Originally posted by Flystripper
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
New LDS Church Website: Mormons and Gays
Collapse
X
-
"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
-
Originally posted by Green Monstah View Post...until the dad marries a dude..."I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"
Comment
-
Did the church ever update the wording of the policy in CHoI 1 to include the clarification they issued after the policy was first issued? I remember the original wording being very, very vague and more encompassing than the way it's interpreted with the clarification. Seems like the policy is ripe for being interrupted in its original iteration in the future if the wording isn't updated in the actual handbook."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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Moliere View PostDid the church ever update the wording of the policy in CHoI 1 to include the clarification they issued after the policy was first issued? I remember the original wording being very, very vague and more encompassing than the way it's interpreted with the clarification. Seems like the policy is ripe for being interrupted in its original iteration in the future if the wording isn't updated in the actual handbook.
Carry on.Last edited by myboynoah; 01-10-2018, 05:35 AM.Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!
For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.
Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Solon View PostIn 2012, Peter Singer wrote about these kinds of freedom-of-religion debates, giving three examples:
1. The Netherlands proposed a law to require animals to be stunned before slaughter (contravenes Islamic & Jewish practice).
2. In Israel, ultra-orthodox men wanted separate seating for men and women on city buses.
3. the Obama administration's requirement to provide health insurance that covered contraception.
In all three, Singer pointed out that, while there was definitely a lot of potential for inconvenience, none of these scenarios really prevented true adherents from practicing their religions. Muslims and Jews in the Netherlands don't have to eat meat; ultra-orthodox Jewish men don't have to ride the bus; Catholics don't have to run hospitals and universities.
As he wrote, "Not all conflicts between religion and the state are easy to resolve. But the fact that these three issues, all currently causing controversy in their respective countries, are not really about the freedom to practice one's religion, suggests that the appeal to religious freedom is being misused." (Peter Singer, Ethics in the Real World, Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2016, pp. 225-228).
While I doubt the US Supreme Court sees the Colorado Cake Case so simply (indeed, these other three situations have already made their way to legislatures or court in their respective countries), I do think that Singer is correct in noting that the term religious freedom is misused.
Perhaps that is why this case is also being portrayed as a Free Speech situation, in which case I think there are less compelling grounds for churches to weigh in.
The right to "exercise" your religion entails more than merely having the right to believe what you want to believe. It also guarantees more than the right to speak freely about your religious beliefs. It has to include some right to practice those beliefs in your daily life, and running a cake shop to make a living for your family is certainly part of daily life. Anything less would make the Free Exercise superfluous. So, when the question is framed as a choice between requiring the gay couple to buy a cake elsewhere or allowing the government to force you to choose between your religious beliefs or shutting down your business, I have a hard time believing that the Free Exercise clause has little to say on that topic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jay santos View PostThis is really tough. On one side, I agree, and I can see how not fighting inconsequential things ten steps away from the important things, could potentially make it easier for you to lose the important things 10 steps later. But on the other side, you become an asshole when you fight this way.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by UVACoug View PostBut that logic can be flipped on its head, can't it? At least in the Colorado Cake Case? It would be far simpler and less costly for the gay couple to simply accommodate the cake maker's religious objections by going to a different shop. There is no dispute that there were dozens of other bakeries willing to supply a cake. I think the baker is a moron and that refusing to sell the cake to the gay couple is wrong, but I don't think anyone in the case questions that his religious objection is sincere. So if the First Amendments guarantee of "free exercise of religion" does not accommodate sincerely held religious objections when it is easy and almost costless to do so, what purpose does it serve? It was clearly intended to protect more than internal beliefs.
The right to "exercise" your religion entails more than merely having the right to believe what you want to believe. It also guarantees more than the right to speak freely about your religious beliefs. It has to include some right to practice those beliefs in your daily life, and running a cake shop to make a living for your family is certainly part of daily life. Anything less would make the Free Exercise superfluous. So, when the question is framed as a choice between requiring the gay couple to buy a cake elsewhere or allowing the government to force you to choose between your religious beliefs or shutting down your business, I have a hard time believing that the Free Exercise clause has little to say on that topic.
Now, if the justice of the peace refused to marry the gay couple, it would be a different issue."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
Comment
-
Originally posted by UVACoug View PostBut that logic can be flipped on its head, can't it? At least in the Colorado Cake Case? It would be far simpler and less costly for the gay couple to simply accommodate the cake maker's religious objections by going to a different shop. There is no dispute that there were dozens of other bakeries willing to supply a cake. I think the baker is a moron and that refusing to sell the cake to the gay couple is wrong, but I don't think anyone in the case questions that his religious objection is sincere. So if the First Amendments guarantee of "free exercise of religion" does not accommodate sincerely held religious objections when it is easy and almost costless to do so, what purpose does it serve? It was clearly intended to protect more than internal beliefs.
The right to "exercise" your religion entails more than merely having the right to believe what you want to believe. It also guarantees more than the right to speak freely about your religious beliefs. It has to include some right to practice those beliefs in your daily life, and running a cake shop to make a living for your family is certainly part of daily life. Anything less would make the Free Exercise superfluous. So, when the question is framed as a choice between requiring the gay couple to buy a cake elsewhere or allowing the government to force you to choose between your religious beliefs or shutting down your business, I have a hard time believing that the Free Exercise clause has little to say on that topic.
I find that definition of freedom to be unacceptably narrow, especially when alternatives to constricting religious freedom are readily available and relatively unburdensome.τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν
Comment
-
Originally posted by Moliere View PostI would actually say that flipping Singer's argument on his head is to say that you don't need a cake to celebrate a wedding. So asking a baker to bake a cake and a baker refusing doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. Forcing the baker to bake the cake infringes on the baker's rights. The gay couple can get married and have every right granted by the government without having a cake at their wedding.
Now, if the justice of the peace refused to marry the gay couple, it would be a different issue.
Comment
-
Josh and Lolly Weed are divorcing:
http://www.joshweed.com/2018/01/turn...marriage/.html
The post is very long. But what I skimmed is gut-wrenching."...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUte
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwestcoug View PostJosh and Lolly Weed are divorcing:
http://www.joshweed.com/2018/01/turn...marriage/.html
The post is very long. But what I skimmed is gut-wrenching.Dyslexics are teople poo...
Comment
Comment