LGBT News Mormon leadership backs anti-discrimination laws for LGBT

Yay! Partially. They're still bigots. They're doing this because they don't want to lose members, or seem 'unchristian'. But at least it's a step forward?

 

Hey, at least these folks know how to make a compromise. I'm down for that. As long as we all do our parts, this compromise will turn out to be a beautiful thing.

 

I think they see the writing on the wall, but it's like trying to square a circle: when a small Christian family-owned business wants to fire someone who is LGBT+, simply because that person is LGBT+, whose rights will prevail?

 

I think the "religious exemption" they are seeking is a poison pill, not a compromise.

The problem with the "religious exemptions" is that it goes way beyond what most would consider reasonable. Witness the recent madness (in the USA) with companies threatening to shut down rather than provide health insurance that funds legal methods of birth control. Or bakers refusing to make wedding cakes for gay couples, then retaliating by demanding that a gay baker make a cake littered with anti-gay slogans.

The problem is distinguishing between bona fide religious organizations (churches) and businesses whose owners or management use this as an excuse to discriminate against the LGBT community.

As we've already seen, right-wing business owners try to skirt anti-discrimination laws by claiming that all their day-to-day business activity is a "religious observance," or that their corporation is a "Christian company." Is a corporation, whose real mission is to make money selling arts/crafts supplies, chicken sandwiches, or wedding cakes a "religious organization" that "has its freedom violated" by being required to comply with the same anti-discrimination laws as all other private-sector businesses?

In my opinion, corporations are always secular entities. They exist to shield owners (stock holders) from financial liability of the organization. A corporation is a "person" only for the purpose of financial liability. It does not have religious beliefs. Owners of companies do, but they are a separate legal entity from the company.

What would I consider an acceptable "compromise?" Allow the Mormon church not to recognize same-sex marriage within its walls, but offer same-sex civil marriage in all 50 states. And no corporation may be considered a "religious organization"; such exemptions would only apply to churches. Not restaurants, retail chains, cake shops, or "para-church" organizations really pursue other businesses (such as financial advising, health care, etc.).

 

So essentially one rule for them, one rule for the rest of us.

Nope, that shit's not flying buddy.

 

Agree this is not an acceptable 'compromise'. Basically, they want to be free to say and do any nasty stuff they want to to us in exchange for not actively trying to block anti-discrimination laws.

I've had to deal with someone who tried this sort of 'compromise' approach before (not re LGBT per se but for other things relevant to another online community I'm part of). He basically used it as a tool to take advantage of our better natures and make an ongoing stream of little digs and snide statements against things he didn't like and then pointing to the compromise and offering a brief and insincere apology if anyone called him on his 'slip'.

This went on until I finally ripped his face off and made him to understand that he would cease his behavior or suffer the consequences. He left the group shortly thereafter.

Todd

 

A cult trying to save face without losing their paycheck, those tithes add up. They change, erase, add, edit, and reproof doctrine so much none of this is surprising.

 

Not perfect BUT a vast improvement on their previous position!

 

It's not perfect, because it seems they don't understand what "religious freedom" really is. Although, it is a step in the right direction. Hey, at least they're trying to compromise. lol

 

It's not really a compromise though is it? It just turns any anti discrimination bill into a symbolic gesture. The only thing that changes is that people, businesses, organisations and what not will have a legalised excuse for being bigoted and that's just not right.

What's the point of having anti discrimination protections if you can flout them by saying "but muh religion!"?

 

Half bigots are at least partially better than full blown bigots I guess.

 

@piano71 couldn't have said it better myself.

Someone who is religious posted this on Facebook, defending "freedom of religion". I deleted them after reading it. This is like taking one step forward and then one step back. It's not a compromise at all. Basically their saying that they support anti discrimination laws on the condition that "religious freedom" be a valid excuse to basically deprive LGBT people of basic human rights and privileges. Basically if a business knows you're gay, they have the right not to serve you on the basis of your sexual orientation. That is absurd and discriminatory in and of itself. Religious freedom inherently allows discrimination because religion supports the notion of discriminating against gays (and other groups). Religious freedom is already something religious people have, they are free to express, identify with and practice said religion. However they have no right to enforce their beliefs on others or deprive them of basic human rights and privileges. I agree that a church shouldn't have to be forced to allow a gay wedding, a church is a religious organization first and a business second. However, restaurants and bakeries are businesses FIRST, it is unethical for a business to not provide it's utilities to a customer on the basis of their sexual orientation, regardless of the owner's subjective beliefs. Some business-owners are still racist, does that mean that it's ok for them to deny a colored customer because of their subjective bigotry? It's illogical and can lead to a ton of discrimination. "Religious Freedom" can also be used as a scapegoat for any extremist action because religion in itself allows for that kind of thinking, can't a suicide bomber use this as an excuse for bombing a building as well? He's driven by his religion too isn't he? Yet he's still taking away the rights of others, which is not ok.

 

I am religious, but I hope that as America progresses, we will realize this is discrimination, not religion. I think a lot of LGBT+ people I meet have something against religion, and I don't blame them. I hope, however, not all of us Christians will be considered the same as these who have fallen by being complete mindless slaves to every word of the bible.... The bible DOES teach good things, but it also teaches bad things like gender roles, LGBT discrimination, and I personally don't agree with circumcision...

 

I was thinking the same thing when I read the article. I work for just such an employer. They've even said someone whose straight could be fired if they publically support LGBT rights, or are pictured attending a gay wedding or event, or anything else contrary to traditional Judeo-Christian values. They claim their employees behavior away from work reflect upon the image of the company.