Page 28 of 28 FirstFirst ... 18262728
Results 811 to 831 of 831

Thread: Prop 8 Has Been Overturned

  1. #811
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    48,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    I don’t disagree. I’d also argue that the church’s statement on this is also proof of how broken the system is right now. It’s not an unreasonable proposal to provide legal protections to certain groups. Just because it falls a little outside the church’s wishes doesn’t mean they should oppose it. I do like that the church has provided a model of what they would support, but they seem to only support something if it fits 100% into what they want.
    This post doesn’t make any sense to me. They can’t oppose something because (in your opinion) it “falls a little outside” of what they want? And that means the church can’t engage in dialogue? Come on.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  2. #812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post
    Maybe not that they "can't afford" a trial, but I'd venture that they settle any number of meritless cases to avoid the cost of trial.
    This is undoubtedly true, but in the context that uncle Ted is talking about "liability", he's saying that the church has to worry about the threat of a lawsuit from gays refused the right to marry in the temple, presumably. I doubt that the church would settle such a suit, especially since it would be thrown out by any court that gets such a meritless suit.

  3. #813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falafel View Post
    Serious question, because I don't know the answer. Has the type of equal protection for LGBQT people you are advocating ever been recognized as a constitutionally protected right?
    Due to historical discrimination against LGBTQ people it has not, kind of like how historical discrimination against race led to the equal protection of the laws given to minorities in the constitution were not being recognized. The Supreme Court keeps punting. They punted on the gay marriage case, levels of scrutiny were not even discussed. The Legislature needs to step up and codify protections, especially with the current make-up of the supreme court.

    Religions is protected. LGBTQ people are not. So the LDS church is wrong that laws are needed to protect religion, they are adequately protected.
    Last edited by MartyFunkhouser; 05-16-2019 at 03:49 PM.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  4. #814
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
    Due to historical discrimination against LGBTQ people it has not, kind of like how historical discrimination against race led to the equal protection of the laws given to minorities in the constitution were not being recognized. The Supreme Court keeps punting. They punted on the gay marriage case, levels of scrutiny were not even discussed. The Legislature needs to step up and codify protections, especially with the current make-up of the supreme court.

    Religions is protected. LGBTQ people are not. So the LDS church is wrong that laws are needed to protect religion, they are adequately protected.
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Adequately Protected since 1838.

    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  5. #815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
    So the LDS church is wrong that laws are needed to protect religion, they are adequately protected.
    Until they aren't. I have no doubt there are judges who would rule in such a way that would infringe upon their rights. You can't completely overcome that, but a law passed is another layer of protection.

  6. #816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bo Diddley View Post
    Until they aren't. I have no doubt there are judges who would rule in such a way that would infringe upon their rights. You can't completely overcome that, but a law passed is another layer of protection.
    I'd love to see examples of this happening. It is a boogeyman without even real support. I do doubt that there is any real risk to religions.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  7. #817
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    21,465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    This post doesn’t make any sense to me. They can’t oppose something because (in your opinion) it “falls a little outside” of what they want? And that means the church can’t engage in dialogue? Come on.
    I guess I find the church’s dialogue a bit disingenuous since they are calling for religious liberty protections. Those already exist in both the first amendment and many other bills.
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  8. #818
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    48,933

    Default Prop 8 Has Been Overturned

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    I guess I find the church’s dialogue a bit disingenuous since they are calling for religious liberty protections. Those already exist in both the first amendment and many other bills.
    What if someone applies your simplistic response the other way? Anti-discrimination protection already exists in “many other bills”?

    You seriously don’t think it goes any deeper than that?
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  9. #819

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
    I'd love to see examples of this happening. It is a boogeyman without even real support. I do doubt that there is any real risk to religions.
    It already happened with polygamy.

  10. #820
    Senior Member Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Davis County
    Posts
    6,412

    Default

    With all of this back and forth - rather than arguing that someone needs protection and someone doesn't have protection and who should get protection...couldn't there be a proposal that adequately protects the interests of both?

  11. #821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    With all of this back and forth - rather than arguing that someone needs protection and someone doesn't have protection and who should get protection...couldn't there be a proposal that adequately protects the interests of both?
    Yes there sure could be a proposal that adequately protects the interests of both. I think the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proposed compromise is a poor deal for anyone but religions.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  12. #822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    I guess I find the church’s dialogue a bit disingenuous since they are calling for religious liberty protections. Those already exist in both the first amendment and many other bills.
    I actually don't think the church is being disingenuous here. I think they are being upfront with what they want and expect. I actually appreciate there honesty on this one, but certainly disagree with their position.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  13. #823
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    21,465

    Default

    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  14. #824
    Bald not naked Pelado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The 208
    Posts
    10,728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
    For example, I don't recall anyone recently putting millions of dollars into advocacy to prevent religious people from marrying.
    You can't? I can. But only for the religious people who also happen to be gay.
    "I think it was King Benjamin who said 'you sorry ass shitbags who have no skills that the market values also have an obligation to have the attitude that if one day you do in fact win the PowerBall Lottery that you will then impart of your substance to those without.'"
    - Goatnapper'96

  15. #825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    Because all the important social advances have happened under a similar libertarian-based philosophy

  16. #826

    Default

    Someone hasn't studied the church's name style guide! (around the one minute mark):


  17. #827
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    20,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    This is undoubtedly true, but in the context that uncle Ted is talking about "liability", he's saying that the church has to worry about the threat of a lawsuit from gays refused the right to marry in the temple, presumably. I doubt that the church would settle such a suit, especially since it would be thrown out by any court that gets such a meritless suit.
    Yeah, maybe the church wouldn't have to worry about a lawsuit over the right to marry in the temple especially considering they haven't be given anything (gift or special consideration or otherwise) from the government, like State Street and turned it into a park to make temple square a rectangle. Hey, I wonder if the city would let me turn the street by my house into a park. I mean, I wouldn't be asking for a special consideration or anything.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  18. #828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Yeah, maybe the church wouldn't have to worry about a lawsuit over the right to marry in the temple especially considering they haven't be given anything (gift or special consideration or otherwise) from the government, like State Street and turned it into a park to make temple square a rectangle. Hey, I wonder if the city would let me turn the street by my house into a park. I mean, I wouldn't be asking for a special consideration or anything.
    can someone interpret this for me. I don't understand what point ted is making. I assume it's about Hillary, but can't be sure without irrelevant links.

  19. #829
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    20,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    can someone interpret this for me. I don't understand what point ted is making. I assume it's about Hillary, but can't be sure without irrelevant links.
    I am sorry, I forgot I have to speak slow. Maybe this example would be easier to understand... Say BYU takes some federal money, you know, for doing some research or something. Now someone, say from the University of Utah, gets upset that (1) BYU discriminates against gays and (2) that BYU gets money for being so smart from the government. So this someone from the University of Utah, who suffers from a reduced mental capacity and is not so smart, gets the ACLU or someone to sue BYU to play nice and not pick on the gays, or not take any kind of government funding or get any other type of consideration from the government. The best outcome, of course, would be if BYU lets married gay folk attend BYU and then BYU gets an invite from the PAC 12 and kicks Utah out.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  20. #830
    Philosopher of Men Sleeping in EQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Outside the Matrix
    Posts
    3,652

    Default

    Bishop Barron on religious freedom under attack in California:

    We all trust our own unorthodoxies.

  21. #831
    Senior Member UVACoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,617

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
    I'd love to see examples of this happening. It is a boogeyman without even real support. I do doubt that there is any real risk to religions.
    Maybe start with the Masterpiece Cake Shop case. I don't agree with what the cake shop owner did there at all, but the Supreme Court seemed to think he was subject to religious discrimination. In fact, they explicitly said so. So maybe it isn't totally made up after all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •