New LDS Church Website: Mormons and Gays

[old_gregg]

why tf is a wedding cake a public accommodation?

[falafel]

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/1...-gay-weddings/

1 step forward, 2 or more steps back. This is why when people involved with the LDS church talk about change happening but slowly, there remains skepticism that there is actually meaningful change happening and not just PR.

I hope people are never forced to bake a cake for someone if they don't want to. What an incredibly idiotic point to argue. Is there a shortage of gay friendly bakers out there?

[grapevine]

TomChristoffeson is having book come out. How his family accepted him and his partner, but he left so he could get back in church. That is interesting for someone that family has member in tough situation. He may have his blessings restored now. I am sure Todd did it. Interesting on how parents dealt with someone that made choices they didn't agree with.

[Solon]

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.

[CardiacCoug]

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.

Totally agree that the wedding cake example isn't a "religious freedom" issue.

What religion teaches "Thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay couple!"?

But it's gotta make normal people uncomfortable to propose that the government compel somebody in an artistic, private endeavor.

What's next? Being able to sue an artist for not agreeing to be paid for a commissioned painting that he prefers not to do? That's crazy.

[Solon]

Totally agree that the wedding cake example isn't a "religious freedom" issue.

What religion teaches "Thou shalt not bake a cake for a gay couple!"?

But it's gotta make normal people uncomfortable to propose that the government compel somebody in an artistic, private endeavor.

What's next? Being able to sue an artist for not agreeing to be paid for a commissioned painting that he prefers not to do? That's crazy.

I don't disagree, which is why this is such an interesting case.

I just don't think the cake situation falls under the category of "religious freedom."
Religious freedom means not having your head cut off by ISIS, or not being expelled from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella.
The churches that have weighed in cheapen the concept of "religious freedom" when they equate conscientious cake-baking to that kind of stuff.

[MartyFunkhouser]

That's a pretty poor example of your point.

The church advocating for allowing business to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is a poor example of my point. I guess I just disagree.

I hope people are never forced to bake a cake for someone if they don't want to. What an incredibly idiotic point to argue. Is there a shortage of gay friendly bakers out there?

I hope people are never forced to serve food to a minority if they don't want to. What an incredibly idiotic point to argue. Is there a shortage of minority friendly restaurants out there?

[Flystripper]

well played

[falafel]

The church advocating for allowing business to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is a poor example of my point. I guess I just disagree.

I hope people are never forced to serve food to a minority if they don't want to. What an incredibly idiotic point to argue. Is there a shortage of minority friendly restaurants out there?

How many mainstream religions teach that skin color is a sin?

[creekster]

I don't disagree, which is why this is such an interesting case.

I just don't think the cake situation falls under the category of "religious freedom."
Religious freedom means not having your head cut off by ISIS, or not being expelled from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella.
The churches that have weighed in cheapen the concept of "religious freedom" when they equate conscientious cake-baking to that kind of stuff.

The rights to associate, speak freely and practice your religion spill over substantially into one another. Encroachments on these freedoms will rarely, if ever, come from direct curtailments. Instead, they will come from incremental steps in decisions that cumulatively creep toward an undesirable result. When they come for me, boiling frog, slippery slope and all that. As a result, I think churches and other organizations and persons SHOULD take an interest in these interrelated arguments. Who better to raise awareness of how such cases might affect religious freedoms down the road than churches? I really don't understand what it means to 'cheapen' the right in this context.

[creekster]

The church advocating for allowing business to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is a poor example of my point. I guess I just disagree.



I hope people are never forced to serve food to a minority if they don't want to. What an incredibly idiotic point to argue. Is there a shortage of minority friendly restaurants out there?

If your point is that attitudes arent changing then, yes, this is a weak example.

[MartyFunkhouser]

How many mainstream religions teach that skin color is a sin?

I can think of one mainstream religion that may not have taught that skin color is a sin, but did restrict status based on skin color and teach that skin color was the "mark of Cain." Also, that skin color was an indication of someone being a less righteous "fence sitter."

I think this religion also might have considered interracial marriage a sin at one point and been against a cake being baked for an interracial marriage.

[old_gregg]

I hope people are never forced to serve food to a minority if they don't want to. What an incredibly idiotic point to argue. Is there a shortage of minority friendly restaurants out there?

kind of a silly point on your part mr funk. a wedding cake is not a public accommodation and is pretty clearly different from true public accommodations

[falafel]

I can think of one mainstream religion that may not have taught that skin color is a sin, but did restrict status based on skin color and teach that skin color was the "mark of Cain." Also, that skin color was an indication of someone being a less righteous "fence sitter."

I think this religion also might have considered interracial marriage a sin at one point and been against a cake being baked for an interracial marriage.

This seems to sum up your posting on most matters these days.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Behold, whosoever compelleth thee to bake a gay wedding cake, bake for him two.

Pretty sure Jesus said that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk