimination being advocated by members of the church.

I honestly don't understand why the harsh accusations here.

CLEARLY- you don't know my mind or my heart. Nor did you understand the whole gist of my post.

I have not once in this whole thread advocated discrimination. I have said I would NOT fire someone for being gay. I don't agree with their lifestyle but I would not fire them- unless they were doing something that was hurting business. I have very, very dear friends who are Baptist, Jew, Hindu, Catholic, Lutheran, even Evangelical who have told me point blank that I'm going to hell because I'm a Mormon. But I still love them and communicate with them on a regular basis.

I know I'm a not the best writer, but I have no idea where you're getting these wild ideas about what I believe or what I've said. I'm truly sorry if I offended you. I only suggest you try to read it again and "get" the point I've been trying to make. Or nevermind if you plan to misconstrue my words anyway.

Edited November 14, 2013 by carlimac

[carlimac]

I am very calm. But...gee....thanks for the condescension.

It is clear some people cannot grasp what is at stake here.

I'd like to know what you think is at stake here?

[TC Reader]

I've found this discussion very interesting - thanks to all for that.

 

But I feel compelled to clarify one point of information regarding employment law in the United States: contrary to what has been posted here, we do NOT have "just cause" law in the U.S. Generally speaking, a U.S. employer does not need to have just cause to fire you, or to refuse to hire you, or to make any other decision about the terms or conditions of your employment.

 

Instead of "just cause," what we have is the "at will" rule, which basically means an employer can do whatever it jolly well pleases, when it comes to decisions about its employees. (Contrast this to certain European countries, which actually do have a "just cause" standard.) The idea that American employers are bound by a "just cause" standard is a widely-held myth among Americans. (And firmly held, as seen by some of the above posts.) But ask any employment law attorney, or simple Google "at will" and "just cause," and you will see how American employment law actually operates.

 

As a matter of public policy, there are a few, narrow exceptions to the "at will"/libertarian general rule. These can be found, for example, in Title VII, which says employers cannot make decisions based on certain important personal traits such as religion, race, age, or disability. These traits were not chosen randomly; rather, they are traits that are immutable (or should be treated as such - e.g., religion) AND which have historically been the cause of significant (and presumably unfair) disadvantage. 

 

The debate that continues, state by state and nationally, is whether this short set of exceptions should include LGBT status.

[Just_A_Guy]

Generally correct (depending on the state--some states are "at will"; many are not).  However, there's another set of pressures to be considered.  For example, Utah is an "at-will" state.  However, employers in Utah are also required (and I'm DRASTICALLY over-simplifying here) to pay into a state unemployment insurance fund every pay period, depending on the number of employees they have.  If an employee loses her position and it's not because she quit or because she violated some standard of "misconduct", the employee will be able to make a successful claim for state unemployment benefits.  The state then comes back to the employer and says "we had one of your ex-employees make a claim; so henceforward your unemployment insurance rate is going to increase by x dollars per month".

 

So even in a state that is nominally "at will", there are costs for an employer who capriciously terminates someone's employment.