Elder Oaks says Kim Davis was wrong

[Guest]

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?

Are you talking about the New Jersey couple, Heath and Deborah Campbell, who have a son named Adolph Hitler and a daughter named Aryan Nation? I understood that Walmart did in fact provide a cake decorated with their son’s name and a happy birthday greeting. But your question is whether Wal-Mart (or I presume any store) should be permitted to engage in this sort of discrimination. I suppose the answer is yes because of the nuanced difference between a legitimate legal name (even if it’s the same as a villain) and words that could be deemed offensive, derogatory, inciting of violence, etc. Are you looking for me to draw a line or identify a tipping point? Do you have one?

 

 …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.

Yes, you're right about reading his remarks as saying so specifically. And he did preface by stating that he has very deeply held views about certain issues which he would not speak about since they didn't address the objective of the conference. Do you think, however, that some of what he did say could serve as a guide to us in the context of this thread? Is there room for both of us to set aside some of our views and to move closer together in some others?

 

 

“…on the big issues that divide adversaries on these issues, both sides should seek a balance, not a total victory. For example, religionists should not seek a veto over all nondiscrimination laws that offend their religion, and the proponents of nondiscrimination should not seek a veto over all assertions of religious freedom. Both sides in big controversies like this should seek to understand the other’s position and seek practical accommodations that provide fairness for all and total dominance for neither. “

 

“…I say to my fellow believers that we should not assert the free exercise of religion to override every law and government action that could possibly be interpreted to infringe on institutional or personal religious freedom. As I have often said, the free exercise of religion obviously involves both the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to exercise or practice those beliefs. But in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs, the right of some to act upon their religious principles must be circumscribed by the government’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of all.” --Elder Oaks

 

[Guest]

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. ...

 

...For me, the line where I would permit civil disobedience is in servicing the ceremony that many perceive as inseparable from the spirituality.  

 

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.

What you say is unarguably true of the Oregon case which I confess I was paying less attention to in my own mind than a case in Colorado which happened in 2012 and was ruled on just prior to the Supreme Court decision in June of this year. So I'm guilty of reading some of your posts too fast.  But you and I are not really so far apart. I never disagreed in my own mind about officiating at a Gay wedding, for example. And I wouldn't deny for a moment that there are Gays with whom I disagree strongly in terms of their own bigotry against some others.

[Just_A_Guy]

Are you talking about the New Jersey couple, Heath and Deborah Campbell, who have a son named Adolph Hitler and a daughter named Aryan Nation? I understood that Walmart did in fact provide a cake decorated with their son’s name and a happy birthday greeting. But your question is whether Wal-Mart (or I presume any store) should be permitted to engage in this sort of discrimination. I suppose the answer is yes because of the nuanced difference between a legitimate legal name (even if it’s the same as a villain) and words that could be deemed offensive, derogatory, inciting of violence, etc. Are you looking for me to draw a line or identify a tipping point? Do you have one?

 

Yeah, that's the one (sorry for the conflation of facts--on Googling, it looks like the first supermarket refused to make the cake; but the local Wal-Mart went ahead and did it).

 

My own line/tipping point is simply that a business should be free to refuse to provide expressive services where the services would tend to promote something the business finds abhorrent.  I can live with Wal-Mart being compelled to sell generic cakes, wrapping paper, candles, toys, etc. to all customers on an equal basis.  But they should not be compelled to assemble or modify these items in an artistic way that results in an expression of approval or promotion of Nazism or white supremacy. 

 

 

Yes, you're right about reading his remarks as saying so specifically. And he did preface by stating that he has very deeply held views about certain issues which he would not speak about since they didn't address the objective of the conference. Do you think, however, that some of what he did say could serve as a guide to us in the context of this thread? Is there room for both of us to set aside some of our views and to move closer together in some others?

 

Sure, I think as a matter of civility we should always be engaging in individual introspection and, with each concession, asking ourselves "is this something that I can live with?"

 

But I think it's also worth noting that the Church and Elder Oaks have been advocating primarily for religious liberty, which for over a century has been broadly acknowledged to be secondary to broader social mores (ever since Reynolds) (but, it is important to note, religious liberty in the commercial/employment sphere is not quite so toothless as some today would have us believe it is). 

 

My argument is a little different because it doesn't arise primarily out of freedom of religion, but freedom of expression.  I have a natural and constitutional right not to be forced to espouse or express sentiments with which I disagree.  That's why, for example, a child doesn't have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the flag in school (it has nothing to do with the child's religious preferences--see West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette); and you don't have to display your state's motto (e.g. "Live Free or Die") on your license plate (again, religion is irrelevant--see Wooley v. Maynard).  Flower arrangements, cake decorations, and photography are all expressive activities (else no one would mind if service providers provided a gay wedding with arrangements of corpse lilies, a purple-and-lime-green cake, and photos with poor lighting and bizarre composition).  Ergo, service providers should be free to decline to offer these expressive activities.

 

So far as I know the Church hasn't really done a whole lot with that latter argument, and I sort of wonder why; because I think current jurisprudence tends to protect freedom of expression much more aggressively than it does freedom of religious exercise.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

...My argument is a little different because it doesn't arise primarily out of freedom of religion, but freedom of expression.  I have a natural and constitutional right not to be forced to espouse or express sentiments with which I disagree.  ...

I probably agree with most of your statements. Tell me about your idea of freedom of expression being a "natural" right. I'm generally not enthusiastic about the term, but usually interested in other people's idea of it. I did a casual Google search for the term natural rights in connection with some of Elder Oaks various speeches and didn't see anything right off the bat. Can you think of any General Authorities focusing on it?

So far as I know the Church hasn't really done a whole lot with that latter argument, and I sort of wonder why; because I think current jurisprudence tends to protect freedom of expression much more aggressively than it does freedom of religious exercise.

I wonder if it could be related to Elder Oaks' remark that "...the free exercise of religion obviously involves both the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to exercise or practice those beliefs. But in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs, the right of some to act upon their religious principles must be circumscribed by the government’s responsibility..." In other words, the Church concerns itself more with our choices of what to believe and how to behave individually than it does with expression? Regarding your observation that current jurisprudence tends to protect freedom of expression more aggressively, could it be because profits are involved?

Edited October 23, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Just_A_Guy]

I probably agree with most of your statements. Tell me about your idea of freedom of expression being a "natural" right. I'm generally not enthusiastic about the term, but usually interested in other people's idea of it.

 

Frankly, I don't have a very philosophical mind and I can't quote Locke or Hobbes or Kant or whoever, in defining "rights".  (I have a long-term goal to really dig into some of their writings; but other things keep getting in the way.)  It just seems intuitive to me that generally speaking, people should be able to retain the liberties that they'd have if they were left alone--to believe or to doubt; to give or to retain; to speak or to remain silent; to gather or to remain alone.

 

Obviously, some concessions are necessary for the sake of a well-ordered society; but "you're hurting my feelings!" is not, IMHO, sufficient reason for a concession.

 

 

I wonder if it could be related to Elder Oaks' remark that "...the free exercise of religion obviously involves both the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to exercise or practice those beliefs. But in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs, the right of some to act upon their religious principles must be circumscribed by the government’s responsibility..." In other words, the Church concerns itself more with our choices of what to believe and how to behave individually than it does with expression?

 

Could be; but I'm not sure that belief and belief-based behavior are so neatly parsed from "expression".  Now that I think about it, I suppose that the Church's current line of advocacy might have two possible PR advantages:

 

1.  The Church is naturally averse to debates over political dogma; it's more natural and comfortable (and has better PR value) for the Church to couch its positions in terms of religious liberty rather than citing back to doctrines that have become closely tied to a relatively limited number of viewpoints.  I mean, what if the Church published an argument in favor of free association/expression in commerce, and then some libertarian moonbat like me started saying "See?  The Church supports the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964!", and the Church would have to come out with a statement that says "no, no, we don't mean it should go that far", and suddenly the Church is FAR more entangled in politics than it ever wanted to be.

2.  Framing this as a religious liberty issue rather than a free expression issue tends to subtly associate us with other persecuted religious minorities who have sacrificed for their sincerely-held beliefs and are ready to do so again; as opposed to associating us with flag-burners, hippies, and radical libertarians for whom "Because I can, so shaddup about it!!!" is a familiar and frankly off-putting battle cry.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Just_A_Guy