The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

[mpfunk]

Agree or disagree, the Colorado wedding cake case looms large here.

That case has nothing to do with religious freedom. He is 100% free to practice his religion. No one has or will restrict his freedom of religion. He may not be able to use his religion as an excuse to discriminate if he decides to own a business.

The claims of eroding of religious freedom are absolute bullshit and have about as much validity as the claims of flat earthers.

Oh and the LDS church proves once again there is zero place in the religion for LGBTQ people. The LDS church's "fairness for all" = laws vigorously protecting freedom of religion and "basic human rights" for the gays.

[LA Ute]

The claims of eroding of religious freedom are absolute bullshit and have about as much validity as the claims of flat earthers.

Methinks thou dost hyperbolize too much.

Oh and the LDS church proves once again there is zero place in the religion for LGBTQ people.

I don't think that's fair: https://mormonandgay.lds.org/

[mpfunk]

Methinks thou dost hyperbolize too much.



I don't think that's fair: https://mormonandgay.lds.org/

Tell me a real world example where religious freedom is being infringed on?

I think it is very fair to say there is no place in the LDS church for LGBTQ people when you look at the treatment of them by the LDS church, not some PR website.

[Rocker Ute]

He may not be able to use his religion as an excuse to discriminate if he decides to own a business.

Didn't the Supreme Court rule in favor of the baker 7-2? Did they also not rule in favor of Hobby Lobby?

When it comes the this bill, I think the compromise the Church is seeking has already been modeled in SLC, which has law for equal rights for LGBTQ people. On the other hand, have those protections of religious freedoms expressed in the law locally actually eroded the rights of LGBTQ in any way?

And yes I think the reason the Church is being preemptive in this is because of weddings and perhaps other religious ceremonies. The ruling in the Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage affirmed it was a human right. It wouldn't seem to be too much of a leap for someone to challenge the church that if they are going to perform weddings for some, they need to perform weddings for all. (A side note on this, but I also think the recent policy change regarding civil marriages is to counteract this possibility - that if they do ultimately lose that battle they'll get out of the wedding business altogether and just perform sealings).

[LA Ute]

(A side note on this, but I also think the recent policy change regarding civil marriages is to counteract this possibility - that if they do ultimately lose that battle they'll get out of the wedding business altogether and just perform sealings).

I agree.

[UTEopia]

Didn't the Supreme Court rule in favor of the baker 7-2? Did they also not rule in favor of Hobby Lobby?

When it comes the this bill, I think the compromise the Church is seeking has already been modeled in SLC, which has law for equal rights for LGBTQ people. On the other hand, have those protections of religious freedoms expressed in the law locally actually eroded the rights of LGBTQ in any way?

And yes I think the reason the Church is being preemptive in this is because of weddings and perhaps other religious ceremonies. The ruling in the Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage affirmed it was a human right. It wouldn't seem to be too much of a leap for someone to challenge the church that if they are going to perform weddings for some, they need to perform weddings for all. (A side note on this, but I also think the recent policy change regarding civil marriages is to counteract this possibility - that if they do ultimately lose that battle they'll get out of the wedding business altogether and just perform sealings).

The Supreme Court ruled on procedural grounds in the baker case that allow Colorado to go through it all again if it chooses.

Here is the language added to the Utah law:

34A-5-111.Application to the freedom of expressive association and the free
688 exercise of religion.
689 This chapter may not be interpreted to infringe upon the freedom of expressive
690 association or the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment of the United
691 States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 4, and 15 of the Utah Constitution.
692 Section 10. Section 34A-5-112 is enacted to read:
693 34A-5-112.Religious liberty protections -- Expressing beliefs and commitments in
694 workplace -- Prohibition on employment actions against certain employee speech.
695 (1) An employee may express the employee's religious or moral beliefs and
696 commitments in the workplace in a reasonable, non-disruptive, and non-harassing way on
697 equal terms with similar types of expression of beliefs or commitments allowed by the
698 employer in the workplace, unless the expression is in direct conflict with the essential
699 business-related interests of the employer.
700 (2) An employer may not discharge, demote, terminate, or refuse to hire any person, or
701 retaliate against, harass, or discriminate in matters of compensation or in terms, privileges, and

---

702 conditions of employment against any person otherwise qualified, for lawful expression or
703 expressive activity outside of the workplace regarding the person's religious, political, or
704 personal convictions, including convictions about marriage, family, or sexuality, unless the
705 expression or expressive activity is in direct conflict with the essential business-related
706 interests of the employer.


I don't know if there were any problems with this prior to this change in the law. I really don't have any problem with this as long as it applies equally to matters in addition to religion. As a former employment law lawyer, I see this as almost impossible to enforce. Essential business related interests must include image, profit, and workplace harmony. Then again, plaintiff lawyers never lack for creativity.

I think the LDS Church should get out of the wedding business. From a religious standpoint, I believe mixing the wedding stuff with a sacred ordinance many times makes sacred ordinance second to all of the wedding stuff.

[LA Ute]

I think the LDS Church should get out of the wedding business. From a religious standpoint, I believe mixing the wedding stuff with a sacred ordinance many times makes sacred ordinance second to all of the wedding stuff.

I think we are headed in this direction.

[Applejack]

I think we are headed in this direction.

Why? There really is nothing to be afraid of re:gay marriage and the temple. And I don't think the mormon church wants to "get out" of the marriage business. I mean, they might stop marrying couples, but why do this? For legal liability reasons? For pragmatic reasons? I'm truly interested to hear your thoughts on this.

[LA Ute]

Why? There really is nothing to be afraid of re:gay marriage and the temple. And I don't think the mormon church wants to "get out" of the marriage business. I mean, they might stop marrying couples, but why do this? For legal liability reasons? For pragmatic reasons? I'm truly interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Define "getting out of the marriage business"....

No marriages in lds chapels?

I haven't thought about this for some time. I've heard the idea floated that maybe the temple sealing (or the Catholic/Episcopalian/Adventist/Presbyterian ceremonies) should be sort of a church blessing on the civil ceremony, which would be done outside of a church. In many countries only the state has authority to perform marriages, and the couples involved later go to church to "solemnize" the union. The new policy actually allows that, so it is effectively, if not intentionally, a step in that direction.

I don't know about weddings in chapels. I suppose that if a gay couple wanted to be married in a chapel and were refused, it's not outlandish to imagine a legal challenge based on state law. If a chapel is open to the public and state law requires equal access, there might be a case, and the church might just say, "No more weddings in our chapels." But I'm speculating off the top of my head. I really hope it never comes to that.

Q: what happens if you get married in a civil ceremony and have a sealing later that day? Can you make the traditional dash to the hotel after the wedding breakfast, or do you have to wait until after the sealing?

I have no idea. I doubt the church would get into that level of detail, which would only cause more problems, IMO. Enforcement would become kind of ridiculous.

[sancho]

Why? There really is nothing to be afraid of re:gay marriage and the temple.

I think you are more trusting in the reasonableness of people and in the logic of law than I am. More trusting in the constitution. The constitutions seems rather flexible to this outsider.

I'm not saying I think anything crazy is imminent; I can just imagine crazy things happening in the future.

[Applejack]

I think you are more trusting in the reasonableness of people and in the logic of law than I am. More trusting in the constitution. The constitutions seems rather flexible to this outsider.

I'm not saying I think anything crazy is imminent; I can just imagine crazy things happening in the future.

It's true that I am more patriotic than you. Thanks for the aknowledgement.

The Constitution is pretty vague about a lot of things and completely silent about a whole host of things. But on freedom of religion it is pretty clear. The government is not going to be able to dictate who religions choose to marry.

[LA Ute]

I've known Ed and his wife Lois since college. They're solid people -- especially Lois -- who've both been through a horrifying ordeal from which most of us pray fervently to be spared and that none of us would wish on anyone. I am not sure I agree with lots of Ed's decisions during and after Elizabeth's kidnapping, including the way he handled this one, but I cut all the Smarts an awful lot of slack. I wish them well.