LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Autodidact]

• A San Diego County fertility doctor was sued for refusing to perform artificial insemination for one partner of a lesbian couple for religious reasons. The doctor referred the patient to a colleague, promised there would be no extra cost and offered to care for her during her subsequent pregnancy. The case is now before the California Supreme Court, and justices seemed hostile to the doctor's defense during oral arguments last month.

• Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco ended adoption services altogether rather than be compelled by anti-discrimination laws to place children with same-sex couples. In the Boston case, Catholic Charities was prepared to refer same-sex couples seeking to adopt to other providers, but that was not sufficient.

• Did they receive government funding?

• A Lutheran school in Riverside County, Calif., was sued in 2005 under California's Unruh Act (which forbids discrimination by businesses) for expelling two students who allegedly were having a lesbian relationship, in contravention of the religious views of the school. The case was thrown out in Superior Court in January, but the students have appealed. [/quote] Did you notice that the lesbians lost the case?

all of these instances "allowing same-sex couples to force religious individuals or organizations to act out of accord with their faith"

Did you notice that none of these are churches?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say ‘No, we’re not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so?

Yes, unless they accept government funding.

What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they’re a bad example?”

Yes, unless they accept government funding.

What about boy scouts?

Boy scouts don't accept gay members now. They're fine, as long as they don't accept government funding. When they do, they get into trouble.

Gay and Lesbians are shutting down church charities, church support groups, church activities, church welfare organizations, shutting down everything church related that does not support them. It’s not just asking for freedom, they are asking for support… shutting down and destroying all organizations that refuse to support them.

NO they aren't. You haven't given a single case of this happening. It's a lie.

Great article madhatter! fruballs!

idea likes lies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

all of these instances "allowing same-sex couples to force religious individuals or organizations to act out of accord with their faith"

Let's look at those examples in more detail:

A San Diego County fertility doctor was sued for refusing to perform artificial insemination for one partner of a lesbian couple for religious reasons. The doctor referred the patient to a colleague, promised there would be no extra cost and offered to care for her during her subsequent pregnancy. The case is now before the California Supreme Court, and justices seemed hostile to the doctor's defense during oral arguments last month.

Anyone can sue anyone else. The article seems like there has not been a verdict on the case.

Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco ended adoption services altogether rather than be compelled by anti-discrimination laws to place children with same-sex couples. In the Boston case, Catholic Charities was prepared to refer same-sex couples seeking to adopt to other providers, but that was not sufficient.

The Catholic Charities in question had been receiving special status. Effectively, they were operating as an extension of the Child and Family Services-type arm of the government. The government set rules that they would have to abide by to continue with their special status; the organizations refused, and reverted to the normal status of charities. There was no breach of any rights of the charities.

A Lutheran school in Riverside County, Calif., was sued in 2005 under California's Unruh Act (which forbids discrimination by businesses) for expelling two students who allegedly were having a lesbian relationship, in contravention of the religious views of the school. The case was thrown out in Superior Court in January, but the students have appealed.

So... the school won. Their right to throw out students for being homosexual was apparently upheld. Most parties to a court case have the right to appeal; this doesn't mean that that the court will side with them; it only means that all parties get to receive due process.

Public school officials in Poway, Calif., so far have successfully barred students from wearing T-shirts that register their opposition to homosexuality on campus. One lawsuit made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court before being dismissed (as moot, because the students had graduated), but another federal lawsuit is pending.

Public schools often have rules regarding respect for teachers and fellow students. I can imagine quite a few ways that a T-shirt "that registers [...] opposition to homosexuality on campus" could be disrespectful to other students, and if the school applies the rule uniformly, I don't see how it could be considered an infringement of religious rights.

And frankly, I'd like to know what the T-shirts said.

“What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say ‘No, we’re not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so?

If they offer marriage counseling to their members, I'd say no. If they offer marriage counseling as a business, I imagine they'd have to meet the same requirements as any other business.

What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they’re a bad example?”

Possibly. Employers don't (or shouldn't) have the right to make demands of their employees outside work.

For example, around here, Catholic Schools can require that their teachers be familiar with the Catholic religion, the Catechism, etc., but they can't require that their teachers actually be Catholic. Usually one implies the other, but the demands on the employee don't go beyond what actually affects his or her job.

There's a difference between prohibiting church camp counselors from giving opinions on homosexuality that contradict the church's position on the matter and prohibiting homosexual people from being counselors.

What about boy scouts?

They receive money and material support from virtually all levels of government. I think this arrangement (when taken along with the BSA's official position on homosexuals and atheists) is unconstitutional... but legalization of same-sex marriage doesn't change this one way or the other.

Gay and Lesbians are shutting down church charities, church support groups, church activities, church welfare organizations, shutting down everything church related that does not support them. It’s not just asking for freedom, they are asking for support… shutting down and destroying all organizations that refuse to support them.

They are? Which ones?

 

[madhatter85]

Anyone can sue anyone else. The article seems like there has not been a verdict on the case.

Another part of the article outlining another incident:

California's high court, for example, denied a landlord's religion-based refusal to rent an apartment to an unmarried heterosexual couple, but Massachusetts' high court was willing to sanction such a refusal in cases in which alternative housing was readily available.

So in other words if a gay couple comes to you and wants to rent from you, you cannot refuse to support them in thier co-habitation. no matter what your religious beliefs are

The Catholic Charities in question had been receiving special status. Effectively, they were operating as an extension of the Child and Family Services-type arm of the government. The government set rules that they would have to abide by to continue with their special status; the organizations refused, and reverted to the normal status of charities. There was no breach of any rights of the charities.

So a religious group that helps the government by working for them as a non-profit organization all of a sudden must now give up thier right to religious enjoyment? that is just stupid.

I'd like to know what the T-shirts said.

i also would like to know, because if they were sladerous then i would agree that they should not be wearing the T-shirts. But if it was things like "Help protect marriage, Vote for the proposition" then i don't see how that is wrong considering it is a political issue and there are 18 year olds in school who can vote.

If they offer marriage counseling to their members, I'd say no. If they offer marriage counseling as a business, I imagine they'd have to meet the same requirements as any other business.

Should not matter, buisnesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Possibly. Employers don't (or shouldn't) have the right to make demands of their employees outside work.

For example, around here, Catholic Schools can require that their teachers be familiar with the Catholic religion, the Catechism, etc., but they can't require that their teachers actually be Catholic. Usually one implies the other, but the demands on the employee don't go beyond what actually affects his or her job.

Camps, especially in the LDS church, are run by voulenteer only. alot of other religious insitutions also run camps that are non-profit.

As far as employers makign demans on peopel outside of work, There have been cases where people have posted things on thier blogs, forums, or myspace page that thier employer found and fired them for legally.

There's a difference between prohibiting church camp counselors from giving opinions on homosexuality that contradict the church's position on the matter and prohibiting homosexual people from being counselors.

No, there is not. you can not say that them being homosexual will not influence their advice or council, or actions even at a camp.

Just as me being LDS would affect my actions, advice, and council.

They receive money and material support from virtually all levels of government. I think this arrangement (when taken along with the BSA's official position on homosexuals and atheists) is unconstitutional... but legalization of same-sex marriage doesn't change this one way or the other.

Yes it does, the Boy Scouts of America and the LDS church have very close ties with eachother. The youth program for the boys in the church and boyscouts are intertwined. It would mean the end of the Boy Scout program in the Church if the BSA was forced to recognize homosexuals for leaders of troops.

They are? Which ones?

The ones who sue people for not supporting them. how could you even ask this question after reading the lawsuits?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So in other words if a gay couple comes to you and wants to rent from you, you cannot refuse to support them in thier co-habitation. no matter what your religious beliefs are

Or, in other words, if you offer a service to the public, you offer it to the public.

Many jurisdictions have laws that prohibit people from discriminating in their business; if these are too onerous, the person always has the option of not going into business. There are plenty of lines of work where this issue does not arise.

I'm not sure if you realize that the laws that protect a lesbian couple from being unjustly evicted for being lesbian are the same ones that would prevent your landlord from evicting you for being Mormon.

So a religious group that helps the government by working for them as a non-profit organization all of a sudden must now give up thier right to religious enjoyment? that is just stupid.

Nobody asked them to give up "their right to religious enjoyment" (BTW - is that even a right? Religious belief and practice, sure, but what's "enjoyment" in this context?) . What was asked of the government is that they, as well as any agency they employ, provide their services without discrimination and within the bounds of the law. Since the Catholic Charities of Boston could not do this within the bounds of their religious beliefs, they withdrew their services from the government. It wasn't their religious rights that were affected, it was their ability to provide special adoption services on behalf of the government, which wasn't a right for them at all.

i also would like to know, because if they were sladerous then i would agree that they should not be wearing the T-shirts. But if it was things like "Help protect marriage, Vote for the proposition" then i don't see how that is wrong considering it is a political issue and there are 18 year olds in school who can vote.

Google to the rescue! According to this article, the shirt in question said "homosexuality is shameful". Personally, I don't think that's appropriate to wear to school, and that the school board was right to prohibit it.

But as a side note, apparently the ACLU filed a brief in the case in favour of the t-shirt-wearing student.

Should not matter, buisnesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

So there you go - no concern on that point for you, right?

Camps, especially in the LDS church, are run by voulenteer only. alot of other religious insitutions also run camps that are non-profit.

In some contexts, volunteers are treated as employees (for health and safety purposes in some jurisdictions, for example), in others, they're not. I assume that the church's responsibilities might vary depending on where it is.

However, many summer camps do pay their counselors. At least around here, it's a common summer job for students.

As far as employers makign demans on peopel outside of work, There have been cases where people have posted things on thier blogs, forums, or myspace page that thier employer found and fired them for legally.

Yes, but when this happens, it's because of how those things relate to their job. A company would be in the right to fire an employee for posting confidential company information in their blog, or for insulting their employer on MySpace. A kosher food distributor's business would probably suffer if photos surfaced online of its sales manager at a skinhead rally... all these have legitimate bearing on the company and its business activities. The mere fact of an employee's sexual orientation or religious beliefs does not.

No, there is not. you can not say that them being homosexual will not influence their advice or council, or actions even at a camp.

Just as me being LDS would affect my actions, advice, and council.

What sort of camps are the LDS Church running? :sarcastic

When I was a kid, I went to YMCA overnight camp and day camps run by the City. The day camp counselors didn't mention sexuality at all, and the YMCA counselors only mentioned it when they were giving the rules to us ("no sneaking over to the girl's camp and no sex. If you're caught having sex, your parents get called and you get sent home"). I have absolutely no idea of the sexual orientation of any camp counselor I ever had.

... no, wait: Make that one. One of my counselors mentioned his girlfriend. Still, a person's sexual orientation has absolutely no bearing on whether they can herd a group of kids around and keep them out of trouble while instilling them with proper Mormon virtues.

Yes it does, the Boy Scouts of America and the LDS church have very close ties with eachother. The youth program for the boys in the church and boyscouts are intertwined. It would mean the end of the Boy Scout program in the Church if the BSA was forced to recognize homosexuals for leaders of troops.

I did not realize that recognition as leader of a Scout Troop was something that was connected to marriage. I guess I'd better call Scouts Canada and report for duty; apparently, a Scout Troop has been missing me as a leader for the past four years.

The ones who sue people for not supporting them. how could you even ask this question after reading the lawsuits?

Because I recognize the lawsuits for what they actually are, not what you portray them to be, and because I don't recognize your right to infringe on the rights of others as a right at all.

 

[Father Heathen]

People have accused me of being overly hostile towards religion, but what can you expect when they're clearly trying to destroy our rights, our freedom and our country?

 

[Magic Man]

Another part of the article outlining another incident:


So in other words if a gay couple comes to you and wants to rent from you, you cannot refuse to support them in thier co-habitation. no matter what your religious beliefs are

Where did you get that? That's not even what it says in that quote you posted. However, if you're going into business, you have to realize that your religion has no place there. As far as your business goes, you have to treat everyone equally. So, yes, if you have a business where you rent rooms to people, you cannot discriminate, not even right now without same-sex marriages being legal.

So a religious group that helps the government by working for them as a non-profit organization all of a sudden must now give up thier right to religious enjoyment? that is just stupid.

No, they just can't bring their religious views like this into their government-funded organization. If they want to fund themselves somehow, they can pretty much do what they want, unless they're a business, in which case they have to follow normal business rules. Please make the distinction here. If I give you money to do a project for me, I expect you to follow my rules. If you don't need my money, then you don't need to follow my rules.

i also would like to know, because if they were sladerous then i would agree that they should not be wearing the T-shirts. But if it was things like "Help protect marriage, Vote for the proposition" then i don't see how that is wrong considering it is a political issue and there are 18 year olds in school who can vote.

I have to doubt they were that polite (and I use that term loosely).

Camps, especially in the LDS church, are run by voulenteer only. alot of other religious insitutions also run camps that are non-profit.

Good for them. If they don't use government money, and are not a licensed business, they can use their own rules.

As far as employers makign demans on peopel outside of work, There have been cases where people have posted things on thier blogs, forums, or myspace page that thier employer found and fired them for legally.

I would like to see these cases. I don't doubt they exist, but there is a difference there, and to defend that action of firing them, I would need to know all of the details. I'm sure in at least most of the cases, the companies had very good reason for doing so.

No, there is not. you can not say that them being homosexual will not influence their advice or council, or actions even at a camp.

Yes, you can. Remember, other places can't refuse to hire a Mormon solely because he/she is Mormon.

Just as me being LDS would affect my actions, advice, and council.

Exactly, and, as I stated above, I can't refuse you service or employment just because you're LDS.

Yes it does, the Boy Scouts of America and the LDS church have very close ties with eachother. The youth program for the boys in the church and boyscouts are intertwined. It would mean the end of the Boy Scout program in the Church if the BSA was forced to recognize homosexuals for leaders of troops.

And?

The ones who sue people for not supporting them. how could you even ask this question after reading the lawsuits?

Because this was not the case in any of the examples given so far.

 

[Father Heathen]

Mormons, explain to me why you think MY tax dollars should fund religious bigots?

 

[Theocan]

Mormons, explain to me why you think MY tax dollars should fund religious bigots?

Because its God's Way

Oh my John Hagee's on and he says that God is telling him for people to donate another 1,000,000 or he won't be saved. :no:

 

[Father Heathen]

Because its God's Way

Oh my John Hagee's on and he says that God is telling him for people to donate another 1,000,000 or he won't be saved. :no:

LOL, the idea of god holding people ransom for earth dollars.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, they just can't bring their religious views like this into their government-funded organization. If they want to fund themselves somehow, they can pretty much do what they want, unless they're a business, in which case they have to follow normal business rules. Please make the distinction here. If I give you money to do a project for me, I expect you to follow my rules. If you don't need my money, then you don't need to follow my rules.

It's a bit different from that. Catholic Charities were operating an adoption agency: children for adoption would become wards of the state by the normal ways that this happens. Adoption agencies (including Catholic Charities), on behalf of the government, would try to find homes for these children. Effectively, they were fulfilling part of the role that is within the purview of the government, specifically the Massachussetts Department of Social Services.

The state government has a responsibility to adhere to the law in its provision of services to the public, including the laws regarding equal treatment. These responsibilities extend to government contractors, such as these adoption agencies.

All that happened is that the contractor refused to abide by the conditions that would be imposed on it and withdrew its services. Instead, the contract went to other agencies.

The government has a responsibility to ensure that its services are rendered in a legal manner, and a government contract is not a right.

 

[Magic Man]

It's a bit different from that. Catholic Charities were operating an adoption agency: children for adoption would become wards of the state by the normal ways that this happens. Adoption agencies (including Catholic Charities), on behalf of the government, would try to find homes for these children. Effectively, they were fulfilling part of the role that is within the purview of the government, specifically the Massachussetts Department of Social Services.

The state government has a responsibility to adhere to the law in its provision of services to the public, including the laws regarding equal treatment. These responsibilities extend to government contractors, such as these adoption agencies.

All that happened is that the contractor refused to abide by the conditions that would be imposed on it and withdrew its services. Instead, the contract went to other agencies.

The government has a responsibility to ensure that its services are rendered in a legal manner, and a government contract is not a right.

That's what I said!

You're right. I was just being more general, and probably too simple about it. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Apex]

Mormons, explain to me why you think MY tax dollars should fund religious bigots?

What are you talking about?

 

[Azakel]

People have accused me of being overly hostile towards religion, but what can you expect when they're clearly trying to destroy our rights, our freedom and our country?

Well you can be a bit more fare and note that not all religions are trying to destroy rights, freedom, and the country. ^_^

 

[Father Heathen]

Well you can be a bit more fare and note that not all religions are trying to destroy rights, freedom, and the country. ^_^

I realize that, and they aren't the target of my ire.

 

[Father Heathen]

What are you talking about?

This:

The goverment has always chosen "equality" over the freedom to enjoy religion in many many cases between homosexuals and religious insititutions.

Mormon Times - Marriage ruling likely to impinge on religious rights

So a religious group that helps the government by working for them as a non-profit organization all of a sudden must now give up thier right to religious enjoyment?

(by the way madhatter, it's their and not "thier", since you've so kindly corrected me once.)

 

[Azakel]

I realize that, and they aren't the target of my ire.

Okay, it's just that some Atheist on here when they say Theist or Religion are putting all of it into one box and can't seem to tell the difference or care to.

 

[Father Heathen]

Okay, it's just that some Atheist on here when they say Theist or Religion are putting all of it into one box and can't seem to tell the difference or care to.

Honestly I don't have a problem with or care less what others believe. A lot of my friends and family are Christian, etc. It's only when they try to impose those beliefs in a way that violates the rights and freedoms of others that gets me riled up.

 

[Apex]

This:

I do have a problem with the examples given in that article. But I fail to see how same sex marriage really has anything to do with them if they are already occurring.

 

[McBell]

I do have a problem with the examples given in that article. But I fail to see how same sex marriage really has anything to do with them if they are already occurring.

Same here.
It reminds me of the Belgium argument:

Belgium allowed same sex marriage and the number of children born out wedlock went up
​

 

[madhatter85]

This:

(by the way madhatter, it's their and not "thier", since you've so kindly corrected me once.)

It's not quite the same, I used the proper word, but misspelled it, you used the wrong spelling of the word which had a different meaning.

my right hand types faster than my left hand so i end up transposing letters very often...