Do You Support the Mormon Proposal to Allow Religious Discrimination?

[gsa]

The Mormon church (alternatively the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) has proposed adding sexual orientation to the list of prohibited forms of discrimination, in states that currently allow that discrimination, with one major caveat: Discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs would be written in as an exemption to the law. The net effect of this proposal would be that you could not refuse to employ/serve gay people because they were gay and you hate gays, but you could refuse to employ/serve gay people because of your religious-based hatred of gays.

Similarly, people who hate blacks, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, and other groups would be able to cite the religious motivation for this hatred in discriminating against them. Currently, there are exemptions from religious discrimination laws for religious institutions, which are free to hate and discriminate as they see fit. But as it stands, a Catholic boss can't fire a Jewish employee because of his religion. If this passed, that would be possible.

Should religious people be given an exemption from federal and state anti-discrimination laws?

 

[Nietzsche]

**** them, no. They are not special.

 

[gsa]

It also seems strange to me that you would be given an exemption from a generally applicable law, particularly laws that prohibit religious discrimination, based on deeply held religious views, which are amorphous and subject to change. The libertarian case against these laws is much cleaner, since there's no inquiry into the motivation.

 

[Quintessence]

Being a pluralist, I support the right of cultural groups to exist and preserve their traditions, regardless of whether or not others happen to personally agree with them. Given we also exist in a country where there are overarching laws that, for better or worse, interfere with expressions of culture, I also support reasonable limitations on cultural practices as guided by common principles laid out by democratic consensus. Thus, I voted "other," because it depends on the specifics, and how loose we're being with that word "discrimination." Also, because in most respects, what I think doesn't matter.

In this particular case, it is not my business to tell another religion what they should or shouldn't do within their own tradition. But, regardless of what they choose to do within their tradition, they are also part of a broader culture. For better or worse, that culture may interfere with their decision. Things will play out as they will.

 

[Katzpur]

The Mormon church (alternatively the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) has proposed adding sexual orientation to the list of prohibited forms of discrimination, in states that currently allow that discrimination, with one major caveat: Discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs would be written in as an exemption to the law. The net effect of this proposal would be that you could not refuse to employ/serve gay people because they were gay and you hate gays, but you could refuse to employ/serve gay people because of your religious-based hatred of gays.

Similarly, people who hate blacks, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, and other groups would be able to cite the religious motivation for this hatred in discriminating against them. Currently, there are exemptions from religious discrimination laws for religious institutions, which are free to hate and discriminate as they see fit. But as it stands, a Catholic boss can't fire a Jewish employee because of his religion. If this passed, that would be possible.

Should religious people be given an exemption from federal and state anti-discrimination laws?

For starters, I totally disagree with your understanding that the LDS Church is trying to get laws passed to permit religious discrimination. As as matter of fact, it seems to me that your conclusion is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the Church's recent statement. Being Mormon myself, and living in Utah, where the headquarters of the LDS Church is located, I think I understand what the Church is seeking to accomplish. The Church definitely is not trying to say that it's okay to refuse to employ or serve gay people for any reason. It's saying, instead, that gays should not be discriminated against in terms of either employment or housing, and it's encouraging the Utah legislature to enact laws that would make this kind of discrimination illegal. I'm all for that kind of legislation.

I think the Church is just afraid that with the legalization of same-sex marriage, it's just going to be a matter of time before authorized individuals within religious institutions (e.g. Mormon bishops) will be required to perform these marriages. Since the Church believes that marriage is to be between a man and a woman, it wants to protect its right to refuse to marry a gay or lesbian couple. I think it's the right of any church to refuse to perform marriages it believes to be sinful in nature. I just don't think the LDS Church has anything to worry about in this regard. Right now, the Church prohibits individuals from being married in one of its temples for any of one a number of reasons. Nobody is challenging that ruling. For instance, in order to be married in an LDS temple, a person must be obeying what we call "The Word of Wisdom." It's a health code that prohibits us from taking certain substances into our bodies. Nobody outside the Church is trying to force the Church to permit drinkers and smokers to have a temple wedding. If the Church were to say, "We will not marry same-sex couples in our temples or allow Mormon bishops to perform marriages of same-sex couples even in a civil setting," I don't think it would be forced by anyone to do otherwise.

Personally, I believe in the separation of church and state, so I have no objection to same-sex marriages performed by civil authorities, giving two consenting adults the same rights as everyone else under the laws of the land. That does not mean I believe that my church should be forced to permit gay or lesbian couples to marry in our temples. I think fears that this might happen is what probably prompted the recent statement. The statement was definitely not made to try to get around having to employ or serve gays and lesbians.

 

[ChristineES]

People need to obey the law: It is against the law to refuse someone employment and other such things for disciminatory reasons. I can't really speak of the law itself, I'd have to study it first to see what it is truly saying. If the Church won't allow certain people to join it, that's a whole other issue, and I think that a Church should have that right. But when it comes to businesses, then it shouldn't. I believe it wrong to withhold service due to race, sexual orientation, etc because that would have a net affect: I don't think they are proposing doing that, as was already pointed out.

 

[Seeker of the Ancients]

Absolutely not. If people want to discriminate within their own institutions and traditions, then fine. I don't like it because it makes the lives of disenfranchised groups living within these communities worse and I will continue to debate people within these communities in hopes of changing their minds and creating a more accepting atmosphere for these people. But at the end of the day, I can't force a belief unto another. So long as they do not begin breaking the law and hurting others (murder, theft, vandalism, etc.) homophobes have the right to believe as they wish, just as the Klan and other equally discriminatory groups do (despite me vehemently disagreeing with them). In fact, even as a gay man myself, I don't even believe that these institutions should be forced to perform gay marriages because A: Marriage is ultimately a legal process and doesn't need to be performed by a religious institution, and B: Why on earth would I want to be married by someone who has to fight the urge to throw-up at the sight of me and my fiance anyway?

But as soon as those beliefs extend beyond the walls of a religious institution and begin to affect the lives and livelihood of people in secular society, they've gone too far. We no longer live in a world where religious leaders rule the land. People should not have to adhere to the tenants of a faith they disagree with and these religious individuals have no right to restrict the rights and livelihood of these people.

 

[gsa]

For starters, I totally disagree with your understanding that the LDS Church is trying to get laws passed to permit religious discrimination. As as matter of fact, it seems to me that your conclusion is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the Church's recent statement. Being Mormon myself, and living in Utah, where the headquarters of the LDS Church is located, I think I understand what the Church is seeking to accomplish. The Church definitely is not trying to say that it's okay to refuse to employ or serve gay people for any reason. It's saying, instead, that gays should not be discriminated against in terms of either employment or housing, and it's encouraging the Utah legislature to enact laws that would make this kind of discrimination illegal. I'm all for that kind of legislation.

I think the Church is just afraid that with the legalization of same-sex marriage, it's just going to be a matter of time before authorized individuals within religious institutions (e.g. Mormon bishops) will be required to perform these marriages. Since the Church believes that marriage is to be between a man and a woman, it wants to protect its right to refuse to marry a gay or lesbian couple. I think it's the right of any church to refuse to perform marriages it believes to be sinful in nature. I just don't think the LDS Church has anything to worry about in this regard. Right now, the Church prohibits individuals from being married in one of its temples for any of one a number of reasons. Nobody is challenging that ruling. For instance, in order to be married in an LDS temple, a person must be obeying what we call "The Word of Wisdom." It's a health code that prohibits us from taking certain substances into our bodies. Nobody outside the Church is trying to force the Church to permit drinkers and smokers to have a temple wedding. If the Church were to say, "We will not marry same-sex couples in our temples or allow Mormon bishops to perform marriages of same-sex couples even in a civil setting," I don't think it would be forced by anyone to do otherwise.

Personally, I believe in the separation of church and state, so I have no objection to same-sex marriages performed by civil authorities, giving two consenting adults the same rights as everyone else under the laws of the land. That does not mean I believe that my church should be forced to permit gay or lesbian couples to marry in our temples. I think fears that this might happen is what probably prompted the recent statement. The statement was definitely not made to try to get around having to employ or serve gays and lesbians.

Except that the First Amendment (part of what Mormons allegedly believe to be a divinely inspired document) prohibits any person from being compelled to perform a religious ceremony, and no one can be compelled to marry anyone. The exemptions that the LDS church is seeking would apply to anti-discrimination statutes. The commonly cited example is refusing business services to gay people on the grounds that one has a religious belief that homosexuality is immoral. These examples include services (i.e., catering, photography), accommodations (i.e., renting out hotel rooms to same-sex couples), etcetera.

This isn't about Brigham Young being forced to employ anyone who is LGBT (they're a private religious institution and they can discriminate to their heart's content), or the church being forced to perform marriages. We all know that cannot happen. What the church is calling for is passage of a toothless version of a discrimination law that would protect LGBT people form discrimination unless individuals, corporations and business entities cite their religious beliefs as the source of that discrimination. An exception that swallows the rule.

Sorry, but I know how dishonest your church is, I know its anti-gay history and I know that it can't be trusted. I don't believe for a minute that they are looking for legal protections that they already have.

 

[gsa]

People need to obey the law: It is against the law to refuse someone employment and other such things for disciminatory reasons. I can't really speak of the law itself, I'd have to study it first to see what it is truly saying. If the Church won't allow certain people to join it, that's a whole other issue, and I think that a Church should have that right. But when it comes to businesses, then it shouldn't. I believe it wrong to withhold service due to race, sexual orientation, etc because that would have a net affect: I don't think they are proposing doing that, as was already pointed out.

The church is proposing a religious exemption that would protect individual religious bias, even in the secular marketplace. So for example, a landlord who had religious convictions would be able to discriminate against a gay couple seeking a place to rent.

The church is already protected from being forced to do anything by the First Amendment.

 

[Katzpur]

Except that the First Amendment (part of what Mormons allegedly believe to be a divinely inspired document) prohibits any person from being compelled to perform a religious ceremony, and no one can be compelled to marry anyone.

Yes, I realize this. I just think that the fears persist, regardless.

The exemptions that the LDS church is seeking would apply to anti-discrimination statutes. The commonly cited example is refusing business services to gay people on the grounds that one has a religious belief that homosexuality is immoral. These examples include services (i.e., catering, photography), accommodations (i.e., renting out hotel rooms to same-sex couples), etcetera.

In order to substantiate your claims, would you mind quoting any of the four individuals who spoke at the news conference? Thank you.

What the church is calling for is passage of a toothless version of a discrimination law that would protect LGBT people form discrimination unless individuals, corporations and business entities cite their religious beliefs as the source of that discrimination.

Again, please provide an exact quote to this effect from any of the four individuals who spoke at the conference. Since I know you won't be able to find one, you might at least provide a quote of whatever one of them said that led you to the conclusion you came to.

Sorry, but I know how dishonest your church is, I know its anti-gay history and I know that it can't be trusted.

You think I don't know my Church's history as well as you do? Trust me, I was pretty upset about its involvement in Prop 8 in California. I don't believe it's the right of any church, including my own, to try to legislate other people's moral decisions, and I am definitely opposed to having my Church's leaders tell me how I should vote. All I'm saying is that you don't have the right to put words in the mouths of people who never said what you're claiming they did.

I don't believe for a minute that they are looking for legal protections that they already have.

I know you don't, and it's clear that you detest Mormonism. Tell me something I don't already know.

I have one question for you now: Should people (let's say members of the LGBT community) be able to boycott a Mormon-owned business if they want?

 

[columbus]

I think all religious groups should have the right to discrimination and exclusion based on their interpretation of scriptures.

I just think they should lose their tax exempt status when they exercise that right.

Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the Church is just afraid that with the legalization of same-sex marriage, it's just going to be a matter of time before authorized individuals within religious institutions (e.g. Mormon bishops) will be required to perform these marriages.

You mean the way that ministers in denominations that forbid divorce have been forced to marry divorced people?

I don't see this as about religious practice at all, or forcing religious ministers to violate their beliefs. I see it as an attempt to get an exemption for church-owned businesses.

 

[columbus]

I know you don't, and it's clear that you detest Mormonism. Tell me something I don't already know.

Likely that is because people like Norman run the Church and people like you do not.

Tom

 

[Katzpur]

I think all religious groups should have the right to discrimination and exclusion based on their interpretation of scriptures.

I just think they should lose their tax exempt status when they exercise that right.

Tom

What about religious schools? Should churches be permitted to own and operate schools? Or should this cause them to lose their tax exempt status?

 

[Katzpur]

You mean the way that ministers in denominations that forbid divorce have been forced to marry divorced people?

I haven't given it that much thought, but I suppose so. For example, I don't believe that a Catholic priest should have to perform a marriage when one of the individuals to be married has been divorced.

I don't see this as about religious practice at all, or forcing religious ministers to violate their beliefs. I see it as an attempt to get an exemption for church-owned businesses.

Okay, so you're saying this is about the Mormon Church claiming the right to only employ Mormons at the church-owned Deseret Book Store. Is that right?

 

[columbus]

What about religious schools? Should churches be permitted to own and operate schools? Or should this cause them to lose their tax exempt status?

I have not given a lot of thought to schools. Off the top of my head I can't think of a reason to exempt them. If they demand the right to exclude and discriminate at will I see no reason for the people that they are discriminating against to pick up the additional tax burden.

Tom

 

[Katzpur]

I have not given a lot of thought to schools. Off the top of my head I can't think of a reason to exempt them. If they demand the right to exclude and discriminate at will I see no reason for the people that they are discriminating against to pick up the additional tax burden.

Tom

But unless I'm mistaken, church-owned schools do not receive funding from taxes. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about that, but I believe that BYU, for instance, operates solely on funds contributed by the Church's membership. (Not that you could pay me enough to go there; I'm a dyed in the wool University of Utah fan.)

 

[columbus]

But unless I'm mistaken, church-owned schools do not receive funding from taxes. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about that, but I believe that BYU, for instance, operates solely on funds contributed by the Church's membership. (Not that you could pay me enough to go there; I'm a dyed in the wool University of Utah fan.)

I don't know about Utah, but here in Indiana Church run schools get a lot of taxpayer funding and the push is on for more.

Tom

 

[Katzpur]

I don't know about Utah, but here in Indiana Church run schools get a lot of taxpayer funding and the push is on for more.

Tom

Interesting. I'll have to do some research about how it is here.

 

[Nietzsche]

I have one question for you now: Should people (let's say members of the LGBT community) be able to boycott a Mormon-owned business if they want?

Those two aren't comparable. When the customer refuses to use a service, they are just one individual refusing to use the service that they could use if they change their minds. That is not discrimination, because it can be changed at any time.

However, when a business decides to withhold a service from a person or a group of people, that is discrimination. A better comparison would be, say, a gay owner of a wedding-photo place withholding his services from Mormons, which would be equally as wrong & illegal.