Page 2 of 28 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 826

Thread: The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

  1. #31
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,418

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  2. #32
    We're in a fairly early phase of evolution of thinking, within the LDS community, on the topic of homosexality. It wasn't long ago that SSA was viewed as a fundamental moral failing, like perhaps 10 years ago?

    I think in general with our connected world things change more quickly, and institutions - in this case, religions - are under a lot of ideological pressure to moderate historical views on some topics. But changing doctrine involves more time, kind of like the difference between legislation and a constitutional amendment.

    I was having friends with a black LDS friend, and explaining why I left the church, back in the late 70s, primarily on the issue of race (even though I'm white). He asked what we were taught previously about the priesthood ban, and I conveyed the explanations I was taught... less valiant in pre-existence, some unspecified lineage deficiency issue, Ham, etc.

    Then it occurred to me one fundamental belief - not just Mormon, but in Judaism & Christianity, in general - had changed since the 1970s, at least in my exposure to religious thinking: the notion that specific lineages were either blessed or cursed. "The Jews are God's chosen people." What does this really mean, anymore? "Descendants of Ham are cursed." This idea is definitely in the dumpster. Nephites & Lamanites exchanging the good guy / bad guy role, largely an exercise of assigning good/bad to entire groups.

    Now the "sins of the father are not sins of his children" thinking is much more predominant, a more individualized world view, an opportunity for anyone to rise above their circumstances without prejudice of their lineage.

    Back to homosexuality, even though thinking evolves more quickly in our connected world, I think it will be multiple decades before homosexuality is fully accepted by the LDS church.

    Using the evolution of thought on the topic of slavery as an example, when the abolitionist movement first arose, the overwhelmingly dominant religious view was that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible. There were four Quakers in 1688 who issued their opposition to slavery, which in hindsight was stunningly forward thinking, but it wasn't until much later in the debate that the religious thinking disavowed the view that the Bible made slavery OK.

    Today, nobody thinks the Bible supports slavery, except perhaps a certain rancher in southern Nevada.

    One significantly beneficial part of today's evolved thinking in the LDS world is it is letting some parents of gay kids know it wasn't their moral failing that led to the child becoming gay. The two large families on my street who've had multiple kids come out of the closet have had a nearly unbearable struggle reconciling their role as parents and the reality that their offspring have gone so wildly off track, but I think they've received some comfort that it wasn't because they weren't good enough parents.

    In 10 years, I think we'll see more & more smaller, Protestant Christian churches de-emphasize Biblical edicts against homosexuality as being important for that time period, but like bans on eating pork, things have evolved. In 10 years I think we'll see significant movement in the thinking among LDS on the topic of women & the priesthood, and on homosexuality.

    I'd be very, very surprised if we see doctrine changes in 10 years. *Maybe* 20.
    Last edited by Ma'ake; 08-10-2014 at 10:00 AM.

  3. #33
    Ma'ake, I agree with your general point but would modify your statement slightly.

    The Bible absolutely condones slavery in multiple places, in multiple ways, and the only prohibitions related to slavery were to never beat your slaves to the point where they cannot walk after two days, or to the point that they die within a week (can't recall exact # of days?).

    The difference is now the overwhelming majority of humanity is possessed of a morality far superior to that of the Bible on this matter, and nearly all of humanity views slavery as utterly abhorrent and wholly unrelated to any God worth worshipping.

    There are of course a few holdouts, including Somalia and other African countries, and a few random jackwagons such as the dude in Nevada. One could also argue that the sex slave trade in Asia/Europe/Americas is alive and well, though it is not tolerated in the open.

    Other examples where modern humanity possesses a morality far superior to that of provincial writings of iron-age nomads is in the proclamation that we must beat to death our children if they argue with their parents, as well as the death penalty for working on the Sabbath, eating shellfish, wearing clothing made of mixed fibers, and numerous other areas.

    The more places in which our modern morality surpasses that of the Bible, the better and safer our society will be.

    Whether the LDS church will ever fully accept gay people, condone gay marriage, or even perform temple sealings remains to be seen. But there may be places within the existing doctrinal structure to allow full acceptance, but that might not happen until the church is run by the generation of people currently in their teens/20s/30s/40s.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    ......In 10 years I think we'll see significant movement in the thinking among LDS on the topic of women & the priesthood, and on homosexuality......
    I get the sense that perhaps not my kids' generation (teens/low 20's), but maybe the generation after that won't stand for it and will leave the church in droves forcing the hand of the church. Will it implode on its own doctrine? Adapt and build a bigger tent? Turn even further right to attract more fringe elements to grow? Now is a fascinating time to study the church.
    “Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street and the railroads.” -- Harry S. Truman

    "You never soar so high as when you stoop down to help a child or an animal." -- Jewish Proverb

    "Three-time Pro Bowler Eric Weddle the most versatile, and maybe most intelligent, safety in the game." -- SI, 9/7/15, p. 107.

  5. #35
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,418
    Not sure where to post this. Today's press conference on religious freedom in the context of the marriage rights debate:

    http://link.brightcove.com/services/...=4015167009001

    This is pretty unusual.

    EDIT: Here's one Deseret News article about the news conference:

    LDS leaders reemphasize protection of religious freedoms, support for LGBT nondiscrimination laws

    And here's the Tribune's article:

    In major move, Mormon apostles call for statewide LGBT protections

    The church seems to calling for a live-and-let-live approach. What's not to like about that?
    Last edited by LA Ute; 01-27-2015 at 11:17 AM.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  6. #36
    I for one am happy to see the church officially support the 11th Article of Faith...

    I wonder whether Mitt Romney had anything to do with this.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    The church seems to calling for a live-and-let-live approach. What's not to like about that?
    I had a whole diatribe going and erased it as I was writing angry. Lets just say that I disagree.

  8. #38
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,418

    The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

    Quote Originally Posted by Sullyute View Post
    I had a whole diatribe going and erased it as I was writing angry. Lets just say that I disagree.
    I'm beyond debating this issue at this point. Do you think the church should have gone farther? I'm really just curious.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I'm beyond debating this issue at this point. Do you think the church should have gone farther? I'm really just curious.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    They seem to support every equality, except marriage equality was explicitly missing. This has to be from design.

    So in other words they said nothing at all that was new.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    I for one am happy to see the church officially support the 11th Article of Faith...

    I wonder whether Mitt Romney had anything to do with this.
    While apparently trying to circumvent #12 at the same time. Interesting strategy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sullyute View Post
    I had a whole diatribe going and erased it as I was writing angry. Lets just say that I disagree.
    I can honestly say that angry diatribes are always better to read than happy ones. Color me disappointed in your editing.

    It's been interesting following the #fairness4all on Twitter. (Seriously, can divine inspiration please step in this brainstorm next time?) It seems that both sides are getting exactly what they want with today's news conference. The faithful get a nice message of "yes we should love everyone" with a mix of "please let us worship how, where and what we may." And by worship, we mean conduct our work duties. (Did they really want to give pharmacists the freedom to pick and choose what drugs their willing to pharm?!?!) Of course the non-believers got another entertaining, albeit frustrating, moment in church history of "do what we say, not what we do."

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    They seem to support every equality, except marriage equality was explicitly missing. This has to be from design.

    So in other words they said nothing at all that was new.
    Even though they said nothing new, the reason they said it was to get the legislature to pass statewide legislation. Several years ago, the Church supported the same none discrimination ordinance when SLC passed it. Perhaps 20 other cities have passed similar ordinances since then. The last couple of years, the legislature buried similar legislation in committee and refused to act on it. That is the reason for the press conference.

    Immigration is another area where the legislature is far right of the Church and wont listen to it.

  12. #42
    The legislature is not listening to the church on certain issues? Don't tell Tom Barberi.
    "It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant

  13. #43
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,418
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    Even though they said nothing new, the reason they said it was to get the legislature to pass statewide legislation. Several years ago, the Church supported the same none discrimination ordinance when SLC passed it. Perhaps 20 other cities have passed similar ordinances since then. The last couple of years, the legislature buried similar legislation in committee and refused to act on it. That is the reason for the press conference.

    Immigration is another area where the legislature is far right of the Church and wont listen to it.
    During the FDR years the First Presidency was vocally opposed to him and to the New Deal, but he carried Utah every time he ran, usually by a landslide, IIRC.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I'm beyond debating this issue at this point. Do you think the church should have gone farther? I'm really just curious.
    Ok, so I will try and be as diplomatic as possible. I know that these same points have been brought up in numerous debates, so I agree it gets old rehashing them.

    I would have liked to see the church call for anti-discrimination laws, period, without adding the religion rights reservations. It comes off as very disingenuous. It is like they are jumping on a sailing ship (one they fought hard to keep in port) and once onboard still think they can bargain for their accommodations.

    I think the claimed infringement on religious rights is a mountain being made out of a mole hill. People, pastors, and parochial institutions are simply being held responsible for the rhetoric that is preached from their pulpits and prayers. Society is slowing shifting away from organized religion because of the historical hate and bigotry that has been taught, directly and indirectly, from its hallow grounds. This is not a legislative or constitutional issue, but a popular opinion issue.

    I really wish that the church would just back away from all of these political issues and simply focus on service and love of our fellow beings (what religion does best).

  15. #45
    They did try to carve out an interesting set of exemptions in the news conference. Granted, I think this is a step in the right direction for the church to take, considering it usually takes them decades to change.

    This is a good read: https://thelordsuniversity.wordpress...p-in-the-face/

    The fact that Jeffrey Holland, a former President of BYU, mentioned church employment, honor code statements, and college accreditation as specific exemptions for nondiscrimination means that the Church intends to continue fostering the hostile environment I experienced at BYU. They intend for the scenario in which my friend was evicted from his home simply because he had previously been in a gay relationship to remain a legal and actual reality.

    So, yes, it’s great the Church supports nondiscrimination and rejects anti-gay harassment. But. Having experienced anti-gay bullying at the hands and mouths of LDS members, leaders, and official publications, such statements implying they have always been against such persecution, feels more like a slap in the face than a sincere change of heart.

  16. #46
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,418
    If a Catholic physician refuses, as a matter of religious conscience, to perform an elective abortion, has he or she violated the prospective patient's rights? If the same physician refuses, on the same grounds, to artificially inseminate a lesbian mom, and there are other physicians who are willing to perform that procedure, has he or she discriminated against the prospective mother? It's not an easy question, in my opinion.
    California's Supreme Court ruled against the physician in the artificial insemination case, based on the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act. So in my state, a physician in that situation is legally required to provide the fertility service. My guess is that the church's leaders are aware of that case and don't want to see similar legislation popping up. (That will never happen in Utah, of course.)

    Of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the First may be the one that the Supreme Court has wrestled with the most, and the tension between the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause is probably the most challenging of any two provisions in the Constitution.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post

    Of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the First may be the one that the Supreme Court has wrestled with the most, and the tension between the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause is probably the most challenging of any two provisions in the Constitution.
    Moreso than the due process and equal protection clauses, which have much broader application?

  18. #48
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,418
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    Moreso than the due process and equal protection clauses, which have much broader application?
    Notice how I hedged -- I said "may be" and "probably." Dr. Scanland taught me that.

    It's just my impression. I took a First Amendment class in law school and was really struck by the knottiness of the issues raised by the Free Exercise-Establishment tension.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  19. #49
    LA I see those as two seperate issues. A doc who refuses to perform an abortion is probably able to refuse to do that for everybody. His employer should be allowed to accept that, or fire him. I know plenty of OBs who refuse to provide abortions and will give a referral for another who will.

    With the insemination, he already provides that exact same service to non-lesbian clients so to refuse the service to a lesbian woman is pure discrimination. There is zero difference between that va-jay-jay and the next 14 he sees that same day, with the only exception being that the lesbian V. is less likely to have a P. in it. So he is choosing only to serve a patient who goes for the P in V action. If he walks in on 15 patients (one if whom is a lesbian) without knowing anything about their background he will be exceptionally unlikely to pick the lesbian out of the group.

    If a doc is so small-minded that he won't squirt a syringe full of baby batter into the uterus of a patient solely for the reason that her female life partner is holding her hand at the time, then he deserves to lose the discrimination lawsuit.

  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    LA I see those as two seperate issues. A doc who refuses to perform an abortion is probably able to refuse to do that for everybody. His employer should be allowed to accept that, or fire him. I know plenty of OBs who refuse to provide abortions and will give a referral for another who will.

    With the insemination, he already provides that exact same service to non-lesbian clients so to refuse the service to a lesbian woman is pure discrimination. There is zero difference between that va-jay-jay and the next 14 he sees that same day, with the only exception being that the lesbian V. is less likely to have a P. in it. So he is choosing only to serve a patient who goes for the P in V action. If he walks in on 15 patients (one if whom is a lesbian) without knowing anything about their background he will be exceptionally unlikely to pick the lesbian out of the group.

    If a doc is so small-minded that he won't squirt a syringe full of baby batter into the uterus of a patient solely for the reason that her female life partner is holding her hand at the time, then he deserves to lose the discrimination lawsuit.
    That someone supposedly deserves "something" is what this is all about isn't it? And what is that "something?" The tone of your post intimates that not only is the doctor in question in the wrong but he or she should rightfully be punished for their actions. Potentially asserting that said actions are ... criminal? Does that therefore render the doctor prosecutable? I'm not making a slippery slope argument here, just analyzing the language you have used in your post. Perhaps I have misread your tone? If not, is there an inherent danger in what you have written?

    This is a complex issue that is not nearly as simply codified as you suggest by stating they are merely two separate issues. You seem to support the notion that refusal to perform one procedure is distinct and provisional as compared to the other. But, at what point can the doctor not only be compelled, by law (bullying / social pressure) to perform the insemination, as well as the abortion? How can a system enforce only one of the actions and not the other? Ironically, your defence of the provisions governing one procedure as compared to the other aren't all that different from what the Church is championing. That LGBT rights can be upheld along with religious freedoms.

    I guess you too want to have your cake and eat it too ... unless of course I am misreading you?
    Last edited by tooblue; 01-27-2015 at 09:18 PM.

  21. #51
    Malleus Cougarorum Solon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Lost in the Flood.
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    LA I see those as two seperate issues. A doc who refuses to perform an abortion is probably able to refuse to do that for everybody. His employer should be allowed to accept that, or fire him. I know plenty of OBs who refuse to provide abortions and will give a referral for another who will.

    With the insemination, he already provides that exact same service to non-lesbian clients so to refuse the service to a lesbian woman is pure discrimination. There is zero difference between that va-jay-jay and the next 14 he sees that same day, with the only exception being that the lesbian V. is less likely to have a P. in it. So he is choosing only to serve a patient who goes for the P in V action. If he walks in on 15 patients (one if whom is a lesbian) without knowing anything about their background he will be exceptionally unlikely to pick the lesbian out of the group.

    If a doc is so small-minded that he won't squirt a syringe full of baby batter into the uterus of a patient solely for the reason that her female life partner is holding her hand at the time, then he deserves to lose the discrimination lawsuit.
    From my understanding, the majority of these anti-discrimination ordinances have exceptions written in for small-time landlords (<4 units, iirc). The basic premise is that guy-who-rents-out-his-basement should be free to rent to pretty much anyone he wants, even if he decides to discriminate unfairly.

    Many businesses reserve the right to refuse service, although I'm sure this can get complicated.
    My principal objection to exemptions or exceptions to non-discrimination laws is when the job or service falls in the public sector, as a duty of a public employee. There is no place for discrimination in the public sector. Get another job if you are unwilling to do your job for all members of the public.

    My other thought is that, while obviously receiving harassment & ridicule & bad PR for religious beliefs is bad form (indeed, persecution), it's not a loss of religious liberty. Not really. To claim as much is a disservice to the world's people who live under truly oppressive circumstances, whose lives are endangered from state-sponsored reprisals targeted at religious organizations & their members.

    Holding unpopular religious beliefs only proves that a person enjoys the freedom to hold them.
    σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
    -- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    From my understanding, the majority of these anti-discrimination ordinances have exceptions written in for small-time landlords (<4 units, iirc). The basic premise is that guy-who-rents-out-his-basement should be free to rent to pretty much anyone he wants, even if he decides to discriminate unfairly.

    Many businesses reserve the right to refuse service, although I'm sure this can get complicated.
    My principal objection to exemptions or exceptions to non-discrimination laws is when the job or service falls in the public sector, as a duty of a public employee. There is no place for discrimination in the public sector. Get another job if you are unwilling to do your job for all members of the public.

    My other thought is that, while obviously receiving harassment & ridicule & bad PR for religious beliefs is bad form (indeed, persecution), it's not a loss of religious liberty. Not really. To claim as much is a disservice to the world's people who live under truly oppressive circumstances, whose lives are endangered from state-sponsored reprisals targeted at religious organizations & their members.

    Holding unpopular religious beliefs only proves that a person enjoys the freedom to hold them.
    That's an emotional red herring. Thrown out to bolster a weak argument. This issue has no concern for the millions living in abject oppressive circumstances. The inability to practice one's religion due to harassment and ridicule, and to be prohibited from pursuing a particular career path is a blatant loss of religious liberty.

  23. #53
    Malleus Cougarorum Solon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Lost in the Flood.
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    That's an emotional red herring. Thrown out to bolster a weak argument. This issue has no concern for the millions living in abject oppressive circumstances. The inability to practice one's religion due to harassment and ridicule, and to be prohibited from pursuing a particular career path is a blatant loss of religious liberty.
    Ridicule by private citizens is not loss of religious freedom. Not in the USA, anyway.
    I can't speak for your silly country.
    It's unseemly, sure.
    σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
    -- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Ridicule by private citizens is not loss of religious freedom. Not in the USA, anyway.
    I can't speak for your silly country.
    It's unseemly, sure.
    The two countries aren't that different, except homosexuals right to marry was secured by law more than ten years ago. The result, and a preview of what is to come in the states: the loss of the religious voice in public discourse. Fewer marriages period, especially among homosexuals. More children raised in unconventional family circumstances. More social and behavioural issues as a result that the government is compelled to address through social programs and services, which coincides with the loss in the rights of parents in the raising of their children. Which results in higher taxes levied against the middle class, to pay for said programs. Which results in fewer middle class having children. Which results in fewer future tax payers to pay for social programs. Which results in governments raiding pensions and Retired savings plans ...

    All the above likely would've happened regardless, I guess. It is what it is.

  25. #55
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,418
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    LA I see those as two seperate issues. A doc who refuses to perform an abortion is probably able to refuse to do that for everybody. His employer should be allowed to accept that, or fire him. I know plenty of OBs who refuse to provide abortions and will give a referral for another who will.

    With the insemination, he already provides that exact same service to non-lesbian clients so to refuse the service to a lesbian woman is pure discrimination. There is zero difference between that va-jay-jay and the next 14 he sees that same day, with the only exception being that the lesbian V. is less likely to have a P. in it. So he is choosing only to serve a patient who goes for the P in V action. If he walks in on 15 patients (one if whom is a lesbian) without knowing anything about their background he will be exceptionally unlikely to pick the lesbian out of the group.

    If a doc is so small-minded that he won't squirt a syringe full of baby batter into the uterus of a patient solely for the reason that her female life partner is holding her hand at the time, then he deserves to lose the discrimination lawsuit.
    Clearly sweet reason is not working with you, so I will start yelling at you now. But I'm tired, so that will have to wait until morning.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  26. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    LA I see those as two seperate issues. A doc who refuses to perform an abortion is probably able to refuse to do that for everybody. His employer should be allowed to accept that, or fire him. I know plenty of OBs who refuse to provide abortions and will give a referral for another who will.

    With the insemination, he already provides that exact same service to non-lesbian clients so to refuse the service to a lesbian woman is pure discrimination. There is zero difference between that va-jay-jay and the next 14 he sees that same day, with the only exception being that the lesbian V. is less likely to have a P. in it. So he is choosing only to serve a patient who goes for the P in V action. If he walks in on 15 patients (one if whom is a lesbian) without knowing anything about their background he will be exceptionally unlikely to pick the lesbian out of the group.

    If a doc is so small-minded that he won't squirt a syringe full of baby batter into the uterus of a patient solely for the reason that her female life partner is holding her hand at the time, then he deserves to lose the discrimination lawsuit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    From my understanding, the majority of these anti-discrimination ordinances have exceptions written in for small-time landlords (<4 units, iirc). The basic premise is that guy-who-rents-out-his-basement should be free to rent to pretty much anyone he wants, even if he decides to discriminate unfairly.

    Many businesses reserve the right to refuse service, although I'm sure this can get complicated.
    My principal objection to exemptions or exceptions to non-discrimination laws is when the job or service falls in the public sector, as a duty of a public employee. There is no place for discrimination in the public sector. Get another job if you are unwilling to do your job for all members of the public.

    My other thought is that, while obviously receiving harassment & ridicule & bad PR for religious beliefs is bad form (indeed, persecution), it's not a loss of religious liberty. Not really. To claim as much is a disservice to the world's people who live under truly oppressive circumstances, whose lives are endangered from state-sponsored reprisals targeted at religious organizations & their members.

    Holding unpopular religious beliefs only proves that a person enjoys the freedom to hold them.
    Both well said.

  27. #57
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,418
    If I were a baker I'd sell wedding cakes to anyone. If I were a physician/fertility specialist I'd help anyone. But I think it's important to recognize that the question, What should the government be able to force you to do that violates a deeply-held religious conviction, and under what circumstances? is not easy to answer. If you think it is easy, you haven't really thought about it.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  28. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    If I were a baker I'd sell wedding cakes to anyone. If I were a physician/fertility specialist I'd help anyone. But I think it's important to recognize that the question, What should the government be able to force you to do that violates a deeply-held religious conviction, and under what circumstances? is not easy to answer. If you think it is easy, you haven't really thought about it.
    LA, you are just more kind and display more Christian charity than other people. Bravo!

    In the insemination example the doctor who refuses to inseminate a lesbian woman is deciding for himself that they are not fit to be biological parents. This is entirely out of the scope of his authority. The sole reason why he is refusing that one service to his patient, especially if he provides her with other services, is due to her sexuality. If you replace the word 'lesbian' with any other modifier (Jewish, Asian, Black, left-handed) the argument is just as obtuse.

    And for him to conflate insemination with abortion, IN THE SAME SENTENCE, is cheap tactic. He is attempting to generate contempt for a loving and exciting event (creating a baby) with a cold, difficult, and highly emotional event (abortion). And as I said earlier these things are only related because they include a doc, a woman, and a baby. Beyond that they are entirely separate issues.

    I have to deal with a serious emergency right now. Perhaps later I will be able to discuss Elder Oaks grave misstatement of facts in the Houston HERO case he cited.

  29. #59
    Senior Member Scorcho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    right here, right now
    Posts
    1,162
    http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...f=Default&_r=0

    biting opinion piece in the NY Times today about yesterday's press conference.

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    The two countries aren't that different, except homosexuals right to marry was secured by law more than ten years ago. The result, and a preview of what is to come in the states: the loss of the religious voice in public discourse. Fewer marriages period, especially among homosexuals. More children raised in unconventional family circumstances. More social and behavioural issues as a result that the government is compelled to address through social programs and services, which coincides with the loss in the rights of parents in the raising of their children. Which results in higher taxes levied against the middle class, to pay for said programs. Which results in fewer middle class having children. Which results in fewer future tax payers to pay for social programs. Which results in governments raiding pensions and Retired savings plans ...

    All the above likely would've happened regardless, I guess. It is what it is.
    You are probably right. I mean I bet the amount of unwed mothers in America will increase a lot when Gays can marry in America.
    "Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum

    "And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •