NOM

The church has made its opposition to the Equality Act public. This is the latest from the official mormonnewsroom.org. Any goodwill that was generated with the reversal of the POX has now been undone.

The Equality Act now before Congress is not balanced and does not meet the standard of fairness for all. While providing extremely broad protections for LGBT rights, the Equality Act provides no protections for religious freedom. It would instead repeal long-standing religious rights under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, threaten religious employment standards, devastate religious education, defund numerous religious charities and impose secular standards on religious activities and properties. The Church joins other religious organizations that also strongly oppose the Equality Act as unbalanced, fundamentally unfair and a path to further conflict.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/ ... l-approach

wow...

In one paragraph is written:
..."nondiscrimination in areas like housing, employment..."

In the next is written:
"... the right of religious organizations and religious schools to establish faith-based employment and admissions standards..."


in other words... ..."we urgently need laws that protect the rights of individuals and faith communities to freely ... discriminate against LGBT...."

...threaten religious employment standards, devastate religious education, defund numerous religious charities and impose secular standards on religious activities and properties... I think this is just what the church needs.

The equality act sounds great - let's hope it goes through!!

Looks like the Church is up to its old religious tricks. The Church will not permit the Civil Rights Act to protect LGBTQ folk because it inflames the hatred of the Brethren. Too bad they are not conversant with God since He would tell them to cool their jets and try being tolerant of others.

While providing extremely broad protections for LGBT rights, the Equality Act provides no protections for religious freedom.

"Religious Freedom" is a broad term that's now used by "non-profit" corporations to protect their rights to use investment schemes to hide billions in assets that were purchased with donations from members. Also to be able to write and pass legislation in their home state...with ease.

Frack TSCC!!!

More unsettling was how each of Utah’s representatives in Congress got in line with the church’s position.

RubinHighlander wrote: ↑

Tue May 14, 2019 7:00 am

While providing extremely broad protections for LGBT rights, the Equality Act provides no protections for religious freedom.

"Religious Freedom" is a broad term that's now used by "non-profit" corporations to protect their rights to use investment schemes to hide billions in assets that were purchased with donations from members. Also to be able to write and pass legislation in their home state...with ease.

Frack TSCC!!!

I support the use of Battlestar Galactica swearing

You go ahead and put your bigotry on display for the world to see, Mormon Church. You will find it increasingly difficult to attract converts (but then what’s new?), but far more importantly, increasingly difficult to retain the rising generation who doesn’t buy into your anti-LGBT oppressive authoritarian bs. You go ahead and keep overplaying your hand in the name of “religious freedom”, you out of touch old straight white men, and see where it gets you.

On this issue more than any other, you are helping my children see what you really are. So keep up the good work you bigots!

(Although I also want to recognize the horrendous collateral damage inflicted on gay members and those who love them with this. While I enjoy watching the Brethren make themselves look like Neanderthal bigots, I also sorrow for the people this hurts.)

The Church knows that if religious people cannot actively oppose the civil rights of others, then it is a direct assault against their very Mormanity. It would be like being forced to observe the tenets of Western Democracy and treating others as you would like to be treated.

Blashyrkh wrote: ↑

Tue May 14, 2019 10:26 am

I knoe that I will get flamed for this but for once, and only once, I agree with the church. I own three homes which I rent. I actually prefer to rent to gay men because they take the best care of the place. They NEVER miss the rent. Young white kids suck for all of the opposite reasons. However, being a private owner I believe that I should be able to do business with whom I please. If I choose not to rent to someone because they are white and young or black and elderly or gay or straight or left handed or liberal or conservative or a dog lover or a vegetarian or short or ugly I should be able to. Kharma (and word of mouth) will get around really, really fast and soon enough I will find myself with either three empty homes because people refuse to do business with me. Or with a huge waiting list because people like what I stand for. No one should be compelled to do business or even associate with those whom they choose not to.

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.

2bizE wrote: ↑

Tue May 14, 2019 7:22 am

RubinHighlander wrote: ↑

Tue May 14, 2019 7:00 am

While providing extremely broad protections for LGBT rights, the Equality Act provides no protections for religious freedom.

"Religious Freedom" is a broad term that's now used by "non-profit" corporations to protect their rights to use investment schemes to hide billions in assets that were purchased with donations from members. Also to be able to write and pass legislation in their home state...with ease.

Frack TSCC!!!

I support the use of Battlestar Galactica swearing

Feldercarb!

Blashyrkh wrote: ↑

Tue May 14, 2019 11:11 am

Not Buying It wrote: ↑

Tue May 14, 2019 10:39 am

Blashyrkh wrote: ↑

Tue May 14, 2019 10:26 am

I knoe that I will get flamed for this but for once, and only once, I agree with the church. I own three homes which I rent. I actually prefer to rent to gay men because they take the best care of the place. They NEVER miss the rent. Young white kids suck for all of the opposite reasons. However, being a private owner I believe that I should be able to do business with whom I please. If I choose not to rent to someone because they are white and young or black and elderly or gay or straight or left handed or liberal or conservative or a dog lover or a vegetarian or short or ugly I should be able to. Kharma (and word of mouth) will get around really, really fast and soon enough I will find myself with either three empty homes because people refuse to do business with me. Or with a huge waiting list because people like what I stand for. No one should be compelled to do business or even associate with those whom they choose not to.

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.

This assumes a provider steps in who is willing to provide comparable services for blacks. You’ve never heard of redlining, have you? In many Midwestern and eastern cities, blacks are concentrated in poorer, less affluent, more rundown neighborhoods because of the kind of discrimination you describe above. Banks specifically denied loans to blacks for houses in certain neighborhoods, sellers and landlords in those areas refused to sell or rent to black families, and black families got stuck in lower income neighborhoods, with worse schools, fewer opportunities, more crime, etc, resulting in systematic inequities we may never be able to rectify. Systematic racism has been supported by the practices you describe, putting us in a hole we may never dig ourselves out of. Look up “redlining”, it’s a real thing that had huge, tragic consequences.

Down South businesses owned by whites refusing to serve blacks was hardly rare a mere couple of decades ago (and even now in some areas), and those businesses had plenty of white customers to where they couldn’t care less about losing black business. Black businessmen lacked the financial capital to provide comparable quality and variety to black customers, so white people got much better stuff than black people.

You can’t count on competing landlords and businesses to step in and provide a comparable quality and variety of goods and services to a disenfranchised group. I promise you, blacks in the South would have loved it had that been the case. The whole reason non-discrimination laws exist is because experience has taught us that the type of scenario you describe doesn’t work for disenfranchised groups.

Does anybody else see the temple marriage change a preparation the church is making in case they are forced to marry LGBT+ couples or not marry at all?

slavereeno wrote: ↑

Tue May 14, 2019 1:49 pm

Does anybody else see the temple marriage change a preparation the church is making in case they are forced to marry LGBT+ couples or not marry at all?

100% - that was the rationale attached to that change last year.

This allows the church to basically be in a better position to just 'flip a switch' if a court claims they need to do LGBT weddings if they are to officiate marriages, and then could just shut down marriages in the temple and only do sealings.

It was definitely a defensive move though -- I really don't think it has as much to do with the pain caused to the families excluded as it was to get in a space where they were not as vulnerable to a big push down the road with regards to refusing LGBT weddings.

Does it feel to you like the church is acting like it is really jealous with this LGBT act. It is acting like a sibling of a child at a birthday where one kid is getting some gifts and the jealous one is not. The act isn’t about religious freedom because it doesn’t need that. Religious freedom is already in the bill of rights. This is about better treatment of humans and the church is trying to say it should be about the church and religious freedom instead of a few rights for gays...

Blashyrkh wrote: ↑

Tue May 14, 2019 11:11 am

Not Buying It wrote: ↑

Tue May 14, 2019 10:39 am

Blashyrkh wrote: ↑

Tue May 14, 2019 10:26 am

I knoe that I will get flamed for this but for once, and only once, I agree with the church. I own three homes which I rent. I actually prefer to rent to gay men because they take the best care of the place. They NEVER miss the rent. Young white kids suck for all of the opposite reasons. However, being a private owner I believe that I should be able to do business with whom I please. If I choose not to rent to someone because they are white and young or black and elderly or gay or straight or left handed or liberal or conservative or a dog lover or a vegetarian or short or ugly I should be able to. Kharma (and word of mouth) will get around really, really fast and soon enough I will find myself with either three empty homes because people refuse to do business with me. Or with a huge waiting list because people like what I stand for. No one should be compelled to do business or even associate with those whom they choose not to.

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.

Blashyrkh wrote: ↑

Wed May 15, 2019 5:20 am

What I also saw was Asians buying up stores in the inner city to make tons of money.

I don't see how that is an Asian thing. I often hear complaints about Asians coming into a neighborhood and taking "our" jobs and making money that was apparently intended for non-Asian people. From my experience people who are willing to work 18 hours/day, 7 days/week tend to succeed. The Asian people I know (and I know a lot) are also the hardest working people I know.

2bizE wrote: ↑

Tue May 14, 2019 7:22 am

RubinHighlander wrote: ↑

Tue May 14, 2019 7:00 am

While providing extremely broad protections for LGBT rights, the Equality Act provides no protections for religious freedom.

"Religious Freedom" is a broad term that's now used by "non-profit" corporations to protect their rights to use investment schemes to hide billions in assets that were purchased with donations from members. Also to be able to write and pass legislation in their home state...with ease.

Frack TSCC!!!

I support the use of Battlestar Galactica swearing

So say we all!

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.

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.

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.)