New LDS Church Website: Mormons and Gays

[Jeff Lebowski]

I know this isn't breaking new ground but the policy just seems so unnecessarily divisive and foolish. I just don't get it.

I hate it. Still don't understand it.

[Green Monstah]

...which doesn't apply here...

...until the dad marries a dude...

[Commando]

...until the dad marries a dude...

...and retains full custody of the kids because the mom falls off a cliff and dies on impact...

[Green Monstah]

...and retains full custody of the kids because the mom falls off a cliff and dies on impact...

That’s not how it reads.

[Moliere]

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.

[myboynoah]

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.

If you're authorized to know, then you'll know. If you're not authorized to know, then you have no need to know.

Carry on.

[jay santos]

That’s not how it reads.

Are you sure? I'm not. But my understanding is that it's "primary custodian" of some kind of language to that effect.

[UVACoug]

In 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.

But 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.

[UVACoug]

This 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.

It's not 10 steps away for the Church. The next logical step in this "slippery slope" is to withhold federal funding from religious schools that don't admit married gay couples (See Bob Jones University v. United States). I think the Church sees that if it can get the Supreme Court to recognize that religious objections to homosexual conduct can and should be at least tolerated in our pluralistic society, that will go a long way to distinguishing the gay marriage issue from the race issue. You may or may not agree that that is a good thing, but I think it goes a long way to explaining why the Church seems to care so much. If the Court finds that the First Amendment has nothing to say about this case, that will have far-reaching implications that will soon have a direct and real impact on Church operations (especially BYU).

[UVACoug]

You are right I would be less thrilled about that. I also sincerely doubt that scenario falls under the Colorado anti-discrimination statute.

The Colorado anti-discrimination statute protects LGBT but not minority religions? That would be strange.

[Moliere]

But 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 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.

[All-American]

But 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.

Also, I find Singer's conclusion unpersuasive. His conclusion is that those laws don't really impair freedom of religion because you can avoid them. Sure, as long as you don't eat meat, ride the bus, or run a business. In other words, believe as you will, but not if you intend to participate in the public sphere.

I find that definition of freedom to be unacceptably narrow, especially when alternatives to constricting religious freedom are readily available and relatively unburdensome.

[UVACoug]

I 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.

Good point.

[Northwestcoug]

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.

[Flystripper]

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.