church opposition to the Equality Act

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
User avatar
Not Buying It
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:29 pm

Re: church opposition to the Equality Act

Post by Not Buying It » Wed May 15, 2019 9:38 am

Blashyrkh wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 5:20 am
Yes I am white. Pasty white. However, I grew up in Atlanta while my dad was at Ft. McPherson. No not the nice white Buckhead areas but the ghetto Adams Park area. I was one of about 10 white kids in my graduating class. I do realize the discrimination that minorities experienced as I got my ass kicked routinely simply for being a skinny white kid. I had to finally bash another kids face open with a rock in order to show that I would protect myself and stop getting sucker punched. My sister was sexually assaulted at school because it was a nothing more than a game to some people. What I also saw was Asians buying up stores in the inner city to make tons of money. I saw black men and women earn their doctorates and move back to their communities to provide services to the places they grew up. I saw the LGBTQ community buy up homes in the Grant Park area and turn what was once a horrid dump into a nice and clean community. Regardless of all of this I still believe that in a free society, no one should br forced to associate with anyone they don't want too.
I am truly sorry for the discrimination you and your family experienced. It is wrong regardless of whether whites or blacks are the targets.

I have to admit, your argument has an intuitive appeal - it is my building, I will rent to who I want. It is my restaurant, I will serve who I want. It is my business, I will sell to who I want. It is already well established, however, that there are constraints on the rights of private ownership. For example, eminent domain laws allow the government to take the home I have owned and lived in for decades and turn it into a freeway on-ramp, as happened to someone I know - even though it is my property. I may own a restaurant, but I am not free to disregard health codes or I get shut down - even though it is my restaurant. I may own a piece of land, but zoning laws prohibit me from, for example, building a sexually-oriented business if there is a school nearby, or perhaps even building any kind of business if it's in a residential area - even though it is my land. I may rent out a house, but there are laws that govern my ability to evict the tenants - even though I own the building. I can own a store, but I can't sell liquor if I don't have a license, I can't sell liquor to anyone under 21, and can't sell on Sundays in some cities - even though it is my store. I could keep going, but I am sure you get the point.

Given the dozens, if not hundreds of laws that already govern and circumscribe my rights as a landlord or business owner, I think we can all agree that owning something does not give me unrestricted rights in how I use it for commerce. I don't see how telling me my bakery has to serve gay customers is any different than telling me my bakery has to follow health codes, or how telling me I have to rent to blacks is any different than telling me I have to follow laws regarding evictions. Anti-discrimination laws are only a small subset of many, many laws that tell landlords and business owners exactly what they can and can't do with their own property. I don't see much of a distinction between anti-discrimination laws and lots of other well-established and longstanding laws.
"The truth is elegantly simple. The lie needs complex apologia. 4 simple words: Joe made it up. It answers everything with the perfect simplicity of Occam's Razor. Every convoluted excuse withers." - Some guy on Reddit called disposazelph

User avatar
RubinHighlander
Posts: 1289
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:20 am
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: church opposition to the Equality Act

Post by RubinHighlander » Wed May 15, 2019 9:39 am

This thread reminded me of a YT video I watched recently on "attacking ideas" about religions and groups and polarization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9rTbh4a57o

The tribalism runs deep in our genetic make up. It could be our undoing if we can't evolve past it.
“Sir,' I said to the universe, 'I exist.' 'That,' said the universe, 'creates no sense of obligation in me whatsoever.”
--Douglas Adams

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzmYP3PbfXE

Blashyrkh
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:39 am

Re: church opposition to the Equality Act

Post by Blashyrkh » Thu May 16, 2019 8:05 am

Lloyd Christmas wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 12:13 am
Blashyrkh wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:11 am
Not Buying It wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 10:39 am


So - if all landowners in America were white and none of them wanted to rent to anyone who was black, a nation full of homeless black people is OK then?
If all store owners in America were white and none of them wanted to sell goods to anyone who was black, a nation full of starving black people is OK then?
If all doctor's offices in America were white and none of them wanted to treat anyone who was black, a nation full of untreated black people in need of medical care is OK then?

Sure, my examples are extreme - however, this kind of thinking is exactly what has caused the racial disparity we still see around us 150 years after slavery and 50 years after the Civil Rights movement. It cannot be rationally argued that the kind of discrimination described above has not help perpetuate the racial inequities in the U.S. that persist today.
Yes. I think this is alright. What happens in these situations is the discriminated group does what they have to in order to fullfill their needs. Not only that but what is the one thing that rules all politics, business and religion? Money. If there isn't a doctor in town who will serve Asians then I guarantee that a doctor from out of town will see the void, move into town and only serve Asians and rack up the money. Let's say I own a roofing business and word gets out that I wont do work for LGBTQ people. Pretty soon that word gets out and I am out of business. The cost of sticking to my beliefs gets really expensive. Very few businesses will do this. My point is that an individual, business, religion, cult, doctor, biker gang or drug cartel or roofer should be forced to associate with anyone they choose not to.

Blashyrkh, you're very clearly not Black, or gay. I'm guessing you're not a racial minority? I'm also guessing you've been blessed by white privilege your whole life and don't have any close black relatives or friends. If you do, I would be interested if you have discussed your opinion with them

Not buying it is spot on. I would do a little research on what life was like for black America with people practicing precisely what you describe in the 50s. Middle class blacks were unable to move to nice, suburban white neighborhoods because banks wouldn't give them loans, and owner's wouldn't rent to them. How is it just that one would be forced to live in high crime areas, with poor education options because you were born with a darker skin color?.

This talk of religious freedom is more about giving religious people legal means to discriminate against gays. Like not make a wedding cake, or cater or provide flowers. Is this comparable to the racial discrimination? I think there are some similarities. The primary difference is, most religious people think homosexuality is a choice, not that one is born that way. So religious people don't want to support the sin of homosexuality. Having some family members that are gay and grew up Mormon, I think you're born that way. At least some people. Some maybe have a predisposition but not fully homosexual. With racial discrimination, there's no question that's how you were born. And discrimination merely because of how you were born is wrong.
So according to your logic if you own a duplex and you have children and all of the sudden your tenant starts receiving fan-mail from NAMBLA, you don't have a right to say "um, I don't think this is going to work out." Or if he tells you that he is the president of the "North American Society for the Elimination of Minorities," and that he is using the address that you share to support his legal and legitimate business. I guarantee that most people would do whatever they could to get these tenants out. And in my opinion they should be able to.

User avatar
StarbucksMom
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:14 am

Re: church opposition to the Equality Act

Post by StarbucksMom » Thu May 16, 2019 8:46 am

I am wondering if this is about LDS Inc
1-having to marry gays
2-or getting in trouble for discriminating against gays/losing tax exempt status/being forced to disclose financials. (once they have to disclose, IMO that will be the end of the “church” and they’ll just have their real estate business.)

User avatar
alas
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: church opposition to the Equality Act

Post by alas » Thu May 16, 2019 8:47 am

Blashyrkh wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 8:05 am
Lloyd Christmas wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 12:13 am
Blashyrkh wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:11 am

Yes. I think this is alright. What happens in these situations is the discriminated group does what they have to in order to fullfill their needs. Not only that but what is the one thing that rules all politics, business and religion? Money. If there isn't a doctor in town who will serve Asians then I guarantee that a doctor from out of town will see the void, move into town and only serve Asians and rack up the money. Let's say I own a roofing business and word gets out that I wont do work for LGBTQ people. Pretty soon that word gets out and I am out of business. The cost of sticking to my beliefs gets really expensive. Very few businesses will do this. My point is that an individual, business, religion, cult, doctor, biker gang or drug cartel or roofer should be forced to associate with anyone they choose not to.

Blashyrkh, you're very clearly not Black, or gay. I'm guessing you're not a racial minority? I'm also guessing you've been blessed by white privilege your whole life and don't have any close black relatives or friends. If you do, I would be interested if you have discussed your opinion with them

Not buying it is spot on. I would do a little research on what life was like for black America with people practicing precisely what you describe in the 50s. Middle class blacks were unable to move to nice, suburban white neighborhoods because banks wouldn't give them loans, and owner's wouldn't rent to them. How is it just that one would be forced to live in high crime areas, with poor education options because you were born with a darker skin color?.

This talk of religious freedom is more about giving religious people legal means to discriminate against gays. Like not make a wedding cake, or cater or provide flowers. Is this comparable to the racial discrimination? I think there are some similarities. The primary difference is, most religious people think homosexuality is a choice, not that one is born that way. So religious people don't want to support the sin of homosexuality. Having some family members that are gay and grew up Mormon, I think you're born that way. At least some people. Some maybe have a predisposition but not fully homosexual. With racial discrimination, there's no question that's how you were born. And discrimination merely because of how you were born is wrong.
So according to your logic if you own a duplex and you have children and all of the sudden your tenant starts receiving fan-mail from NAMBLA, you don't have a right to say "um, I don't think this is going to work out." Or if he tells you that he is the president of the "North American Society for the Elimination of Minorities," and that he is using the address that you share to support his legal and legitimate business. I guarantee that most people would do whatever they could to get these tenants out. And in my opinion they should be able to.
I think your examples here are reasons for eviction, not discrimination. There is a difference. Discrimination is because of skin color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or some outward something that most often the person can’t change. There s reason for not renting to this individual, there is prejudice, and then there is discrimination.

I know of one landlord who refused to rent to single girls, not because there was something wrong with the girls, but because too often they had boy friends that got horsing around and destroyed things. But young men were responsible about the place they were renting, just not the place their girlfriends rented. The girls had no problem getting other places because most landlords preferred girls because they kept the place cleaner. So, no problem with his prejudice. But what if everyone felt that way? Rent for girls might end up twice as high as rent for boys. See, then it becomes discrimination and most landlords hurt everyone of that group.

My daughter is currently evicting her husband’s niece because of behavior. That is not discrimination, that is one individual. That is the difference between when it should be alright and when it is wrong and should be illegal.

Blashyrkh
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:39 am

Re: church opposition to the Equality Act

Post by Blashyrkh » Fri May 17, 2019 4:03 am

alas wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 8:47 am
Blashyrkh wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 8:05 am
Lloyd Christmas wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 12:13 am



Blashyrkh, you're very clearly not Black, or gay. I'm guessing you're not a racial minority? I'm also guessing you've been blessed by white privilege your whole life and don't have any close black relatives or friends. If you do, I would be interested if you have discussed your opinion with them

Not buying it is spot on. I would do a little research on what life was like for black America with people practicing precisely what you describe in the 50s. Middle class blacks were unable to move to nice, suburban white neighborhoods because banks wouldn't give them loans, and owner's wouldn't rent to them. How is it just that one would be forced to live in high crime areas, with poor education options because you were born with a darker skin color?.

This talk of religious freedom is more about giving religious people legal means to discriminate against gays. Like not make a wedding cake, or cater or provide flowers. Is this comparable to the racial discrimination? I think there are some similarities. The primary difference is, most religious people think homosexuality is a choice, not that one is born that way. So religious people don't want to support the sin of homosexuality. Having some family members that are gay and grew up Mormon, I think you're born that way. At least some people. Some maybe have a predisposition but not fully homosexual. With racial discrimination, there's no question that's how you were born. And discrimination merely because of how you were born is wrong.
So according to your logic if you own a duplex and you have children and all of the sudden your tenant starts receiving fan-mail from NAMBLA, you don't have a right to say "um, I don't think this is going to work out." Or if he tells you that he is the president of the "North American Society for the Elimination of Minorities," and that he is using the address that you share to support his legal and legitimate business. I guarantee that most people would do whatever they could to get these tenants out. And in my opinion they should be able to.
I think your examples here are reasons for eviction, not discrimination. There is a difference. Discrimination is because of skin color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or some outward something that most often the person can’t change. There s reason for not renting to this individual, there is prejudice, and then there is discrimination.

I know of one landlord who refused to rent to single girls, not because there was something wrong with the girls, but because too often they had boy friends that got horsing around and destroyed things. But young men were responsible about the place they were renting, just not the place their girlfriends rented. The girls had no problem getting other places because most landlords preferred girls because they kept the place cleaner. So, no problem with his prejudice. But what if everyone felt that way? Rent for girls might end up twice as high as rent for boys. See, then it becomes discrimination and most landlords hurt everyone of that group.

My daughter is currently evicting her husband’s niece because of behavior. That is not discrimination, that is one individual. That is the difference between when it should be alright and when it is wrong and should be illegal.
So you can evict someone even though they have never done anything illegal? You can evict someone simply for being a white supremacist? Or for their sexuality that you disapprove of? How is this any different than refusing to rent because of their ethnicity? It seems that you want to kick people out if they don't hold your values and yet demand that others rent to those whom they don't approve of.

User avatar
alas
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: church opposition to the Equality Act

Post by alas » Fri May 17, 2019 4:19 pm

Blashyrkh wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 4:03 am
alas wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 8:47 am
Blashyrkh wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 8:05 am

So according to your logic if you own a duplex and you have children and all of the sudden your tenant starts receiving fan-mail from NAMBLA, you don't have a right to say "um, I don't think this is going to work out." Or if he tells you that he is the president of the "North American Society for the Elimination of Minorities," and that he is using the address that you share to support his legal and legitimate business. I guarantee that most people would do whatever they could to get these tenants out. And in my opinion they should be able to.
I think your examples here are reasons for eviction, not discrimination. There is a difference. Discrimination is because of skin color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or some outward something that most often the person can’t change. There s reason for not renting to this individual, there is prejudice, and then there is discrimination.

I know of one landlord who refused to rent to single girls, not because there was something wrong with the girls, but because too often they had boy friends that got horsing around and destroyed things. But young men were responsible about the place they were renting, just not the place their girlfriends rented. The girls had no problem getting other places because most landlords preferred girls because they kept the place cleaner. So, no problem with his prejudice. But what if everyone felt that way? Rent for girls might end up twice as high as rent for boys. See, then it becomes discrimination and most landlords hurt everyone of that group.

My daughter is currently evicting her husband’s niece because of behavior. That is not discrimination, that is one individual. That is the difference between when it should be alright and when it is wrong and should be illegal.
So you can evict someone even though they have never done anything illegal? You can evict someone simply for being a white supremacist? Or for their sexuality that you disapprove of? How is this any different than refusing to rent because of their ethnicity? It seems that you want to kick people out if they don't hold your values and yet demand that others rent to those whom they don't approve of.
I just drew a distinction between prejudice or discrimination and holding people accountable for their own behavior. You were mixing the concepts. And you are still mixing them by saying I want to evict because I disapprove of someone’s sexual orientation. That just isn’t behavior that is any of your business and would be discrimination. Molesting children would be different. That behavior makes them dangerous to others. I am not making any claims about what does or does not justify eviction as that varies by state and city anyway. And that would still be discrimination unless they have done something (behavior) that justifies not renting to them or evicting them. There are legal limits on who you can evict and why, and no, I don’t think you can evict someone for being a white supremacist. That is belief anyway, which is covered by nondiscrimination laws on the basis of religion, and is not behavior. But if they are hurling racial slurs at your other residents, which is behavior, you might have a case. I don’t make any distinction between when you can refuse to rent or evict because yes they are the same thing. I disagree with you on the idea that you should be able to refuse to rent to someone based on anything but behavior. So, if they have bad credit that shows a history of bad behavior. Refuse to rent. If they are on the sex offenders list and there are small children in the building, that is based on past behavior and you can refuse to rent. But them being a member of a specific group, even white supremacists, would be discrimination. So, then tell them you don’t have any empty apartments because you decided on seeing their Confederate flag, that your empty apartment needs repainting. ;)

I think refusal to rent or do business should depend on the person’s behavior (that impacts you as business person) and not the group they belong to whether it is religion, race, sexual orientation, or white supremacy.

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 2343
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: church opposition to the Equality Act

Post by moksha » Sat May 18, 2019 8:14 am

Alas wrote:I think your examples here are reasons for eviction, not discrimination. There is a difference. Discrimination is because of skin color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or some outward something that most often the person can’t change.
These are excellent points Alas. Assuming criminal intent is ill-founded. It is like refusing to rent to Mormon newlyweds based on the assumption that they will begin polygamating once they get into the apartment. Most likely they will remain monogamous. Assuming that LQBTQ renters will be engaging in some criminal act is the same thing. This is basically a call to enable bad behavior on the part of the discriminator. I don't want to give them a pass to begin acting out their hatreds based on their religion. Civil rights should not be hobbled by religiously allowed persecution.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests