Sign in to follow this  
pam

News flash!! Press conference today.

Recommended Posts

SS couples aren't entitled to a church-sanctioned marriage the way that they're entitled to equality in the workplace, housing markets, and secular marriage.

 

Godless, let me play devil's advocate with you for a moment:

 

Church-sanctioned marriages are still recognized by the state.  If a religious organization is administering a state benefit, shouldn't it either abide by the same nondiscrimination regulations that would bind the state itself or else cease administering the state benefit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Do any of you believe LGBT people should be homeless? Jobless? (eta: Assuming, of course, that they are as willing and able as you or I to pay the rent or do the job.) Unable to dine or buy groceries or clothing or furniture?

 

What about fornicators? Adulterers? Shoplifters? Liars? Gossips?  

Edited by Eowyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Do any of you believe LGBT people should be homeless? Jobless? (eta: Assuming, of course, that they are as willing and able as you or I to pay the rent or do the job.) Unable to dine or buy groceries or clothing or furniture?

 

What about fornicators? Adulterers? Shoplifters? Liars? Gossips?  

 

These questions are, of course, silly.

 

Does BYU believe that beer drinkers should be collegeless?

 

Just because I don't want you living in my premises doesn't mean I want you to be homeless.

 

But the silliness is embodied in the question itself... are you going to pass an anti-discrimination law for fornicators and adulterers?  Shoplifters, liars, and gossips?  No.  You don't need to.  Because, there is NO LAW that says fornicators, adulterers, shoplifters, liars, gossips... AND HOMOSEXUALS cannot get a house/apartment/job/whatever.

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Godless, let me play devil's advocate with you for a moment:

 

Church-sanctioned marriages are still recognized by the state.  If a religious organization is administering a state benefit, shouldn't it either abide by the same nondiscrimination regulations that would bind the state itself or else cease administering the state benefit?

 

Churches can impose restrictions that the state cannot. Catholic priests can refuse service to couples that are deemed sinful and unrepentant. Ultra-orthodox factions of some religions forbid interfaith marriage, and clerics of those religions are well within their legal rights to refuse their services. If you're going to force churches to marry gay couples, then there's a whole slew of other issues that will need to be addressed as well.

 

But the silliness is embodied in the question itself... are you going to pass an anti-discrimination law for fornicators and adulterers?  Shoplifters, liars, and gossips?  No.  You don't need to.  Because, there is NO LAW that says fornicators, adulterers, shoplifters, liars, gossips... AND HOMOSEXUALS cannot get a house/apartment/job/whatever.

 

It's legality through omission in cities that don't already have anti-discrimination laws. While the law isn't explicitly on the side of discriminating employers, and landlords (though it came very close to being so in Arizona last year), discrimination can and does still happen. People can sue if they feel discriminated against, and they might win. Or they might not. That's why we need these laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I can't tell whether you're being cynical, tongue-in-cheek, or serious.

 

Kind-of serious.  When it comes to all kinds of proclivities, unless they're in a protective class, the risk of extending rights to them are pretty low especially how glacially the system works.  But, in my feeble opinion, extending marriage rights to the LGBT community (without taking a side) would open legal challenges for polygamy, if not others, because it would broaden the definition of the equal protection clause including possibly the argument of adding to the protective classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Churches can impose restrictions that the state cannot. Catholic priests can refuse service to couples that are deemed sinful and unrepentant. Ultra-orthodox factions of some religions forbid interfaith marriage, and clerics of those religions are well within their legal rights to refuse their services. If you're going to force churches to marry gay couples, then there's a whole slew of other issues that will need to be addressed as well.

 

Godless, I agree with you, but continuing in role of devil's advocate:

 

It is well-established that a religious organization offering a state benefit cannot discriminate on the basis of religion (I'm pretty sure there's a SCOTUS case out there somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment, so I'll have to link here for now).

 

Given that a religious organization can't discriminate in allocating a state benefit, and given further that marriage is a state benefit--what do I tell my progressive brethren when they come demanding that Mormonism either quit discriminating or abandon any hope of having its ecclesiastical marriage ceremonies recognized by the state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What to do about cases where we have hired or rented a home to  a gay person or couple. Trouble results, not directly related to their sexual preference per se, but maybe business lags due to a gay persons mannerisms turning customers away. Or perhaps the neighbors are bigots and give the owners a hard time or hand out ultimatums unless they get rid of the renters. Or ( stretching my imagination here) the renters like to leave the curtains and windows open during intimacy, offending the neighbors.  

 

So said employee gets fired, or renters, despite warnings continue their shenanigans and get evicted. Do they have legal standing that they are being discriminated against due to their homosexuality? Or do we just have to put up with whatever behaviors they want to exhibit regardless of how it affects our business? If they arent homosexual and offend customers, they'd be out in a flash, no recourse. But with gays, we're kinda walking on eggshells.  I guess I'm asking just HOW protective the public has to be. 

 

I can imagine this type of thing happening a lot once those laws are in place. Those being fired or evicted will cry foul and notify the state, causing all kinds of trouble for employers and landlords.  All kinds of discriminations can be invented by this crowd. I don't trust that just making a law and everyone following it will be the end of problems. There is a point where we have to say I've been too tolerant. Enough of this garbage.  I'm not saying all homosexuals are going to file lawsuits, but (generalization here) they seem to be pretty thinned skinned, (sometimes for good reason), and perhaps more likely than the run-of-the-mill deadbeat to whine and make a public scene if they get tossed out.  

Edited by carlimac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that a religious organization can't discriminate in allocating a state benefit, and given further that marriage is a state benefit--what do I tell my progressive brethren when they come demanding that Mormonism either quit discriminating or abandon any hope of having its ecclesiastical marriage ceremonies recognized by the state?

 

Who said a church performing a marriage ceremony is a state benefit?  I thought only the government can create legal marriages, and that religious institutions can optionally solemnize the marriage.  You simply tell your progressive brethren and sistren that they have a right to a wedding license from the government but they do not have the right to force all groups to solemnize their marriage when the government will gladly solemnize it for anyone and everyone who can be legally married.

 

I would view it as similar to vehicle registration.  I can go to the California DMV if I wish, but AAA also will do it as a convenience to AAA members.  The fact that AAA offers an optional service to some does not mean that others are being deprived of this service.  We're not talking about bakeries being forced to sell wedding cakes with same-sex toppers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ughh....SO sick of gay stuff and pandering.

 

Elder Holland said, "“These are serious issues,” Holland said, “and they require serious minds engaged in thoughtful, courteous discourse.”

 

I guess that means they must refrain from defacing Temples and other vile gestures.

Edited by bytor2112

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The point isn't that LGBT people should get a job or an apartment because they're gay. It's that they should get the same chance at a job or apartment as anyone else. 

 

Vort, my questions aren't any sillier than yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point isn't that LGBT people should get a job or an apartment because they're gay. It's that they should get the same chance at a job or apartment as anyone else. 

 

Vort, my questions aren't any sillier than yours.

 And they should have the same rules apply to them as anyone else. But I'm pretty sure there will be some instances where this protected class will use that status to gain more advantage than they deserve. It's happened with women's rights and racial situations, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Women and "other" races have legal protection against that kind of discrimination. The issue here is being sure everyone has that protection, not whether or not anyone will break the laws offering that protection. We don't refrain from making laws just because some people might break them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have to say, I believe passionately in protecting marriage. I believe wholeheartedly that we should fight for our religious freedom. But the fact that members of the church I love are so comfortable with dismissing people who are different from them to the point that they don't care about them having equal protection for finding places to work and live is terribly disappointing. 

 

I'm sure we all know and love someone who is gay. I thought we would all want them have just as much opportunity to make and sustain a living as any of us. Am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't wrong as far I'm concerned Eowyn.  I support marriage between a man and a woman. But as you said..I also support the rights of all towards employment and places to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do any of you believe LGBT people should be homeless? Jobless? (eta: Assuming, of course, that they are as willing and able as you or I to pay the rent or do the job.) Unable to dine or buy groceries or clothing or furniture?

 

What about fornicators? Adulterers? Shoplifters? Liars? Gossips?  

 

??? If someone enters into your house, do you have the right to kick them out if they become unwanted?

 

It ultimately boils down to property rights.  I have a restaurant.  Do I own it or does the government own it?  A restaurant isn't a public good, if it is a public good that means the government owns it.  The restaurant is an extension of my house, my property, my life, my liberty, my freedom.

 

As such, I have the God-given right to establish who may or may not enter into my property. Regardless of legal laws, I have the moral right to refuse entry to whoever I want to. If you disturb other customers, I can kick you out. If you are drunk and I don't like your attitude I can kick you out.  The restaurant is mine, not yours not the governments, but it is mine and therefore just like my house, I have the absolute moral authority to serve whoever I please.

 

Our laws, do not recognize this and consequently it has and will cause much chaos.  Without a proper understanding of property rights laws devolve into thug rules.

 

I believe in property rights and as such, yes someone who is the property owner has the moral right to kick-out from their property whomever they please . . . if that means the LGBT individuals are on the street, so be it.

 

No one has a right to a house, a job, etc.  If some straight guy won't rent to the homo. person then what the homo. person should do is by the sweat of his brow build up some equity, build an apartment complex and rent to only homo. people!!! The same with a job.

Edited by yjacket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't wrong as far I'm concerned Eowyn.  I support marriage between a man and a woman. But as you said..I also support the rights of all towards employment and places to live.

 

Your position is untenable.  In other words, you are for government discrimination (i.e. the government can discriminate on who can and cannot get married), but you are against private discrimination (i.e. a private owner cannot discriminate).

 

I hold the reverse, government should not discriminate marriage (it should get out of it all together) and the private sector has the right to discriminate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If my gay nephew walked into your restaurant and you refused him service just because he was gay, and he was behaving as a civilized person who just wanted to eat a meal, I hope he would sue you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe wholeheartedly that we should fight for our religious freedom. 

 

No you are not . . . religious freedom is simply a very small sub-set of a much larger freedom: i.e. freedom of association and freedom of thought.

 

Religion is simply a firm belief system with a supreme being attached to it. 50 years ago many religious taught about separation of races. Many people still believe that today . . . they would classify their belief as part of their religion, yet you aren't for them discriminating against others. . . simply because you don't believe in discriminating.

 

Your religious freedom fails into something along the lines of "it's okay to have a law against xyz because I don't think it's right".  That's not religious freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If my gay nephew walked into your restaurant and you refused him service just because he was gay, and he was behaving as a civilized person who just wanted to eat a meal, I hope he would sue you.

 

Sue me for what?  He has no right to my food or my service.  You are advocating a fascist society.

 

Here's a question.  I have 20 acres of corn on my land.  Is it right for anyone to come to my land, pick corn and then pay me?  If so why and if not why not.

 

Next question, one day a week I have a little stand in my driveway.  I sell some corn.  You come onto my land and start swearing, drinking and I tell you to get lost.  Do you have a right to sue?  What if you come onto my land talking funny kissing your boyfriend, I tell you to get lost.  Do you have a right to sue?

 

 

How in the world does he have a claim upon my service that I provide out of my own free will and choice?

 

Wow . . .we are truly sunk as a society if we cannot understand basic property rights-which is the basis of any society.

Edited by yjacket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

We're sunk as a church if we can't emulate the Savior and His teachings. Who did He dine with? Who did He walk with? Who did He heal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh am I at the right site?  I thought this was an LDS site.  But the level of hatred and bigotry that is being displayed is just amazing to me.  I thought we were about love.  You could sure fool me on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this