Prop 8 Has Been Overturned

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

[Applejack]

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.

[MartyFunkhouser]

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.

[All-American]

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.

[Bo Diddley]

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.

[MartyFunkhouser]

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.

[Moliere]

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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Prop 8 Has Been Overturned

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?

[Bo Diddley]

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.

[Eddie]

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?

[MartyFunkhouser]

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.

[MartyFunkhouser]

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.

[Moliere]

Embedded Tweet

[Pelado]

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.

[Northwestcoug]

Embedded Tweet

Because all the important social advances have happened under a similar libertarian-based philosophy