A crock of a complaint and way overreach of govt. into our lives.

[skippy740]

Article of Faith 11 & 12

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

I think we should be respectful of others, regardless of how they choose to live their life. The gospel of Jesus Christ is about helping others find their own spiritual motivation to want to repent and follow Christ. Withholding business services won't help win people over to the gospel.

[skippy740]

Right. And there is strong historical evidence showing that legalization and social acceptance of any given behavior is the most effective means of eradicating said behavior.

I don't remember prohibition helping things either.

[The Folk Prophet]

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Since when is being gay a form of worshiping God?

12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

What is this supposed to support. That we shouldn't work to change laws we disagree with? That we shouldn't fight against legal injustice? That no matter who ends up in power, we should just kowtow?

I think we should be respectful of others, regardless of how they choose to live their life. The gospel of Jesus Christ is about helping others find their own spiritual motivation to want to repent and follow Christ. Withholding business services won't help win people over to the gospel.

Refusing to do business with a gay wedding has nothing to do one way or the other with winning people over to the gospel. Are you honestly implying that making the cake for them instead of refusing would play a role in their abandonment of homosexuality and conversion to the gospel?

Standing up for right is explicitly commanded regardless of offense. The idea that not offending others is the highest order of righteousness is woefully mistaken.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't remember prohibition helping things either.

Trying to prohibit something that has a long history of sanction is vastly different from new sanction of something that has a long history of prohibition. The relative argument is a nonstarter.

[skippy740]

Since when is being gay a form of worshiping God?

It's a form of worshipping themselves. It is NOT of God. Sorry that I wasn't clear.

What is this supposed to support. That we shouldn't work to change laws we disagree with? That we shouldn't fight against legal injustice? That no matter who ends up in power, we should just kowtow?

No one said not to try to change laws that you don't support. But this isn't about trying to change laws. We're talking about serving people whom you want to (rightly or wrongly) discriminate against.

Refusing to do business with a gay wedding has nothing to do one way or the other with winning people over to the gospel. Are you honestly implying that making the cake for them instead of refusing would play a role in their abandonment of homosexuality and conversion to the gospel?

Yes, I think it does. We need to be a good example of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Love all people. Be courteous to all people.

When they think of good Mormon people, that they think of you. I think that would be more effective than condemning everyone.

The longer you see other people who don't "conform" as 'enemies' of the gospel... and treat them as such... the less effective our community will be in winning people over to the Gospel truth.

You won't win them over right now. NO one gets 'won over' that quickly to the gospel. It's just one more deposit of good experiences that they can have to form a better opinion of our culture.

Standing up for right is explicitly commanded regardless of offense. The idea that not offending others is the highest order of righteousness is woefully mistaken.

If you are preaching and teaching the gospel, you should not ever be ashamed of the principles of the gospel. If a gospel principle offends someone, that's on them.

Where do I draw the line? Unless it is your BUSINESS is preaching the gospel on a regular basis... it does not apply, in my view.

[skippy740]

Someone show me where it's written by latter day general authorities, or in the scriptures, that we should shun, discriminate against, and denounce anyone who is of same-sex attraction at every possible opportunity to show how much we disapprove of their lifestyle?

From Mormons and Gays

There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right. But what is changing — and what needs to change — is to help Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere.

"As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender."

Could that also include our business dealings? Edited January 22, 2014 by skippy740

[The Folk Prophet]

It's a form of worshipping themselves. It is NOT of God. Sorry that I wasn't clear.

And yet it has nothing to do with the 11th Article of Faith. Allowing men the same privilege to worship God does not extend to any claimed legal right we deem inappropriate. And the church has been quite clear on this.

No one said not to try to change laws that you don't support. But this isn't about trying to change laws. We're talking about serving people whom you want to (rightly or wrongly) discriminate against.

The argument is about the legality of serving or not serving gay marriages. Legality debates obviously imply a desire to change or keep laws. One clear contention is that it should be illegal to discriminate, the other contention is that it should not. I say it should be legally acceptable to reject service for a gay wedding. So does the church.

But, fair enough, you're debating whether we SHOULD be arguing for it's legality, or, rather, whether anyone should reject service and have caused any issue in the first place. So why are you quoting the 12th article of faith?

Yes, I think it does. We need to be a good example of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Love all people. Be courteous to all people.

I can courteously reject service while loving those I deny service to. In fact, I feel it is my Christian obligation to do so. Tying one to the other is a bit straw man-y.

The longer you see other people who don't "conform" as 'enemies' of the gospel... and treat them as such... the less effective our community will be in winning people over to the Gospel truth.

People who don't conform to the gospel ARE enemies of the gospel. But that is their doing, not my seeing them that way. Fighting against/for things that I know are wrong/right, that the church has specifically asked me to fight against/for, has nothing to do with whether I see people as "the enemy" or not. Moreover, them being the enemy is not a problem if we fully accept the command to love our enemies. But stop telling me that in order to love them I have to cave on the issues. That is not love.

You won't win them over right now. NO one gets 'won over' that quickly to the gospel. It's just one more deposit of good experiences that they can have to form a better opinion of our culture.

By this argument we should back off on any and all controversial issues for the sake of conversion. I'm sorry, but conversion doesn't work that way.

I will grant, there is a difference between Captain Moroni and the sons of Mosiah's approaches to "the enemy". But there is a time and a place for both. When the enemy is threatening your religion, freedom, peace, wives, and children, you stand up and fight. Especially in the political and legal arena. You don't cave and let the kingmen win because you might convert a few of them, because you know that they will destroy your liberty. Meanwhile, you send missionaries to serve and preach. Sounds about like what the church is doing to me.

If you are preaching and teaching the gospel, you should not ever be ashamed of the principles of the gospel. If a gospel principle offends someone, that's on them.

Where do I draw the line? Unless it is your BUSINESS is preaching the gospel on a regular basis... it does not apply, in my view.

Agree on the first paragraph here. Where we disagree is the second. It does apply. It does matter. It does hurt civilization. It is offensive and hurtful to be forced to capitulate. And it will bring about the calamities foretold by the prophets if we fail in our fight.

[Guest]

Someone show me where it's written by latter day general authorities, or in the scriptures, that we should shun, discriminate against, and denounce anyone who is of same-sex attraction at every possible opportunity to show how much we disapprove of their lifestyle?

From Mormons and Gays

Could that also include our business dealings?

This is over-reaching. Okay okay, I didn't read the article!

But, we are talking about GAY WEDDINGS... not gay anything else. Big ginormous difference.

It falls under one's personal conscience in answering the question:

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Being gay is not opposed to the Church. Same sex marriage is. One shouldn't have to be bound by law to go contrary to their conscience in answering that question.

Note, you may be just fine making a wedding cake for your gay neighbor and having a clear conscience in answering No to that question. But others are not. I am simply fighting to remove legal retribution from those who prefer to stay out of someone's gay wedding to answer a temple recommend question with a clear conscience. I'm fairly certain that store will make a birthday cake for their gay neighbor anyday of the week and twice on Monday.

Edited January 22, 2014 by anatess

[LittleWyvern]

The argument is about the legality of serving or not serving gay marriages. Legality debates obviously imply a desire to change or keep laws. One clear contention is that it should be illegal to discriminate, the other contention is that it should not. I say it should be legally acceptable to reject service for a gay wedding. So does the church.

Hold up. When you say "reject service for a gay wedding," you could mean one of two things:

1. Refusing to perform a same-sex wedding
   
2. Refusing to participate in the creation of goods or services that might possibly be used in same-sex marriages
   

"Relevant username" jokes aside, I'm fairly certain the Church has supported Item 1 and not Item 2.

But, we are talking about GAY WEDDINGS... not gay anything else. Big ginormous difference.

It falls under one's personal conscience in answering the question:

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I would argue (and I'm sure skippy would say something similar) that the mormonandgays website suggests a different interpretation of support than you're assuming.

Edited January 22, 2014 by LittleWyvern

[The Folk Prophet]

Someone show me where it's written by latter day general authorities, or in the scriptures, that we should shun, discriminate against, and denounce anyone who is of same-sex attraction at every possible opportunity to show how much we disapprove of their lifestyle?

From Mormons and Gays

Could that also include our business dealings?

To be fair, turning someone away oneself is a bit different than supporting the rights of people to do so.

Here's from the letter to Hawaiian congregations in the latest vote on gay marriage. The ask people to push for "a strong exemption for people and organizations of faith" that would protect religious groups "from being required to support or perform same-sex marriages or from having to host same-sex marriages or celebrations in their facilities; and protect individuals and small businesses from being required to assist in promoting or celebrating same-sex marriages." (note: I just google searched this and pulled it from the trib article.)

Seems pretty clear what the church's current position is on this. (I'm sure I could find more with a bit of research...but this will do.)

I admit that a cake may or may not be "celebrating" or "promoting". That'd debatable. I would content that it is according to an individual's sense of things. My own feeling would tend towards feeling that it IS indeed promoting it. Certainly, as a photographer (I dabbled for a bit many years back as a pro), I would feel very uncomfortable shooting pictures for a gay wedding and would very strongly argue that I was being forced to assist in promoting and celebrating the event.

Where I start taking exception is when you start implying that others are less Christ-like, don't love their neighbor, and need to repent because of this position.

I don't mean to make it super-personal or really get down and dirty with this, so don't take the above sentence like I'm ticked off or something. I am, however, making a point that your contentions in this regard are off-base from what the church actually teaches.

[The Folk Prophet]

"Relevant username" jokes aside, I'm fairly certain the Church has supported Item 1 and not Item 2.

see my previous post.

I will take this moment and re-affirm that my username is nothing more than a nickname I had as a child based upon a misspelling (probably autocorrect) of Chuck. So "church says" should NEVER be confused with "the church says".

[Just_A_Guy]

Three, be nice and courteous neighbors. "Who we are speaks so loudly, that your words I cannot hear."

It's a lot easier to win people over with honey than with vinegar. By discriminating against same-sex couples, and letting that repulsion known... you are not "winning friends and influencing people".

If "winning friends and influencing people" is what the proclamation on the family was all about, then it becomes difficult to explain the Church's involvement in Prop 22, Prop 8, Amendment 3, and other gay-marriage initiatives.

At some point we have a right and an obligation to say "I don't wish to be disagreeable; but by my moral lights this is sin and I will neither participate, condone, nor enable". And as Mormons who have access to ancient and modern prophecy pertaining to the latter days, let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that the coming tribulations can or will be avoided if we will only "play nice" with the devil and soft-pedal certain doctrines that the world finds offensive.

And even if you disagree with that--who are you to tell all those crazy hard-line Christians how best to promulgate their own religion? Who are you to step in and say "we, the nonbelievers, are going to lecture you as to the best ways to promulgate your particular brand of Christianity; and if you disagree we will drive you out of business"?

There are plenty of non-profit organizations where the organizer derives their primary income from as well. We can think of other religious organizations with a paid ministry. We can also look up other reports on what non-profit CEOs earn.

The difference between a for-profit and a non-profit, is that a non-profit is supposed to be helping the world be a 'better place' through religious or other causes... and as such, is not subject to taxation.

For-profit businesses are for those people who are bringing a product or service for personal gain, and are then subject to taxation.

Well, to be technical, it isn't quite that simple. Look at 26 USC 501©(3) and (4). There's certainly a public benefit aspect; but it's very clear that nonprofits aren't supposed to be primarily money-making enterprises. People can get paid as an incidental to the institution's larger mission; but the institution isn't supposed to be about providing a means of economic sustenance to the founder.

But, I'm not sure why we need to apply the tax code's definitions here. What's your larger point? Again, my interpretation of your position is that an institution can say what it wants unless the owner is dependent on that institution for his survival--in which case, the owner may act according to his religiously-based moral scruples or he may continue to earn his living; but not both. If my summation is incorrect, what is your position? What is the nexus between running a for-profit commercial institution, and being compelled to participate in commerce that you believes enables immorality?

[Guest]

I would argue (and I'm sure skippy would say something similar) that the mormonandgays website suggests a different interpretation of support than you're assuming.

It doesn't matter what anybody's interpretation of support is. It only matters what one's conscience (personal revelation from the Spirit or what have you) dictates in answering that question with the guidance of the bishop/stake president.

Just like we are not in a position to dictate to someone how to answer the Tithing question.

[skippy740]

Are you saying that if I make a cake, for compensation, for a gay wedding, that I'm supporting, affiliating with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Talk about over-reaching. I'm sorry, but I don't accept that these circumstances would apply for that question.

Do I support any group or individual that is contrary to the teachings, doctrines and practices of the Church? No.

Support, affiliate with, or agree in what way?

Monetarily? No.

Voting for their social agendas? No.

Going to meetings on planning to advance their agendas? No.

Am I following a man in a cult to lead me down to spiritual destruction where I can lead other members? No.

They paid me and I make a cake. That's called doing business.

If someone is shopping for a same-sex wedding and checking out the 'registry' and I happen to sell goods that fit for that purpose... am I supporting a same-sex wedding?

C'mon.

If I officiated at a same-sex marriage, not only is that supporting such an agenda, but my church membership would (should) be put into question.

If I attended a same-sex marriage, and brought a gift, would I be "supporting an individual..."? I don't think my church membership would be put into question.

[LittleWyvern]

It doesn't matter what anybody's interpretation of support is. It only matters what one's conscience (personal revelation from the Spirit or what have you) dictates in answering that question with the guidance of the bishop/stake president.

Just like we are not in a position to dictate to someone how to answer the Tithing question.

And thus I used the word suggests.

EDIT: as opposed to a word like determines.

Edited January 22, 2014 by LittleWyvern

[skippy740]

If "winning friends and influencing people" is what the proclamation on the family was all about, then it becomes difficult to explain the Church's involvement in Prop 22, Prop 8, Amendment 3, and other gay-marriage initiatives.

No it doesn't become difficult one bit.

You have to BE THERE to know how the members conducted themselves to the public on this.

All they did was simply go door-to-door to "get out the vote". They were not to sway or debate it. Only to encourage the vote.

Not very hard at all to describe.

[Guest]

Are you saying that if I make a cake, for compensation, for a gay wedding, that I'm supporting, affiliating with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Talk about over-reaching. I'm sorry, but I don't accept that these circumstances would apply for that question.

Do I support any group or individual that is contrary to the teachings, doctrines and practices of the Church? No.

Support, affiliate with, or agree in what way?

Monetarily? No.

Voting for their social agendas? No.

Going to meetings on planning to advance their agendas? No.

Am I following a man in a cult to lead me down to spiritual destruction where I can lead other members? No.

They paid me and I make a cake. That's called doing business.

If someone is shopping for a same-sex wedding and checking out the 'registry' and I happen to sell goods that fit for that purpose... am I supporting a same-sex wedding?

C'mon.

If I officiated at a same-sex marriage, not only is that supporting such an agenda, but my church membership would (should) be put into question.

If I attended a same-sex marriage, and brought a gift, would I be "supporting an individual..."? I don't think my church membership would be put into question.

If I took the money and did not make the cake, then sure. But if I refused to take the money, there is no business going on.

But the direct answer to your question is - you're the only one that is qualified to answer that question. For you, making a cake for a gay wedding may not be supporting a same-sex wedding. For others, it may be. But the point is - just because you have a different tolerance level for wedding cakes does not mean that EVERYBODY HAS TO - BY LAW - have the same tolerance as you.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't remember prohibition helping things either.

Erm . . . it did work as to its intended purpose. What killed prohibition were the unintended consequences, law enforcement officials who wouldn't do their jobs, and increasing public apathy.

[The Folk Prophet]

Erm . . . it did work as to its intended purpose. What killed prohibition were the unintended consequences, law enforcement officials who wouldn't do their jobs, and increasing public apathy.

Very interesting read. Thanks!

[Just_A_Guy]

No it doesn't become difficult one bit.

You have to BE THERE to know how the members conducted themselves to the public on this.

All they did was simply go door-to-door to "get out the vote". They were not to sway or debate it. Only to encourage the vote.

Not very hard at all to describe.

I think the historical record belies your characterization. Regardless of the tactics used by the actual precinct-walkers (only a part of the overall campaign which included the dissemination of circulars, solicitation of donations, and logistical support to political action networks), the Church's effort was not a neutral get-out-the-vote initiative and everyone knew exactly where the Church stood on the issue and what it was trying to accomplish.

[Traveler]

When the force of law is used it is a very dangerous sword that swings both directions depending on who is yielding the force. If the force of law can be used to force someone in business to deal with individuals then the force of law can also be used to prevent individuals from protesting or picketing a business.

What we are talking about is in essence various uses of free speech.

What bothers me about the Oregon situation is - why the Lesbian couple though it necessary to indicate that the cake was for a Lesbian wedding. I am inclined to think this has much more to do with vengeance than an wedding. We can say this has to do with bigotry and prejudice and perhaps it does - but I believe it would be better to leave the market place to decide in a free market - as to what business we grace with our purchases and which business we do not. I believe a free and open economy is more powerful and beneficial than social engineering efforts.

One thing we all need be aware of is that if we make anything known to the public - we ought to understand that someone may disagree. I think we go too far when we use the force of law to make people agree with us and attempt to take away their freedom of speech. And I think we all agree the freedom of speech can and does go beyond mere words. It also is included in the business we do and the manner in which we go about our business.

The Traveler

[yjacket]

When the force of law is used it is a very dangerous sword that swings both directions depending on who is yielding the force. If the force of law can be used to force someone in business to deal with individuals then the force of law can also be used to prevent individuals from protesting or picketing a business.

Hammer meet nail.

It is quite interesting to read through the thread; just because something is legal or is not legal does not make it a just law.

The homosexual debate opens up an avenue to repeal unjust laws and create just laws . . . unfortunately the philosophical underpinning of what is a just law is lost and the outcome will be a continuation of more unjust laws.

Instead of trying to determine if the law is just we come to disagreements about whether a particular action is legal and because men and women like power and to a large extent enjoy forcing action on others we will continue to have unjust laws that use the power of force to mold/shape/destroy society.

The Savior can't get here fast enough . . . .

[carlimac]

If I took the money and did not make the cake, then sure. But if I refused to take the money, there is no business going on.

But the direct answer to your question is - you're the only one that is qualified to answer that question. For you, making a cake for a gay wedding may not be supporting a same-sex wedding. For others, it may be. But the point is - just because you have a different tolerance level for wedding cakes does not mean that EVERYBODY HAS TO - BY LAW - have the same tolerance as you.

Unfortunately, by law in Oregon, that's exactly what it means. Apparently. Everyone HAS to have at least the minimal amount of tolerance- legally. Everyone with a private business that serves the public at large HAS to do business with gays in the way they desire, no matter what. Because if you don't your business may take a hit it can't survive. That's the bottom line and the take away message here. It's not that you should do business with them because everyone getting married deserves to be treated with dignity, or that no one should be turned away from a bakery. But that if you don't bake a cake, they're going to run crying to daddy a then he'll punish you by making you pay so much that it puts you out of business.

Edited January 23, 2014 by carlimac

[MorningStar]

So if I were to advertise that I sing at weddings, I would be required to sing for gay weddings? How far can they take this? Can they require me to sing any song they want? Let's say one of the grooms wrote a song called "I Love My Big Gay Husband" and I don't want to sing it? Am I discriminating?

[bytebear]

I believe it's a violation of the right to assembly. why am i required to assemble with people i don't want to. Same thing with gays in scouts, or anyone required to associate with anyone else. it simply violates that freedom, in my view.