Sure; they don't explicitly say what they are looking for, but their examples make it clear enough. From Holland:
In addition to institutional protections, individual people of faith must maintain their constitutional rights. This would include living in accordance with their deeply held religious beliefs, including choosing their profession or employment or serving in public office without intimidation, coercion or retaliation from another group. For example, a Latter-day Saint physician who objects to performing abortions or artificial insemination for a lesbian couple should not be forced against his or her conscience to do so, especially when others are readily available to perform that function. As another example, a neighborhood Catholic pharmacist, who declines to carry the “morning after” pill when large pharmacy chains readily offer that item, should likewise not be pressured into violating his or her conscience by bullying or boycotting.
Well, I guess if you think an LDS doctor should be required to perform an abortion when it goes against his moral conscience, we really are at odds here. I don't believe anyone should have to be forced by the laws of the land to go against what his conscience tells him is wrong.
Almost all of Oaks' examples were of the "pressure" variety, save this:
In the state of California, two-dozen Christian student groups have been denied recognition because they require their own leaders to share their Christian beliefs. The university system is forcing these groups to compromise their religious conscience if they want recognition for their clubs.
What they are talking about here is publicly funded university groups discriminating in membership on the basis of sexual orientation. Sorry, but LGBT groups cannot exclude Christians. Again, what is being sought is a special right.
I'm sorry but you lost me. Are you saying that Christian student organizations should be required to include LGBT students in their group? To me, the idea that they'd want to do such a think kind of sucks, but I think they should be allowed to. These are, after all, social organizations. There have been many, many instances of "Christian" groups (sports teams, etc.) refusing to allow Mormons to play. This sucks, too, but I don't believe it should be illegal.
He also said this, which is deeply offensive:
When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser. Such tactics are every bit as wrong as denying access to employment, housing or public services because of race or gender.
Translation: Mormon individuals and businesses who campaigned against extending rights to gay people should be able to do so without being criticized or losing business. Holding them responsible for seeking to disparage and discriminate against LGBT people is the same as firing someone because of his race or denying a single woman access to housing.
Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree with your translation. I believe in freedom of speech, including freedom of speech in the political arena. A person shouldn't have to worry about his property being vandalized, for instance, simply because his political ideology is offensive to someone else, nor should he lose his job for having bigoted opinions. Personally, I detest bigotry, but our constitution gives us the right to speak our minds.
It is true that I don't think highly of your religion. I'm not going to deny it or sugarcoat it. But my objection here has nothing to do with the wild claims of Joseph Smith and everything to do with a political and religious debate point.
That's nice to hear.
Yes. Anyone should be able to boycott anything. Some kinds of boycotts are vile (i.e., anti-Semitic boycotts, homophobic boycotts, racist boycotts).
I think I'm starting to get it. Anti-semitism is vile, but anti-Mormonism is another matter.
Look, we're never going to do anything but go around in circles on this topic. I have had a long-standing policy of not wasting my time repeating myself time and time again. You and I definitely don't agree on this point at all. While I commend my Church's leaders in their efforts to guarantee that LGBT people not be discriminated against in housing or employment, you can do nothing but criticize. I have really said all I have to say on this thread. No doubt people will continue to direct questions, comments and accusations my way. I just hope they don't lose any sleep waiting for me to answer. Having expressed my opinion, I'm done here.
