U of U Pres: Mormons should all join the ACLU

[Borderline Divine]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51560988-76/civil-mormons-members-religious.html.csp

[LA Ute]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51...gious.html.csp

Young cited a number of cases in which religious organizations have been stripped of rights through anti-discrimination laws.

“The truth is,” he said, “a tremendous amount of this is happening at the local level.”

Sounds like he is channeling Dallin H. Oaks.

[Jacob]

Sounds like a great ides...as soon as they stop taking up the cause of pedophiles, fighting against minor annoyances like prayer or meditation in school, etc.. Not to mention that the ACLU in SLC has been more of an enemy than a friend to the church. Remember the Main St right of way? Until then, I think Mormons do a pretty good job of defending religious liberty on their own or through other organizations

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sounds like a great ides...as soon as they stop taking up the cause of pedophiles, fighting against minor annoyances like prayer or meditation in school, etc.. Not to mention that the ACLU in SLC has been more of an enemy than a friend to the church. Remember the Main St right of way? Until then, I think Mormons do a pretty good job of defending religious liberty on their own or through other organizations

Not to nitpick, but I think time has shown that the ACLU may have been right about the main st right of way.

[Katy Lied]

Not to nitpick, but I think time has shown that the ACLU may have been right about the main st right of way.

How so? (I havent been following this issue so I am not sure about what the ACLU predicted would happen.)

[Soccermom]

How so? (I havent been following this issue so I am not sure about what the ACLU predicted would happen.)

I'd love a summary too, as I never really followed the issue either.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How so? (I havent been following this issue so I am not sure about what the ACLU predicted would happen.)

I am referring to the incident a couple of years ago with the two gay men kissing on the plaza and getting booted by church security staff.

[grapevine]

There was a t and s article that said we could be aclu members. I don't have a reason to join them. Plaza private property they can make there own rules. Other places to go to protest.

They are not good organization. SWK's son started utah Chapter. He was not active in church though. Former sp of mine who is now ga told of a law lecture were he was smoking and drinking prophets son. Prophet visited him. Did not do much good it seems.

[happyone]

heard this morning that Pres Young is going to be on Doug Wright today - this topic will certainly come up

[Jacob]

I am referring to the incident a couple of years ago with the two gay men kissing on the plaza and getting booted by church security staff.

That's some pretty soft "proof." But it doesn't go to whether the ACLU was right or wrong on that issue. The gay kissing incident occurred after the City sold the land to the church outright, without the easement, IIRC. That move eliminated the ACLUs claims, which were regarding the restrictions placed on the easement and agreed to by both the Church and the City.

[creekster]

That's some pretty soft "proof." But it doesn't go to whether the ACLU was right or wrong on that issue. The gay kissing incident occurred after the City sold the land to the church outright, without the easement, IIRC. That move eliminated the ACLUs claims, which were regarding the restrictions placed on the easement and agreed to by both the Church and the City.

It proves the church will not allow unfettered speech that would otherwise and elsewhere be protected on public property.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's some pretty soft "proof." But it doesn't go to whether the ACLU was right or wrong on that issue. The gay kissing incident occurred after the City sold the land to the church outright, without the easement, IIRC. That move eliminated the ACLUs claims, which were regarding the restrictions placed on the easement and agreed to by both the Church and the City.

I don't believe I claimed it was hard "proof" of anything. Yeah, I suppose the church had every right to boot them out, but it was an unfortunate and embarrassing case of discrimination.

Since you brought it up in the first place, why don't you educate us about what the ACLU did regarding the Main Street Plaza that was objectionable.

[pellegrino]

That's some pretty soft "proof." But it doesn't go to whether the ACLU was right or wrong on that issue. The gay kissing incident occurred after the City sold the land to the church outright, without the easement, IIRC. That move eliminated the ACLUs claims, which were regarding the restrictions placed on the easement and agreed to by both the Church and the City.

he didn't offer it as proof, he said that the ACLU may have been right about it and offered that as an example. IIRC, the ACLU was concerned that rights would be legally restricted by turning a public space into private land. That is why they opposed selling the property to the church, they were not against tearing up the road to make a public space more appealing, just selling a public space to a private entity who then could legally regulate it (which they did with the gay couple).

[UtahDan]

That's some pretty soft "proof." But it doesn't go to whether the ACLU was right or wrong on that issue. The gay kissing incident occurred after the City sold the land to the church outright, without the easement, IIRC. That move eliminated the ACLUs claims, which were regarding the restrictions placed on the easement and agreed to by both the Church and the City.

What is "soft proof?" The city sold what had formerly been a public area where people had historically engaged in various kinds of speech. The ACLU tried to intervene to say you can't close down a public forum to certain kinds of speech by selling it to an entity that will close it down to certain kinds of speech. Clearly the government could open or close the forum, but it could not close it to only certain things based on content; accordingly it shouldn't get to do the same thing by selling it. (Could the federal government sell the front steps of the Lincoln Memorial to the MLK family in an effort to close that area to hate speech so that the family could then close it and the government would not have violated the constitution?).

People said that was only a theoretical problem and that people would still be able to do what they had always done. That turned out not to be true at least initially.

[Jacob]

I don't believe I claimed it was hard "proof" of anything. Yeah, I suppose the church had every right to boot them out, but it was an unfortunate and embarrassing case of discrimination.

Since you brought it up in the first place, why don't you educate us about what the ACLU did regarding the Main Street Plaza that was objectionable.

As best I recall, the city sold the land to the church and the agreement included the limitation that the church would allow people to walk through the area (an easement), but that the church could make certain time, place, and manner restrictions on the area.

The ACLU made a legal argument that the constitution prohibited the church from making any such restrictions.

The city and the church made a new agreement where the land was given to the church without any restrictions.

This eliminated the ACLU legal argument. Thus, the arresting of the guys sitting on church property, which occurred after the final disposition is really irrelevant as to whether the ACLUs legal argument was a worthy one.

The end result was exactly what what intended by the parties to the transfer--the city and the church-- (though the church ended up paying an additional $5m or so) and IMO, the ACLUs efforts were no more than a nuisance based more in its disdain for the church than for its defense of liberty.

But I wasn't the one focusing on this issue.