Elder Oaks says Kim Davis was wrong

[Guest]

“The willow submits to the wind and prospers until one day it is many willows - a wall against the wind.” 
― Frank Herbert, Dune

[Just_A_Guy]

As for JAG's suggestion that Davis was merely saying, "Not me," I may have read this differently.  I perceived that she could have avoided signing her own name, but she was going further--preventing anyone under her supervision from facilitating these marriages.  So, she was not trying to avoid personal support--she was pro-actively using her govt position to hinder the marriages.  At least, that's how I read this.

 

I didn't mean to defend Davis specifically; I was thinking more in terms of an individual clerk's right to opt out or refer the case to another clerk.

 

But for what it's worth--I think the issue was that Kentucky state law required that the name of the clerk (and I mean the elected county clerk, not the paper-pusher who executed the certificate) to be on wedding certificates, and Davis didn't want her name to be anywhere on the ones issued to gay couples.  I think she asked the governor to convene an emergency session of the legislature to change the law so that her name wouldn't have to be on the certificates at all, and he basically told her to go pound sand.

 

When she issued certificates again after her incarceration she changed them to read "by order of the Federal district court" instead of "by authority of the county clerk".  I'm not sure how that resolved--last time I checked Davis was saying that such certificates might not actually be legally binding, but the governor was insisting that they would be.  The whole thing kind of got overshadowed by the Davis-Pope meeting brouhaha.

 

 

I doubt too many people would have criticized her if she had said, "As a believer in Jesus, and his righteous standards, I cannot be party to gay marriage.  I resign."  Then, she would have gotten props for giving up her position to maintain righteousness.

 

Sure; and that seems to be the path that the LDS leadership wants us to go down.  But from a secular standpoint, I don't think individuals have a civic duty to withdraw from government office merely because government has begun doing things that the individual deems reprehensible.

[prisonchaplain]

JAG is so full of awesome information I may just have to fast from telling lawyer jokes. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Wow, I do not want to defend Davis' critics.  I'm tracking with Folk Prophet all the way up to the SCOTUS decision.  BUT, now gay marriage is the law of the land, and the sad sorry truth is that most Americans are okay with it.  I hate it, but I'm not sure losing the public's approval counts as me being oppressed.  Not yet.

 

Like I said, it depends on what you consider "oppressed" to mean. As a Christian, I feel that Christianity is being oppressed, for example, even though I haven't yet been personally oppressed. But also, one could make the argument that the legalization of sin does oppress society in it's ability towards righteousness, light, truth, and the wholesome existence in which we might hope our children to be raised. I'll grant that it's interpretive, but that is the point here. When is the line crossed to the point where standing up and fighting against it rather than cowing to the "law" appropriate? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I'm to the point where I would advocated disobedience to the law yet. But I can certainly sympathize with those who are to that point. I also might feel quite differently if my job ended up forcing me to do things that were strongly against my morals.

[The Folk Prophet]

But for a long long time the act or attitude of homosexuality itself was illegal. And folk who engaged in it were persecuted. And folk who spoke out against the persecution were also persecuted. There are many who dislike drawing similarities between gay rights and civil rights, or between gays and blacks in terms of what they endured and of course drawing comparisons is never precise. But since Prison Chaplain brought up attitudes regarding MLK, he was not revered by our church and today there are many many Mormons who don't revere him at all. And there were many who believed and spoke out that "civil rights" for blacks was a tool of Satan, a tool of communism and anything else they could think of to disdain it and to prevent it.  Moreover, there were many who made the same complaint that allowing blacks to be in public with whites in what had previously been whites-only situations was oppressive to whites.

 

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I guess you need to draw me a better map.

[Guest]

So let's look at it from another angle, and in terms that we've tossed about and at each other from time to time. Which way was this Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ facing when he spoke? And in the final analysis is the Lord Jesus Christ pleased or displeased with what he spoke? I don't really expect consensus, but my opinion is that he was facing toward God and the Lord is in fact pleased. 

[prisonchaplain]

Sans the example of Dr. King, the only biblical example I can see involves direct faith.  Shadrach, Mechach and Abednigo would not bow to the idol.  Daniel would not stop praying to YHWH.  Paul would not stop preaching.  In hindsight, MLK was right.  Still, I'd say the definition of "oppression" would be limited, and the bar that must be passed before I'd agree to civil disobedience would have to be quite high.

[The Folk Prophet]

So let's look at it from another angle, and in terms that we've tossed about and at each other from time to time. Which way was this Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ facing when he spoke? And in the final analysis is the Lord Jesus Christ pleased or displeased with what he spoke? I don't really expect consensus, but my opinion is that he was facing toward God and the Lord is in fact pleased. 

 

As JaG has stated, I believe the church is setting up "an institutional tactical retreat in the name of weathering the coming storm; rather than an ultimate decree of right versus wrong."

[The Folk Prophet]

Still, I'd say the definition of "oppression" would be limited

 

Per this, would you say the examples of the photographers and cake makers and the like qualify?

[Just_A_Guy]

As JaG has stated, I believe the church is setting up "an institutional tactical retreat in the name of weathering the coming storm; rather than an ultimate decree of right versus wrong."

 

And, to clarify:  I believe that is divinely inspired.

 

Julia Ward Howe's poetry aside, sometimes His trumpet does call "retreat".

[Guest]

As JaG has stated, I believe the church is setting up "an institutional tactical retreat in the name of weathering the coming storm; rather than an ultimate decree of right versus wrong."

That's fine, but it doesn't directly answer my question.

[prisonchaplain]

Per this, would you say the examples of the photographers and cake makers and the like qualify?

 

YES!  The state is obligating artists to invest their craft in a sacrament they perceive to be sacrilegious and profane, and sanctioning them with monetary fines.  This is direct oppression.

[Guest]

YES!  The state is obligating artists to invest their craft in a sacrament they perceive to be sacrilegious and profane, and sanctioning them with monetary fines.  This is direct oppression.

I disagree. The state is obligating retailers to treat customers fairly. This is not oppression. To say otherwise is, in my opinion, to trivialize direct oppression.

[prisonchaplain]

I disagree. The state is obligating retailers to treat customers fairly. This is not oppression. To say otherwise is, in my opinion, to trivialize direct oppression.

 

I could agree with you, if the vendors were refusing to serve LBGT patrons.  They are not.  They are refusing to lend their artistic gifts to marriages that counter their sincerely held religious beliers.  The baker was fined $135,000.  How is that not direct oppression? 

Edited October 21, 2015 by prisonchaplain

[Guest]

I could agree with you, if the vendors were refusing to serve LBGT patrons.  They are not.  They are refusing to lend their artistic gifts to marriages that counter their sincerely held religious beliers.  The baker was fined $135,000.  How is that not direct oppression? 

As I understand it the baker was in business to make cakes for people. The baker refused to make a cake for a couple. In his state it's against the law to refuse to make a cake for people the way he refused. Punishing the baker/retailer for breaking the law is apparently subject to fines up to a certain amount. That's not direct oppression. 

[Vort]

Julia Ward Howe's poetry aside, sometimes His trumpet does call "retreat".

 

A harsh truth.

[Just_A_Guy]

As I understand it the baker was in business to make cakes for people. The baker refused to make a cake for a couple. In his state it's against the law to refuse to make a cake for people the way he refused. Punishing the baker/retailer for breaking the law is apparently subject to fines up to a certain amount. That's not direct oppression. 

 

So, a black baker must bake a cake for the Klan featuring a Confederate flag?  He has no right to say no?

 

A Jewish photographer/promoter must cover a neo-Nazi rally and produce a marketing tract offering sympathetic coverage of the event?  He has no right to opt out?

 

A call girl, in a jurisdiction where such activities are legal, must (ahem) *service* a  would-be client without regard to whether that client is male or female?  Having entered the commercial sphere, she has no right to withhold consent?

 

I strongly disagree.  My constitutional rights to religious exercise, free expression, and free association do not end just because I have to feed my family; and those who insist on keeping those rights shouldn't have to resort to an underground, Edgar Friendly-esque existence of economic exile, or live in fear of social justice warriors who will send goons to collect judgments, confiscate their houses and assets, imprison, and maybe even kill the holdouts who resist or refuse to conform to the SJWs' precious nanny-state.

 

(Social conservatives probably will eventually have to live like that, maybe within my lifetime.  But they shouldn't.)

Edited October 22, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

So, a black baker must bake a cake for the Klan featuring a Confederate flag?  He has no right to say no? ....

As I understand it, you are the attorney. Are those examples law in any of the states? If they are, then as Elder Oaks taught in his speech we have the opportunity to try their Constitutionality and change them where applicable.  

[prisonchaplain]

UT, the short answer is that the gay marriage decision came just this summer.  Oregon, being a very liberal and demographically irreligious state, chose to interpret the decision as total, and to disregard religious freedom completely.  The case may yet make it to the Supremes.  Perhaps not. 

 

But, in the words of Dr. Judith Glasgow, of the American Psychological Association, for some people who they worship is more important than who they sleep with.  The context was different (APA approved treatment of Christian gay men who desired to 'shunt' their sexual desires, and live celibately), but my reaction (FACE PALM!) is the same.  How could Oregon not get that???  Of course the answer is that the bureaucrat who handed the decision down (not a court, mind you) had little regard for religious traditionalists. 

[Just_A_Guy]

As I understand it, you are the attorney. Are those examples law in any of the states? If they are, then as Elder Oaks taught in his speech we have the opportunity to try their Constitutionality and change them where applicable.  

 

With all due respect, the question you originally posed wasn't what the law says; the question is whether the scenario constitutes oppression.  Heaven help us all if it takes a lawyer to figure that one out. 

Edited October 22, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

As JaG has stated, I believe the church is setting up "an institutional tactical retreat in the name of weathering the coming storm; rather than an ultimate decree of right versus wrong."

 

My initial reaction is this:  It is a tactical retreat staking out ground to win the next battle and the next battle is for the marbles. Will the church be able to maintain tax-exempt status?

 

By staking a flag in the ground on a very reasonable position (which those in power at the LBGT organizations will not respect), the hope is to somehow maintain the moral fiber while at the same time growing membership a world that is increasingly more decadent and more wiling to accept wrong as right and right as wrong, and at the same time producing a track record that will prove in the future that the church merits a tax exempt status.

 

Tax exempt status is the marbles. In order to accomplish all its goals, financing missions, temples, ward building, etc. it needs money-that money comes from tithing, business investments, etc.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-07-10/how-the-mormons-make-money#p3

"As a religious organization, the LDS Church enjoys several tax advantages. Like other churches, it is often exempt from paying taxes on the real estate properties it leases out, even to commercial entities, says tax lawyer David Miller, who is not Mormon. The church also doesn’t pay taxes on donated funds and holdings. Mitt Romney and others at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he co-founded in 1984, gave the Mormon Church millions’ worth of stock holdings obtained through Bain deals, according to Reuters. Between 1997 and 2009, these included $2 million inBurger King (BKW) and $1 million in Domino’s Pizza (DPZ) shares. Under U.S. law, churches can legally turn around and sell donated stock without paying capital-gains taxes, a clear advantage for both donor and receiver. The church also makes money through various investment vehicles, including a trust company and an investment fund called Ensign Peak Advisors, which employs managers who specialize in international equities, cash management, fixed income, quantitative investment, and emerging markets, according to profiles on LinkedIn (LNKD). Public information on Ensign Peak is sparse. In 2006 one of the fund’s vice presidents, Laurence R. Stay, told the Mormon-run Deseret News, “As we trade securities, all of the trading happens essentially with a handshake. … There’s lots of protections around it, but billions of dollars change hands every day just based on the ethics of the group—that people know that they can trust each other.”

 

Estimates of 5 billion in tithing (it might be high). If the Church lost its tax exempt status basically cut in half all the money that it would be able to use to build up the Kingdom of God. Tithing donations would no longer be tax deductible, they would be higher property tax rates, etc.  And in this world you need sufficient money for your needs-without funds no organization can survive.

Edited October 22, 2015 by yjacket

[Guest]

With all due respect, the question you originally posed wasn't what the law says; the question is whether the scenario constitutes oppression.  Heaven help us all if it takes a lawyer to figure that one out. 

I appreciate your respect, and your humor. I hope I don't give anything but respect in return. But look at my remark: 

In his state it's against the law to refuse to make a cake for  people the way he refused. Punishing the baker/retailer for breaking the law is apparently subject to fines up to a certain amount. That's not direct oppression.  

The scenario as I understood it was a baker/retailer being subject to fines for breaking the law. So it really was about what the law says.He knew or should reasonably be expected to have known the laws associated with his business. By contrast the scenarios you posited are hypothetical and to my knowledge haven't occurred. Moreover, I think they are sufficiently different in nature from the scenario with the gay couple as to be misleading at best and probably irrelevant. Why do I say this? The gay couple does not represent an organization that caused murder and mayhem against the baker or his race as do the first two scenarios you offered. The couple does not represent a physical threat even remotely similar to that of a woman (even a prostitute) being required to have sexual intercourse against her will as in the third scenario.

[Guest]

UT, the short answer is that the gay marriage decision came just this summer.  Oregon, being a very liberal and demographically irreligious state, chose to interpret the decision as total, and to disregard religious freedom completely.  The case may yet make it to the Supremes.  Perhaps not. 

 

But, in the words of Dr. Judith Glasgow, of the American Psychological Association, for some people who they worship is more important than who they sleep with.  The context was different (APA approved treatment of Christian gay men who desired to 'shunt' their sexual desires, and live celibately), but my reaction (FACE PALM!) is the same.  How could Oregon not get that???  Of course the answer is that the bureaucrat who handed the decision down (not a court, mind you) had little regard for religious traditionalists. 

I gotta take issue with an evaluation of the entire State of Oregon as irreligious--that's painting over a heck of a lot of people with quite a broad brush. And I have a problem with Dr Glasgow's remark because apparently for some people who they worship is *not* as important as who some *other* people sleep with. But that's not what I perceive this is really about. It's not about a bureaucrat nor his or her degree of regard for religious traditionalists. It's about illegal discrimination under the law. As an American citizen, as a fellow-Christian (at least I hope Christ thinks I am), as a human being I'm grateful for those laws. Without them I wonder if there is a bigger slippery-slope danger of some religious traditionalists turning on others like me and maybe even like you. Some religious traditionalists have a sort of history of turning on others who think and act differently than they and on each other, too. 

Edited October 22, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[The Folk Prophet]

That's fine, but it doesn't directly answer my question.

 

But my agreement with post #35 does.

[The Folk Prophet]

Really UT.starscoper? If it's legal then it can't qualify as oppression? Really?