Also, good points that there is already protections in the constitution specifically designed to protect religious freedom. In short, there is no need for additional protections being granted and frankly the protections already in place are not being infringed on and there isn't a historical pattern of infringement. The same cannot be said of the groups that Clayton compared religion to.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News
Collapse
X
-
Also, here is a good thing Mormons are in the news for. Good call acknowledging the existence of these relationships.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...e-feature.htmlAs I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
--Kendrick Lamar
Comment
-
Originally posted by MartyFunkhouser View PostOkay, let's go ahead and just remove gender identity out of the mix. We should all be able to agree that sexuality isn't a decision. Race isn't a decision. Religion is a decision.
Also, in our country Christians have not historically been discriminated against. There is a long history of discrimination based on race and sexuality, including by the LDS church. So, comparing someone choosing a religion to sexuality and race is a bad analogy and it rings hollow coming from a organization that has discriminated on the basis of race and sexuality. I don't see anyone trying to prohibit someone form marrying because he or she chooses to be Mormon.
As I am sure you realize, the article is trying to set forth a rationale to make sure that religion is as protected as gender identity. It's fine to implement laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination on those grounds, but they cannot be at the expense of similarly meaningful and impactful life choices, such as religions. What's wrong with that thought?PLesa excuse the tpyos.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MartyFunkhouser View PostAlso, good points that there is already protections in the constitution specifically designed to protect religious freedom. In short, there is no need for additional protections being granted and frankly the protections already in place are not being infringed on and there isn't a historical pattern of infringement. The same cannot be said of the groups that Clayton compared religion to.PLesa excuse the tpyos.
Comment
-
Originally posted by creekster View PostAre you willing to remove gender identity from the mix? Really? I don't think the LGBTQ community would support that approach. And are you suggesting that someone is locked into sexual identity from the moment they are born? Is your position, then, that the LDS church, having made decisions that you find to be racist and sexist, is now prohibited from ever articulating arguments supporting its own concerns about avoiding discrimination?
As I am sure you realize, the article is trying to set forth a rationale to make sure that religion is as protected as gender identity. It's fine to implement laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination on those grounds, but they cannot be at the expense of similarly meaningful and impactful life choices, such as religions. What's wrong with that thought?
Sure the LDS church can address their concerns, just don't compare yourself to a group that you are actively discriminating against and were high profile in trying to deny rights to.Last edited by MartyFunkhouser; 06-21-2018, 10:10 AM.As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
--Kendrick Lamar
Comment
-
Funk, are you just virtue signaling here, or do you genuinely believe that freedom of religion is not a right that should be protected?
Do you feel similarly about freedom of speech?"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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View PostFunk, are you just virtue signaling here, or do you genuinely believe that freedom of religion is not a right that should be protected?
Do you feel similarly about freedom of speech?
I feel similarly about freedom of speech as well.
If you can't see a problem saying religion deserves the same protections as race and sexual orientation (especially when you are a representative of an organization that is currently engaging in discrimination against one of these groups), I don't know what to say. The protections are different.
"If you believe public and private institutions should credit the dignitary claims of racial, ethnic, gender and sexual minorities, then please consider that many of the same reasons for doing so apply with equal or greater force to the dignitary claims of religious believers. If you believe that taking constitutional and human rights seriously requires social respect and legal safeguards for people to live out their core identities openly as equal participants in our communities and nation, then I hope that same conviction also extends to religious people and their core beliefs."As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
--Kendrick Lamar
Comment
-
Originally posted by MartyFunkhouser View PostAlso, here is a good thing Mormons are in the news for. Good call acknowledging the existence of these relationships.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...e-feature.htmlGet confident, stupid
-landpoke
Comment
-
Originally posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
So he is not even just advocating for equal protection, he is advocating for potentially greater protection. In fact, the approach he takes would say, allow a clerk exercising her job duties to refuse to give a marriage license to homosexuals that are seeking to marry.PLesa excuse the tpyos.
Comment
-
Originally posted by creekster View PostYou're simply wrong here. He never argues for greater protections in the quotation. He says the bases for protection apply with equal or greater force to religion (which was my point above) but he never says there must be greater protection. The fact is that some of these protected statuses will come into conflict. His point is that religion deserves as much respect as gender or sexuality. The fact that YOU equate the LDS church's doctrine/policy to discrimination does not mean that it constitutes an illegal discrimination and, if anything, underscores the importance of the analytical starting point that he is urging. But you know all this. It seems lijke you might just be looking for another chance to complain about the church.
I am criticizing the church for its constant boogeyman of freedom of religion being under attack in this country. It isn't happening. Come talk to me when people start organizing campaigns and donations for constitutional amendments and laws that prevent people who believe in Christ from marrying, legislation that allows for an employer to deny someone a job because of their religion, etc.As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
--Kendrick Lamar
Comment
-
Originally posted by MartyFunkhouser View PostThe LDS church does discriminate against homosexuals (i.e. refusing to allow their children to be baptized). It isn't illegal discrimination, because they are allowed to discriminate in their religious practice because of constitutional protections that are already in place.
I am criticizing the church for its constant boogeyman of freedom of religion being under attack in this country. It isn't happening. Come talk to me when people start organizing campaigns and donations for constitutional amendments and laws that prevent people who believe in Christ from marrying, legislation that allows for an employer to deny someone a job because of their religion, etc.Last edited by creekster; 06-21-2018, 12:02 PM.PLesa excuse the tpyos.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MartyFunkhouser View PostThe LDS church does discriminate against homosexuals (i.e. refusing to allow their children to be baptized). It isn't illegal discrimination, because they are allowed to discriminate in their religious practice because of constitutional protections that are already in place.
I am criticizing the church for its constant boogeyman of freedom of religion being under attack in this country. It isn't happening. Come talk to me when people start organizing campaigns and donations for constitutional amendments and laws that prevent people who believe in Christ from marrying, legislation that allows for an employer to deny someone a job because of their religion, etc.
Personally, I think the church thought long and hard about the decision and decided to go with what was best for long term spiritual welfare of the children. I may not agree with the church on this issue myself, but I don't think any such decision was made from hate, I think it was made from a genuine love and concern for the children of such. If you choose to be cynical and an evil conspirator band-wagoner... that's on you.
As for me and my house... we will serve The Lord.
When poet puts pen to paper imagination breathes life, finding hearth and home.
-Mid Summer's Night Dream
Comment
-
Originally posted by creekster View PostIt's not a bogeyman, as you put it. Your very posts in this thread demonstrate the risk. You may ot LIKE the article, but you have yet to identify any fault in its reasoning. Insterad, you prefer to complain about the church.
The flaw in his logic is that he is comparing choices to things that people don't have a choice about. Homosexuality is not a choice. Race is not a choice. I don't think gender identity is a choice, but we could at least have a discussion about that one. Religion is a choice.As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
--Kendrick Lamar
Comment
-
Originally posted by MartyFunkhouser View PostGive me a real world example that has occurred within the past 10 years (not a hypothetical), of religious freedom being infringed upon that is comparable to the actual discrimination that occurred (which was supported by the LDS church) of denying homosexuals the right to marry.
The flaw in his logic is that he is comparing choices to things that people don't have a choice about. Homosexuality is not a choice. Race is not a choice. I don't think gender identity is a choice, but we could at least have a discussion about that one. Religion is a choice.
That is not the flaw in his argument and you know it. You are attacking a straw man you constructed by backing out the gender fluidity (and other similar issues) from the discussion. You conceded above they are part of the discussion but you just "don't want to get into that discussion right now." It's your right not to get into it, but by ignoring that important aspect of it (which wholly erases your line in the sand) you can not legitimately compare non-choice issues (which the LGBTQ community do not think are always and unequivocally non-choice based) to choice issues. He frames it as a matter of IDENTITY, which is the same way LGBTQ advocates typically frame it, whether or not it is a conscious choice.
Your position would make us first determine if there is a genetic basis for gender identity in order to accord standing. That would not be workable and is not consonant with either the law or the current conclusions on gender issues.PLesa excuse the tpyos.
Comment
-
Originally posted by creekster View PostIt's not a bogeyman, as you put it. Your very posts in this thread demonstrate the risk. You may not LIKE the article, but you have yet to identify any fault in its reasoning. Instead, you prefer to complain about the church.
And to flat out state that religions aren’t being discriminated against is to deny history, specifically Mormon history. Mormons have been discriminated against in the past. It’s important to make sure it never happens again."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
Comment