What's new
By:

Don't discriminate against da gays.

Interesting quote from the article:

"It is one of today's great ironies that some people who have fought so hard for LGBT rights now try to deny the rights of others to disagree with their public policy proposals," said Oaks.
Click to expand...
 
It is one of today's great ironies that some people who have fought so hard for LGBT rights now try to deny the rights of others to disagree with their public policy proposals," said Oaks.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, but the only problem is these "public policy proposals" as he calls them have historically been denying or taking away rights from the LBGT community - not the three claims he makes in the article. Classic bait and switch.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Interesting quote from the article:
Click to expand...

"It is one of today's great ironies that some people who have fought so hard for LGBT rights now try to deny the rights of others to disagree with their public policy proposals," said Oaks.
Click to expand...

Why does this not apply to Boy Scouts, landlords, and employers? Is the church trying to deny the rights of these people?
 
I don't see the problem. As a BYU professor I'm employed by the LDS church in a capacity where I have great influence on young LDS. I think it's reasonable that the church requires me to live by its standards to set an example for those youth. If I were to lose my church membership for any reason (including homosexual behavior) I would likely lose my job. Similarly, if I were not a believing, active church member I very likely wouldn't have been offered the job in the first place.

For general employers such standards wouldn't make sense. That's all that I'm seeing here--the church is saying that in general employers should not be able to discriminate against gays but that in certain situations where the employment has a strong religious mission and where said behavior is against the religious tenets, an exception should be made.
 
This is a surrender position for the church. They know that they've lost the larger war and are just trying to protect their smaller fiefdom as much as possible. This section will cave too. It's inevitable.
 
Sirkickyass said:
This is a surrender position for the church. They know that they've lost the larger war and are just trying to protect their smaller fiefdom as much as possible. This section will cave too. It's inevitable.
Click to expand...

You think the church will be forced to hire practicing homosexuals and others not in line with church doctrines to work at church HQ and to teach classes at BYU and other church institutions? If so, why? Is it that you think churches will not be permitted to give preference to hiring/retaining church members for such positions, or is there something else I haven't thought of?
 
colton said:
You think the church will be forced to hire practicing homosexuals and others not in line with church doctrines to work at church HQ and to teach classes at BYU and other church institutions? If so, why? Is it that you think churches will not be permitted to give preference to hiring/retaining church members for such positions, or is there something else I haven't thought of?
Click to expand...

I don't see the labor laws changing like that personally. For example we have positions where I work that require a person to be able to stand, like driving a reach truck (like a stand-up forklift). We are not required to make accommodations, and we are allowed to not hire someone who cannot stand all day to run the equipment. So we legally can choose to not hire a guy for that position specifically because he is in a wheelchair, let's say, and cannot fulfill the requirements of the job.

I think this would be something similar. The requirement is that they are a member of the church in good standing for those types of jobs, and if they are not they will not be hired. I just don't see those types of laws being changed like that.
 
colton said:
You think the church will be forced to hire practicing homosexuals and others not in line with church doctrines to work at church HQ and to teach classes at BYU and other church institutions? If so, why? Is it that you think churches will not be permitted to give preference to hiring/retaining church members for such positions, or is there something else I haven't thought of?
Click to expand...

I believe the church doctrine is going to change. There is going to be sudden continuing revelation in response to increasing legal pressure on the LGBT discrimination issue. There will be some Bob Jones University v. U.S. equivalent that comes down the pipeline.
 
Sirkickyass said:
I believe the church doctrine is going to change. There is going to be sudden continuing revelation in response to increasing legal pressure on the LGBT discrimination issue. There will be some Bob Jones University v. U.S. equivalent that comes down the pipeline.
Click to expand...

So you think the U.S. government will threaten to take away the LDS church's tax exempt status unless they change their views on the morality of homosexual relationships? What kind of time frame do you have in mind for that?

Personally, I think you are wrong on both counts. (a) Like LogGrad I think the U.S. will make religious exemptions for situations that make sense, and (b) Even if they threaten the church with a law like that, the LDS church won't change its views on homosexual behavior. The statements against homosexual relations are far more numerous and codified into LDS doctrine than was the issue of blacks and the priesthood (which I'm sure you have in mind).
 
colton said:
I don't see the problem. As a BYU professor I'm employed by the LDS church in a capacity where I have great influence on young LDS. I think it's reasonable that the church requires me to live by its standards to set an example for those youth. If I were to lose my church membership for any reason (including homosexual behavior) I would likely lose my job. Similarly, if I were not a believing, active church member I very likely wouldn't have been offered the job in the first place.

For general employers such standards wouldn't make sense. That's all that I'm seeing here--the church is saying that in general employers should not be able to discriminate against gays but that in certain situations where the employment has a strong religious mission and where said behavior is against the religious tenets, an exception should be made.
Click to expand...

There are two ways to look at this.

Legally-I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.

Morally-If it is immoral for one employer to discriminate it is immoral for the other. The church's position is clearly inconsistent morally speaking.

Edit: Here is a link outlining some of the rules to maintain 501c(3) status.
https://www.nonprofitrisk.org/library/articles/How_to_Lose_Your_Tax_Exempt_Status.shtml


This bit is interesting
“The political campaign intervention prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of organizations speaking for themselves as individuals,” said Crom. “Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions of the organization.”
Click to expand...
 
heyhey said:
There are two ways to look at this.

Legally-I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.

Morally-If it is immoral for one employer to discriminate it is immoral for the other. The church's position is clearly inconsistent morally speaking.
Click to expand...

Disagree, a private institution should have certain rights to operate as they please. They should also not be able to receive govt benefits though.
 
Beer said:
Disagree, a private institution should have certain rights to operate as they please. They should also not be able to receive govt benefits though.
Click to expand...

That is not the church's position. Their position is that they should be allowed to operate as they please but other private institutions/individuals should not be able to.
 
colton said:
So you think the U.S. government will threaten to take away the LDS church's tax exempt status unless they change their views on the morality of homosexual relationships? What kind of time frame do you have in mind for that?

Personally, I think you are wrong on both counts. (a) Like LogGrad I think the U.S. will make religious exemptions for situations that make sense, and (b) Even if they threaten the church with a law like that, the LDS church won't change its views on homosexual behavior. The statements against homosexual relations are far more numerous and codified into LDS doctrine than was the issue of blacks and the priesthood (which I'm sure you have in mind).
Click to expand...

It'll be a bit. I'd back of the envelope that at 20 years. The gov't also wouldn't mandate that they change their views, just tell them they have to hire homosexuals anyway or the discrimination will come at a cost.
 
I'm surprised that there has been some public backlash about this. As an LDS person, maybe I'm biased. However, this only seems like a well-intended message suggesting mutual respect and fair treatment for all.

"We reject persecution and retaliation of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief, economic circumstances or differences in gender or sexual orientation.”

I realize this isn't a perfect situation, regardless of your personal views or choices. However, opening up discussion and taking steps towards a better relationship seems like movement in the right direction if you ask me.

Let's not forget that there are people in this world that feel this way (see below):

effwestboro.jpg
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
I'm surprised that there has been some public backlash about this. As an LDS person, maybe I'm biased. However, this only seems like a well-intended message suggesting mutual respect and fair treatment for all.

"We reject persecution and retaliation of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief, economic circumstances or differences in gender or sexual orientation.”

I realize this isn't a perfect situation, regardless of your personal views or choices. However, opening up discussion and taking steps towards a better relationship seems like movement in the right direction if you ask me.

Let's not forget that there are people in this world that feel this way (see below):

effwestboro.jpg
Click to expand...

What terrific Christian examples!
 
So when a customer comes in can they demand that a baker make them a cake with a Bible and an anti-gay saying on it?

I mean, after all, we wouldn't want bakers denying anyone service, right?
 
Why shouldn't religions have the right to discriminate however they want? To my knowledge, religions still can deny any mixed marriage they want. So why would gays receive better treatment than those of different races?

If people don't like churches that discriminate, they could always stop giving them money, right?

If BYU wants to only hire white male balding RMs with names starting with C shouldn't that be their prerogative?
 
The Thriller said:
Why shouldn't religions have the right to discriminate however they want? To my knowledge, religions still can deny any mixed marriage they want. So why would gays receive better treatment than those of different races?

If people don't like churches that discriminate, they could always stop giving them money, right?

If BYU wants to only hire white male balding RMs with names starting with C shouldn't that be their prerogative?
Click to expand...

I think y'all are still missing what I was trying to say. I must not have communicated it very well. I am not advocating to force the church to do anything. I'm not advocating for any legal action.

I'm simply pointing out what I see as hypocrisy. "It is so morally objectionable to discriminate based on sexual orientation that there ought to be a law against it *unless you have religious reasons." Is that what the LDS church strives to be? An excuse to discriminate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top