Elder Oaks says Kim Davis was wrong

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

 

Oppression is not defined by whether it carries legal justification; but by the natural liberties that are being limited.  That's why we say Helmuth Hubener was oppressed, even though his government could easily reply that he knew, or should reasonably be expected to have known, that you don't sabotage national morale by talking bad about der Fuhrer in the middle of a war.

 

By contrast the scenarios you posited are hypothetical and to my knowledge haven't occurred.

 

As I understand the statutes in question (and this is speaking generally, as the statutes vary from state to state and many states don't have them at all)--there's no legal reason that they couldn't.  It's just that no one has (yet) had the gumption to try to apply them to discriminatory commercial practices of blacks, Jews, and prostitutes.

 

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.

 

This reasoning goes down a very dangerous road, because what you're basically doing is arrogating to yourself the right to impose different standards of conduct on different groups of people based on your own critique of each group's respective beliefs. 

 

I have a problem with that generally, and it's frankly exacerbated because I think your critique is highly problematic.  In your argument a black man and a Jew and a prostitute should be free to act in the commercial sphere out of fear, mistrust, prejudice, and/or physical disgust--but a conservative Christian shouldn't be free to act similarly, whether out of those motives or out of a sincerely held disagreement with the activity he is being asked to promote.  Your argument isn't really that all hate is bad; it's just that some hate is more equal than other hate.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

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. 

 UT...Oregon is significantly less religious than most states.  Why take issue with that?  It's true. 

 

My point with Dr. Glasgow's quote is that for many of us God is more important than our sex drive.  Why are our values less important than those who consider who the bed the be all and end all of their identification? 

 

The SCOTUS decision came down this summer.  There is not a long history of how it should be applied.  Indeed, a bureaucrat from a state agency made his determination, and threatened the baker with $135K in fines if she did not bake a cake for the lesbian wedding.

 

You're really okay with this?  Force Christians to actively participate in a sacrilegious ceremony, that mocks their understanding of God-ordained marriage?

 

You keep saying, "It's the law."  Well, is it?  This decision is brand new, and how it gets applied is still be worked out.  A state agency decision does not national precedence make. 

[Anddenex]

Scriptures which specify our obedience to law (Aof #12) I believe are a conundrum in and of themselves, and the statement made by Oaks is also such, in my minds eye.  I tend to agree with JAG, more of a retreat, a recognition that we need to move forward and in light of Elder Ballard's talk.  The prophets have declared the truth. The prophets have warned. We now watch the consequences flow.

 

When I read a statement "we honor the law" my spirit recalls Daniel and the Lions den.  My spirit recalls three friends who were cast in the fire for honoring religious belief over state or kingdom laws.

 

When God speaks, we obey, and that is law and that law supersedes any other law of the land.  Our history includes this.  Was polygamy against some state laws -- indeed it was, and as a people our pioneers were commanded to obey, or to follow the principle provided despite the laws.  

 

As in correlation with Daniel and his friends, when do we dishonor, or not uphold a law, and figuratively speaking -- face the fire?

 

It appears from Elder Oaks, at this moment, this is not one of those times.

 

EDIT: The notion of "It is law" concerns me also.  In Word War II there were anti-Jewish laws.  I assume, as "it was law" it should be obeyed without question, and if you didn't obey, you were wrong.  The concept "it is law" is troubling.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Anddenex

[Guest]

I'm surprised no one has stated this, so I will.

 

Societies work on the following three rules.

1) All acts must first respect the rights of everyone to do as they please.  

2) Then we depend on social mores to control how we interact.  

3) Government is only required when such interaction causes problems beyond what social mores cover or if there is disagreement on what the social mores are.

 

Proper Role of Government:

1) Religion hopes to keep everything at the social mores level.  This creates the least conflict and greatest peace with the least effort.

2) Government must pass laws and judgments by asking two questions.

        a) Can both sides rights be preserved?  If so judge or legislate to preserve both rights.

        b) If not, ask the question: "Who is requiring action of another?"

 

Look at the two parties involved:

 

I'M A VENDOR

I offer my goods or services under the conditions that I set.

If I refuse to sell them for other conditions, then I have not denied anyone their rights.  

They have no right to my goods and services.  I provide them under the conditions I agree to.

To force me to do so without my consent is slavery.

 

I'M A CUSTOMER

I want to buy from a vendor but I don't like his conditions.  I negotiate better conditions.  He refuses.

I take a gun out and force him to provide it under MY conditions.  This is theft.

 

When government is brought into the picture, it is no different than bringing out a gun.  Government IS force.

 

DISCLAIMER: I post this since the idea of commercial interaction was brought up.  It is very different when talking about government vs. commerce, and I haven't made up my mind on the Kim Davis situation.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

But my agreement with post #35 does.

No, it doesn't. It simply says you agree with JAG. That's not a direct answer to my questions.

[JojoBag]

I understand why Davis is making a stand for what she believes is right, and I sympathize with her.  However, Elder Oaks is right and we need to obey the law of the land, even if it actually is based on a deliberately false premise.

[The Folk Prophet]

No, it doesn't. It simply says you agree with JAG. That's not a direct answer to my questions.

 

*sigh*

 

Whatever.

[prisonchaplain]

I understand why Davis is making a stand for what she believes is right, and I sympathize with her.  However, Elder Oaks is right and we need to obey the law of the land, even if it actually is based on a deliberately false premise.

 

I believe...and please correct if I am wrong...that Elder Oaks referred to the Kim Davis case--not all law.  IMHO, the Oregon baker took the noble route.  She was willing to shut down her bakery as a public business.  The state agency bureaucrat was not satisfied.  He basically said:  You will bake the lesbian wedding cake--I will prove that my power as an LBGT proponent with govt backing trumps your religious convictions--or you will pay $135,000.

 

And indeed, I perceive that many in the public give the Oregon baker props, that are not so supportive of Ms. Davis.

[Traveler]

I have thought that many "Christians" approach this all wrong - For example if I was Kim Davis - I would stamp the same sex marriage certificate with "Not Valid in the Eyes of G-d" and for traditional certificates I would stamp "Valid in the Eyes of G-d" over my signature and I would say that the stamp is part of my personal signature.

 

If I was a baker asked to bake a cake for weddings I would do a similar thing to the deceleration of the cake or on the stand or under-board that holds the cake - so when the cake is served it would be observable. 

 

In all honesty - I am hard pressed to believe that the LBGT community really wants to financially support business that publicly oppose same sex marriages - but I would not refuse service - that currently is not allowed by law.  And as of now placing some sort of personal opinion is a protected first amendment right.

[Guest]

Traveler,

 

That behavior (the stamp at the underboard of the cake) in my eyes is more reprehensible (and potentially more appropriately illegal) than simply denying them service.

 

And no, you are incorrect about refusing service not being allowed by law.  It may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  But the latest statement by SCOTUS is that a private individual or business MAY withhold service.

[Guest]

Oppression is not defined by whether it carries legal justification; but by the natural liberties that are being limited...

No, oppression is defined as prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control. I suppose we may each insist upon what definition we feel matches what we're trying to convey. Perhaps knowing this can help us to understand each other in the way I perceived Elder Oaks advocated. With the definition I perceive I was thinking that Jews, Blacks, *and* Gays know what oppression feels like. By comparison the baker/retailer doesn't know what oppression feels like.

 

 

 

This reasoning goes down a very dangerous road, because what you're basically doing is arrogating to yourself the right to impose different standards of conduct on different groups of people based on your own critique of each group's respective beliefs. 

 

I have a problem with that generally, and it's frankly exacerbated because I think your critique is highly problematic.  In your argument a black man and a Jew and a prostitute should be free to act in the commercial sphere out of fear, mistrust, prejudice, and/or physical disgust--but a conservative Christian shouldn't be free to act similarly, whether out of those motives or out of a sincerely held disagreement with the activity he is being asked to promote.  Your argument isn't really that all hate is bad; it's just that some hate is more equal than other hate.

 

I don't agree. I'm not basically taking or claiming anything without justification any more than you are or any more than any interlocutor does when disagreeing with your arguments. And I perceive that you either misunderstand me or mischaracterize my argument. I don't say what you claim I say. I say that choosing to compare (and to seemingly put on par) what those people have suffered (murder, torture, and all the other terrible things that went with their oppression for centuries) with the situation of the baker is not a valid comparison. They are so radically different in degree that the comparison is absurd. Putting Gays in with those people would be more apt than putting the baker in with them because Gays have over the centuries suffered similar oppression. The baker has not.

[Guest]

*sigh*

 

Whatever.

Well, perhaps that's something we can agree on--the fact that we both feel the same about the other's posts.

[Guest]

... My point with Dr. Glasgow's quote is that for many of us God is more important than our sex drive.  Why are our values less important than those who consider who the bed the be all and end all of their identification? 

 

The SCOTUS decision came down this summer.  There is not a long history of how it should be applied.  Indeed, a bureaucrat from a state agency made his determination, and threatened the baker with $135K in fines if she did not bake a cake for the lesbian wedding.

 

You're really okay with this?  Force Christians to actively participate in a sacrilegious ceremony, that mocks their understanding of God-ordained marriage?

 

You keep saying, "It's the law."  Well, is it?  This decision is brand new, and how it gets applied is still be worked out.  A state agency decision does not national precedence make. 

I don't think your values are less important. I just think Dr. Glasgow's quote does the very thing you are decrying. And I can certainly give in with regard to the threat of $135K fine. However, I don't see this as forcing Christians (I'm one, too) to participate in a sacrilegious ceremony--it doesn't force anyone to participate in a ceremony. It doesn't mock my marriage or yours. Lastly, the law I'm referring to is that of illegal discriminating. As I understand it in the states we've seen these events take place the *state* laws already prohibited the kind of discrimination we're talking about without regard to the legality or illegality of gay marriage itself. That's why I keep saying it's about illegal discrimination.

Edited October 22, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[prisonchaplain]

UT...no state required vendors to participate in (by providing artistic talent and inspiration) LBGT weddings until the SCOTUS declared such unions a human right. Then, retroactively, an Oregon State agency said vendors must service these events.  The baker tried to close shop, and the agency was not having it.  You were existence, so your refusal is based in hatred and bigotry.  Comply or pay.

 

We can certainly disagree on this.  People of faith and good will do.  For me, the line where I would permit civil disobedience is in servicing the ceremony that many perceive as inseparable from the spirituality.  The First Amendment should mean that people have the right of conscientious objection.  We allow draftees to avoid combat for this reason, why require people of faith to participate in a marriage ceremony they oppose, on religious grounds?

 

The answer, imho, is that some in the LBGT community are enraged at religious opposition to their sexual orientation and practice.  They consider any opposition to be based in hatred and bigotry, and believe that religion is just a cover.  Or, they admit that the religions teach against them, and find such repugnant, and worthy of public condemnation. 

 

On a personal note, while I would never officiate an LBGT wedding, I would bake a cake for 'em.  And, it would be the most delicious, well-crafted cake I could come up with.  My faith allows me to serve my theological enemy (souls are never the enemy) with agape love.

[Just_A_Guy]

No, oppression is defined as prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control. I suppose we may each insist upon what definition we feel matches what we're trying to convey.

 

Well, I was somewhat misunderstanding your argument to be something along the lines of "when a governmental policy has legal justification, that means it is not oppression".  So, thanks for the correction.

 

Nevertheless, from what I can gather, your argument is that people should be free to discriminate based on fear, prejudice, animosity, etc., if they can make a case that they've suffered in the past.  Conservative Christians, not having been subject to much suffering over the past few generations and having supposedly inflicted a decent amount of suffering themselves, should therefore just acquiesce to whatever limitations society imposes upon them until society (not the Christians themselves) decides that they've suffered enough.

 

I think we're on firmer ground when we at least aspire to define "oppression" by whether it impugns on some universally-applicable set of natural rights, rather than making situational calls based on which groups have suffered enough versus which groups "have it coming to them".  Because frankly, under your definition an oppressor can always justify his behavior with "it's not really THAT bad" or "well, he really had it coming and we're just administering justice for past wrongs".  A society ruled by that ethos will, sooner or later, degenerate into civil war as majorities exploit their advantage and minorities decide that death is preferable to whatever fresh hell the majority can dig up.

 

Perhaps knowing this can help us to understand each other in the way I perceived Elder Oaks advocated.

 

Well, in point of fact the portion of Oaks' remarks that's been getting the most mileage referred specifically to public officials, not private actors in commerce.

 

With the definition I perceive I was thinking that Jews, Blacks, *and* Gays know what oppression feels like. By comparison the baker/retailer doesn't know what oppression feels like. . . .

 

[Quotation omitted]

 

I don't agree. I'm not basically taking or claiming anything without justification any more than you are or any more than any interlocutor does when disagreeing with your arguments. And I perceive that you either misunderstand me or mischaracterize my argument. I don't say what you claim I say. I say that choosing to compare (and to seemingly put on par) what those people have suffered (murder, torture, and all the other terrible things that went with their oppression for centuries) with the situation of the baker is not a valid comparison. They are so radically different in degree that the comparison is absurd. Putting Gays in with those people would be more apt than putting the baker in with them because Gays have over the centuries suffered similar oppression. The baker has not.

 

Sure, there's a difference in degree--as long as you don't quit the sphere to which society relegates you.  It's generally when you refuse to accept those limitations that things get really nasty for you--whether you're a gay who won't stay quiet and celibate, or a black person who won't stay on his side of town, or a German teenager who won't keep quiet about the war reports he hears on the BBC, or a conservative Christian who refuses to express support for an evil that is condoned by broader society.  Blacks and gays who conformed to social norms during Jim Crow or pre-Lawrence might face ridicule, exclusion from the economic mainstream, and/or the curse of not being able to live "authentically"; but they could theoretically live a lifetime without being fearing any government action more punitive than a speeding ticket.

 

So it is today (or, is becoming) for conservative Christians.  No one will fire me--as long as I conform.  No one will take my business or my house--as long as I conform.  No one will put me in jail--as long as I conform.  No one will impose physical harm upon me--as long as I conform.

 

But, if I don't conform--well, Kim Davis' experience reminds us that the prospect of imprisonment is real.  The experiences of numerous photographers, bakers, etc. remind us that the prospect of losing one's property is real.  The 2008 Texas raid on the YFZ ranch reminds us that the prospect of losing one's children is real. Eric Garner's death reminds us that the prospect of death is real. 

 

So the difference in degree is perhaps in some ways, not so very great after all.

[The Folk Prophet]

Well, perhaps that's something we can agree on--the fact that we both feel the same about the other's posts.

 

You asked a question. JaG gave a perfectly reasonable answer. I pointed to it. You continued to uselessly argue that I didn't answer your question. So....whatever. You clearly simply want to be argumentative.

[Guest]

Well, I was somewhat misunderstanding your argument to be something along the lines of "when a governmental policy has legal justification, that means it is not oppression".  So, thanks for the correction.

 

Nevertheless, from what I can gather, your argument is that people should be free to discriminate based on fear, prejudice, animosity, etc., if they can make a case that they've suffered in the past.  ...

I'm pleased that you are willing to seek to understand rather than just to be understood. And in the same spirit I take back my criticism of the scenarios you posited. Perhaps they are not only possible, but likely given the path that Elder Oaks seems to perceive we are on as a nation (and I do, too). More on that in just a second. But let me add the clarification that I do not mean to argue that people should be free to discriminate based on fear, prejudice, animosity, etc.  Quite the opposite. 

 

My thesis is that we all want to live together in happiness, harmony, and peace. To achieve that common goal, and for all contending parties to achieve their most important personal goals, we must learn and practice mutual respect for others whose beliefs, values, and behaviors differ from our own. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.”

 

Differences on precious fundamentals are with us forever. We must not let them disable our democracy or cripple our society. This does not anticipate that we will deny or abandon our differences but that we will learn to live with those laws, institutions, and persons who do not share them. We may have cultural differences, but we should not have “culture wars.”

 

...Extreme voices polarize and create resentment and fear by emphasizing what is nonnegotiable and by suggesting that the desired outcome is to disable the adversary and achieve absolute victory. Such outcomes are rarely attainable and never preferable to living together in mutual understanding and peace.” --Elder Oaks

I would like to believe that the scenarios you posited are not likely, but as I just mentioned they may well be just down the road. I think that it is very likely that first we will see instances such as a Gay baker reciprocating in-kind and refusing to sell a cake to, say, a Mormon who wants to celebrate her missionary son's call--the Gay baker claiming that he can't in good conscience take part in celebrating a religion that hates (I'm supposing his thoughts, not my own.) Or, a Christian baker refusing to sell a cake to celebrate a Jewish ceremony (those Christ-killers), or to a Muslim (those terrorists), etc., etc. It wasn't all that many decades ago that some of my own ancestors who emigrated from Germany were refused retail services in Salt Lake City because of the politics of the time. I think the desire to avoid all these potential (possible, probable?) scenarios are partly what Elder Oaks had in mind. 

[Guest]

You asked a question. JaG gave a perfectly reasonable answer. I pointed to it. You continued to uselessly argue that I didn't answer your question. So....whatever. You clearly simply want to be argumentative.

My precise feelings about, you.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm pleased that you are willing to seek to understand rather than just to be understood. And in the same spirit I take back my criticism of the scenarios you posited. Perhaps they are not only possible, but likely given the path that Elder Oaks seems to perceive we are on as a nation (and I do, too). More on that in just a second. But let me add the clarification that I do not mean to argue that people should be free to discriminate based on fear, prejudice, animosity, etc.  Quite the opposite. 

 

Fair enough; but on what basis (if any) should they be allowed to discriminate?  A couple of years ago, a redneck neo-Nazi couple in West Virginia wanted Wal-Mart to make a birthday cake for their son, whose name was Aryan Nation.  Wal-Mart absolutely refused to provide a cake that said "Happy Birthday Aryan Nation".  Within the last year, Wal-Mart has also balked at providing any merchandise (including, presumably, cakes) bearing the Confederate battle flag.  On what basis should Wal-Mart be permitted to engage in this sort of discrimination?

 

Or, should it have been legally compelled to produce the cakes described as per the wishes of their clients?

 

I would like to believe that the scenarios you posited are not likely, but as I just mentioned they may well be just down the road. I think that it is very likely that first we will see instances such as a Gay baker reciprocating in-kind and refusing to sell a cake to, say, a Mormon who wants to celebrate her missionary son's call--the Gay baker claiming that he can't in good conscience take part in celebrating a religion that hates (I'm supposing his thoughts, not my own.) Or, a Christian baker refusing to sell a cake to celebrate a Jewish ceremony (those Christ-killers), or to a Muslim (those terrorists), etc., etc. It wasn't all that many decades ago that some of my own ancestors who emigrated from Germany were refused retail services in Salt Lake City because of the politics of the time. I think the desire to avoid all these potential (possible, probable?) scenarios are partly what Elder Oaks had in mind.

 

I agree with you that those sorts of scenarios are also easy to visualize (if they haven't already happened).  Now, there's definitely a difference between "we don't serve your kind" versus "I'm sorry, I can't offer this particular service in your particular case; but if we have some other product/service you want I'm happy to serve you".  And personally, in those latter cases I think that expressive service providers should be legally free to decline to use their expressive talents to support events or ideas with which they disagree.  So, while I wouldn't like being turned away from the bakery that refuses to make--say--a wedding cake for an LDS temple wedding; I wouldn't turn to government to try to force them to (pretend to) like me, either.

 

But (and I may be misreading you on this; if so, I apologize)--I don't think Elder Oaks' recent remarks can be read as saying that the photographer, the baker, the florist, or the wedding chapel minister who are employed in private-sector commerce should just suck it up and do stuff they find morally abhorrent.  Indeed, the Church (and Oaks himself) have frequently pointed to specifically these types of scenarios as evidence of a broader attack on religious freedom that can and should be resisted.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Why is it so few people understand that people have a right to be wrong in a free society?

 

There are many things that I consider either stupid, foolish, or downright wrong that I wouldn't dream of asking for a law to be passed prohibiting it.  

 

At the same time I can think of many behaviors that are exalted, wise, and absolutely critical to the well-being of an individual.  But I'm never going to legislate that it be required by law.

[The Folk Prophet]

My precise feelings about, you.

 

What? That makes no sense. I didn't ask a question that you answered by pointing to another post and then continue to press the issue.

[Colirio]

I am a Mormon.

I see that alcohol has destroyed many families and many people have been killed and injured due to drunk driving.

If I am in charge of issuing state liquor licenses to businesses, and I refuse to do so based on my religious beliefs, what would be the expected outcome?

How would members of the church likely see me? How would modern Christianity see me? How would society see me?

[The Folk Prophet]

Let's just review this so we can move on and stop acting like children:

 

Which way was this Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ facing when he spoke? 

 

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.

 

To which I pointed my agreement.

 

How, may I ask, is this not a direct answer to your question? Why are you pressing on demanding that I didn't answer your question and am just being argumentative? I'm not arguing with the point at all. The answer is that, just like you, I believe that Elder Oaks was divinely inspired and that he (obviously) thereby faces the Lord. You said the same thing. This is not argumentative. It's called agreement on that point. For some reason then you press on claiming I'm not responding and that you feel the same way about my responses that I feel about you -- which make absolutely no sense.

 

Hopefully this post clears the matter up. But even if it doesn't and you persist in the determination that I am being (???), I'm not going to continue the back and forth big-baby, nuh-uh, uh-huh, banter.

[estradling75]

I am a Mormon.

I see that alcohol has destroyed many families and many people have been killed and injured due to drunk driving.

If I am in charge of issuing state liquor licenses to businesses, and I refuse to do so based on my religious beliefs, what would be the expected outcome?

How would members of the church likely see me? How would modern Christianity see me? How would society see me?

 

If your religious convictions keep you from performing your job you should get a new job.  (assuming of course you can't work with your employer to find a compromise that allows both to be done)

[Just_A_Guy]

I am a Mormon.

I see that alcohol has destroyed many families and many people have been killed and injured due to drunk driving.

If I am in charge of issuing state liquor licenses to businesses, and I refuse to do so based on my religious beliefs, what would be the expected outcome?

How would members of the church likely see me? How would modern Christianity see me? How would society see me?

 

It strikes me that it depends on the nature of the job.  If the only thing you do is issue liquor licenses--yeah, it's silly to apply for a job and then refuse to do the one thing you were hired to do.  On the other hand, if the same position is also responsible for--say--licensing alcohol addiction rehabilitation programs, and assembling data about the health risks of alcohol abuse and coordinating local education programs, and prosecuting drunk drivers--I think it's a reasonable to at least delegate out the part of the job that involves issuing liquor licenses.

 

Davis may have been wrong to refuse to delegate the task of issuing wedding certificates to some underling; but I hold that the State of Kentucky was also wrong to refuse to grant her an accommodation whereby she could continue in the other functions of her job (recording property deeds, monitoring elections, court recording services, and maybe even issuing straight wedding certificates) while not having her name appear on certificates of state-sanctioned sodomy.  Elder Oaks' condemnation of Davis does not equal ratification of the State of Kentucky's thuggery.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Just_A_Guy