New LDS Church Website: Mormons and Gays

[Moliere]

So the bill the church supports is in line with exemptions in the Civil Rights Act. , I suppose.

But just how many landlords in Utah have 4 or fewer units? It has to be a significant proportion. So a lot of landlords can go ahead and discriminate against LGBT people just as they did before, and be in full 'compliance' with the law. Whatever.

The more I think of this, it seems hardly anything has changed. Religion already had protections from discrimination. All this hand-wringing about the loss of religious freedom, and the high-fiving about how much the church supports anti-discrimination laws, for what? The bill shores up the church's right to discriminate in its affairs and protects a lot of members to do the same in the private sector. And what exactly does the other side get, that isn't going to be the norm in the next generation?

I don't share your view. I think this bill is a big deal and a decent piece of legislation. It has its quirks and limitations, but it's a great step forward in giving protections to gays. I frankly don't mind the limitations on housing (4 or less units) and employment (less than 15 employees) since they are not only in line with the Civil Rights Act limitations (are you going to argue the CRA didn't change anything?) and often times there are reasons to discriminate at that level.

I'd also say that a private organization should have the ability to discriminate. The church should be able to say who it employs and who it won't employ (TR status being one of those guidelines). The church just has to be willing to take the heat for its discrimination, which heat I'm sure will come in due time...like the pressure it faced in regards to the temple/PH ban. It is my opinion, however, that an organization that discriminates in these areas should not be allowed to be tax exempt...but that time isn't here yet, but I bet it's coming.

Also, you don't eat a cake in one bite. The LGBT crowd knows this is a significant win because this law will never be repealed. It will only be added upon. If the LGBT crowd were to hold out for the perfect piece of legislation, they likely wouldn't get it for quite a while.

[byu71]

So the bill the church supports is in line with exemptions in the Civil Rights Act. , I suppose.

But just how many landlords in Utah have 4 or fewer units? It has to be a significant proportion. So a lot of landlords can go ahead and discriminate against LGBT people just as they did before, and be in full 'compliance' with the law. Whatever.

The more I think of this, it seems hardly anything has changed. Religion already had protections from discrimination. All this hand-wringing about the loss of religious freedom, and the high-fiving about how much the church supports anti-discrimination laws, for what? The bill shores up the church's right to discriminate in its affairs and protects a lot of members to do the same in the private sector. And what exactly does the other side get, that isn't going to be the norm in the next generation?

Why do you think the LGBT community came out and praised this bill. Of course I don't mean all of them, but those I have seen on TV over and over asking for better treatment were praising this bill.

[Northwestcoug]

I don't share your view. I think this bill is a big deal and a decent piece of legislation. It has its quirks and limitations, but it's a great step forward in giving protections to gays. I frankly don't mind the limitations on housing (4 or less units) and employment (less than 15 employees) since they are not only in line with the Civil Rights Act limitations (are you going to argue the CRA didn't change anything?) and often times there are reasons to discriminate at that level.

I'd also say that a private organization should have the ability to discriminate. The church should be able to say who it employs and who it won't employ (TR status being one of those guidelines). The church just has to be willing to take the heat for its discrimination, which heat I'm sure will come in due time...like the pressure it faced in regards to the temple/PH ban. It is my opinion, however, that an organization that discriminates in these areas should not be allowed to be tax exempt...but that time isn't here yet, but I bet it's coming.

Also, you don't eat a cake in one bite. The LGBT crowd knows this is a significant win because this law will never be repealed. It will only be added upon. If the LGBT crowd were to hold out for the perfect piece of legislation, they likely wouldn't get it for quite a while.

I agree that this is a step forward. But now knowing the details I'm underwhelmed. I'm becoming more convinced that the church saw the need to support LGBT because of a fear that they were losing their 'right' to discriminate.
By the way, I disagree private institutions (other than religious) should be able to discriminate. If a private entity operates in the public sphere, it should have to comply with public laws. Simple as that. Religious institutions get narrowly carved-out exemptions.

Why do you think the LGBT community came out and praised this bill. Of course I don't mean all of them, but those I have seen on TV over and over asking for better treatment were praising this bill.

I'm not sure there's an official LGBT community that supports this legislation en bloc. But yes, I saw some who were enthusiastic about it. Others, however, were less so.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Interesting article in the NYT about the new legislation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us...n-leaders.html

Given the history and circumstances, this seems like a big deal to me.

[Moliere]

I agree that this is a step forward. But now knowing the details I'm underwhelmed. I'm becoming more convinced that the church saw the need to support LGBT because of a fear that they were losing their 'right' to discriminate.
By the way, I disagree private institutions (other than religious) should be able to discriminate. If a private entity operates in the public sphere, it should have to comply with public laws. Simple as that. Religious institutions get narrowly carved-out exemptions.

Yeah, I don't think I said what I wanted to say and I agree with this. The public accommodation rule thing is necessary and I believe the bakery that is owned by a Mormon and employs less than 15 people should have to bake the cake. Now, if it's a bakery owned by a church, then it gets the exemption. The interesting thing here is that all those apartments around temple square that are owned by the church will be able to discriminate.

[Moliere]

Interesting article in the NYT about the new legislation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us...n-leaders.html

Given the history and circumstances, this seems like a big deal to me.

I'm feeling better about this bill after reading what the SBC thinks of it:

Russell Moore, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said that for months he had tried to convince Mormon leaders that supporting anti-discrimination legislation “is not the right strategy.”

The Southern Baptist Convention and Roman Catholic bishops have been close allies with Mormon leaders in fighting to protect religious believers who object to same-sex marriage. But Dr. Moore said his church and the Catholic bishops have parted company with Mormon leaders over the Utah legislation.

“Christians and other religious people working in the marketplace are not really addressed in terms of their freedom of conscience,” Dr. Moore said. “I don’t think this will be a model.”

[imanihonjin]

Yeah, I don't think I said what I wanted to say and I agree with this. The public accommodation rule thing is necessary and I believe the bakery that is owned by a Mormon and employs less than 15 people should have to bake the cake. Now, if it's a bakery owned by a church, then it gets the exemption. The interesting thing here is that all those apartments around temple square that are owned by the church will be able to discriminate.

Why? Now before anyone gets all wound up, I think the bakery should bake the cake because it is the right and decent thing to do, but if they don't want to, why should they be compelled to? They should have to face the heat of public outcry for failing to do the right thing, but there is no need to compel them to do something they don't want to do. There are plenty of other businesses around who would welcome the extra business and those who fail to adapt and will be rejected by the public for holding the wrong morals will simply fail. Why do we need the government to mandate this?

[byu71]

I'm feeling better about this bill after reading what the SBC thinks of it:

Excellent, now if we could abolish the WOW, stop wearing G's and ordain women in that order, I think we would have a very cool up to date church.

[Paperback Writer]

Why? Now before anyone gets all wound up, I think the bakery should bake the cake because it is the right and decent thing to do, but if they don't want to, why should they be compelled to? They should have to face the heat of public outcry for failing to do the right thing, but there is no need to compel them to do something they don't want to do. There are plenty of other businesses around who would welcome the extra business and those who fail to adapt and will be rejected by the public for holding the wrong morals will simply fail. Why do we need the government to mandate this?

What if there are not plenty of other businesses around to welcome gays? What if, instead of a small bakery, it's a small restaurant? Should they be allowed to refuse service to a couple of woman who are holding hands? And maybe there isn't much public outcry from other restaurant patrons when the couple is turned away so there is no fear of public rejection. Laws are needed because there may not be public outcry, or not enough of it, for people to do the "right thing" because the "right thing" can be subjective in the minds of many. If that line of thinking doesn't work, how about a laundromat refusing service to a couple of missionaries because the owner doesn't like Mormons and knows his patrons may not either.

[Eddie]

What if there are not plenty of other businesses around to welcome gays? What if, instead of a small bakery, it's a small restaurant? Should they be allowed to refuse service to a couple of woman who are holding hands? And maybe there isn't much public outcry from other restaurant patrons when the couple is turned away so there is no fear of public rejection. Laws are needed because there may not be public outcry, or not enough of it, for people to do the "right thing" because the "right thing" can be subjective in the minds of many. If that line of thinking doesn't work, how about a laundromat refusing service to a couple of missionaries because the owner doesn't like Mormons and knows his patrons may not either.

That's crazy talk. A couple of women holding hands could be mother and daughter, sisters, cousins, whatever. Just because they're holding hands doesn't mean they are lesbians. There should probably be kissing involved. And since women are known to kiss each other (on the cheek, at least) it probably needs to be some pretty passionate kissing. Just to make sure they really are lesbians before they are refused service.

[Pelado]

That's crazy talk. A couple of women holding hands could be mother and daughter, sisters, cousins, whatever. Just because they're holding hands doesn't mean they are lesbians. There should probably be kissing involved. And since women are known to kiss each other (on the cheek, at least) it probably needs to be some pretty passionate kissing. Just to make sure they really are lesbians before they are refused service.

When two women come into my place of business together, I usually ask that they passionately kiss each other first to see if I should deny them service.

[Sullyute]

how about a laundromat refusing service to a couple of missionaries because the owner doesn't like Mormons and knows his patrons may not either.

I think I have heard this story before. The missionaries dusted off their feet on the owner and the establishment and some time later the place burned down. Amiright?

[Paperback Writer]

When two women come into my place of business together, I usually ask that they passionately kiss each other first to see if I should deny them service.

I trust that if one has the powers of discernment to distinguish between gay wedding cakes and striaght ones, then sorting out the Lesbians from the straight folks would be clear-cut.

[smokymountainrain]

That's crazy talk. A couple of women holding hands could be mother and daughter, sisters, cousins, whatever. Just because they're holding hands doesn't mean they are lesbians. There should probably be kissing involved. And since women are known to kiss each other (on the cheek, at least) it probably needs to be some pretty passionate kissing. Just to make sure they really are lesbians before they are refused service.

Tongue. Whether or not they use tongue should be the deciding factor.

[Paperback Writer]

I think I have heard this story before. The missionaries dusted off their feet on the owner and the establishment and some time later the place burned down. Amiright?

No, I lacked the faith necessary to compel the vengence of the almighty. My only recourse was to reason with the proprietor and get his agreement to let the missionaries once again use his laundromat on the condition that they not argue with any JW's or actively proselyte in his place of business. The Elders had been doing their laundry at a member's house after getting kicked out of the laundromat (the only one in town), but that option was taken away after a mssion rule change (another story). I was sent to mediate with the laundromat proprietor. He really didn't like Mormons but relented if we abided by his reasonable terms.