The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

[UTEopia]

One step forward, two steps back: http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/1...-gay-weddings/

I guess I have a simplistic view of this. In my home my religious beliefs allow me to discriminate against anyone and everyone if I so choose. I can refuse to allow anyone I want to enter my home. When I enter the public square, my religious beliefs allow me to advocate discrimination against everyone, but my religious beliefs to do not allow me to prevent others from advocating the opposite position. When I enter the public marketplace, my religious beliefs do not allow me to discriminate against protected groups. I am not forced to enter the public marketplace, but if I do, I must play by those rules.

[Scorcho]

One step forward, two steps back: http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/1...-gay-weddings/

I guess I have a simplistic view of this. In my home my religious beliefs allow me to discriminate against anyone and everyone if I so choose. I can refuse to allow anyone I want to enter my home. When I enter the public square, my religious beliefs allow me to advocate discrimination against everyone, but my religious beliefs to do not allow me to prevent others from advocating the opposite position. When I enter the public marketplace, my religious beliefs do not allow me to discriminate against protected groups. I am not forced to enter the public marketplace, but if I do, I must play by those rules.

Is it just me or is the LDS Church sending out mixed messages?

The LDS Church admirably will stand by the LGBT community when it comes to housing and other basic rights, but when it comes to complicated matters such as baking a wedding cake, well you're on your own. Its what Jesus would want.

sigh!

[UTEopia]

Is it just me or is the LDS Church sending out mixed messages?

The LDS Church admirably will stand by the LGBT community when it comes to housing and other basic rights, but when it comes to complicated matters such as baking a wedding cake, well you're on your own. Its what Jesus would want.

sigh!

One unfortunate result of actions like these is that it invites LDS members disposed to discriminate to do so and to feel that the church is encouraging them to do so.

[sancho]

but when it comes to complicated matters such as baking a wedding cake,

I don't think they see this as a cake - they see it as a precedent that leads to bishops being forced to perform weddings for gay couples. Maybe the law talkers can weigh in.

[Applejack]

I don't think they see this as a cake - they see it as a precedent that leads to bishops being forced to perform weddings for gay couples. Maybe the law talkers can weigh in.

Requiring a buisnes to not discriminate will lead to forced weddings of gay couples? Awfully slippery slope there.

[sancho]

Requiring a buisnes to not discriminate will lead to forced weddings of gay couples? Awfully slippery slope there.

You're the law guy. It's all Greek to me. I just figure that a slippery slope is what the church is worried about. I don't think they care about the cake.

[Applejack]

You're the law guy. It's all Greek to me. I just figure that a slippery slope is what the church is worried about. I don't think they care about the cake.

Yeah, I assume you are right. The thing I don't get is the church has tons of attorneys, many good ones. I just can't believe they believe this will eventually result in requiring gay marriage for churches.

[sancho]

Yeah, I assume you are right. The thing I don't get is the church has tons of attorneys, many good ones. I just can't believe they believe this will eventually result in requiring gay marriage for churches.

Maybe the worry is not that specific. The church seems concerned in general about where things could go with religious freedom issues.

[LA Ute]

Requiring a buisnes to not discriminate will lead to forced weddings of gay couples? Awfully slippery slope there.

Right on cue, you're ridiculing the slippery slope argument. But you know that this case is going to result in a decision, which will be a precedent in future cases, based on which creative lawyers on either side will bring cases, seeking to push the boundaries of the law one direction or the other. That's how it works, as you know.

This is all political anyway. Supreme Court decisions amount to politics, buffered by the appointments process. If there are enough justices on the Court who want to find a way to get to the bottom of that slippery slope, they will.

[Applejack]

Right on cue, you're ridiculing the slippery slope argument. But you know that this case is going to result in a decision, which will be a precedent in future cases, based on which creative lawyers on either side will bring cases, seeking to push the boundaries of the law one direction or the other. That's how it works, as you know.

This is all political anyway. Supreme Court decisions amount to politics, buffered by the appointments process. If there are enough justices on the Court who want to find a way to get to the bottom of that slippery slope, they will.

I honestly hate these cases (cakes? Who cares?). But I don't buy that if this case comes out in support of the buyer that we are any closer to abolishing the first amendment. We just aren't.

This country has a long history of rights to practice religion. I don't see any, Any evidence that that is under attack.

I think the church's drumbeat about religious freedom (or more properly, oakes') is misguided.

[sancho]

I honestly hate these cases (cakes? Who cares?). But I don't buy that if this case comes out in support of the buyer that we are any closer to abolishing the first amendment. We just aren't.

This country has a long history of rights to practice religion. I don't see any, Any evidence that that is under attack.

I think the church's drumbeat about religious freedom (or more properly, oakes') is misguided.

Oaks is a pretty knowledgeable law-guy, too, though. He may have insights that you don't. And you probably have some that he doesn't share. And you both know a million times more than I do.

Mormons have both historical and doctrinal (end-of-days!) reasons to fear issues related to religious freedom. Maybe we are hyper-sensitive to it because of that.

I read through the Atlantic's three-part series on title IX this past week. It's not related to religion, but it's striking how many people are okay with limiting others' protections and freedoms in support of their own causes.

Slippery slopes/boiling frogs - the point is that you don't see how the result brings us any closer to the undesirable outcome. And the argument both ways on the cake thing is a slippery slope argument. On the one hand, you have those afraid of LDS bishops being forced to marry gay couples. On the other, you have those afraid of segregated sections of restaurants. All over a cake which seemingly can't move the needle in either direction. One thing we do agree on - this is all dumb.

[LA Ute]

I honestly hate these cases (cakes? Who cares?). But I don't buy that if this case comes out in support of the buyer that we are any closer to abolishing the first amendment. We just aren't.

Bit of a straw man, wouldn't you agree? 😉

I was mainly trying to describe what think (think) the church is worried about. Just my impression.

I am personally pretty fatalistic about this whole subject. I think society is going to continue to secularize, and it will be harder and harder to be religious person. Nothing new in that idea, it's been prophesied for centuries. I think the church is just trying to do its best to carve out a place for itself and its members in that world. I doubt they even think they will succeed, long-term. They just want to raise their voices in support of what they believe is right. And, as sancho said, they're trying to do so in a way that doesn't hurt or discriminate against anybody, or cause hatred or anything along those lines.

[mpfunk]

I don't think they see this as a cake - they see it as a precedent that leads to bishops being forced to perform weddings for gay couples. Maybe the law talkers can weigh in.

Unless they have deep seeded hatred of homosexuals causing them to be irrational, there is no reason this should be a concern. It will never happen.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk