Do Mormons have the right to discriminate?

I am sure you have heard by now. Several general authorities, who are leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints called for legislation that protects “vital religious freedoms”.

After you have read this, move over the site and see what was actually said. Don’t Google the fake news channels to see what someone thinks about what was said and why the church is wrong. That is like listening to a Ute fan describe the good points of BYU co-eds.

The LDS Church also said it would support legislation where it is being sought to provide protections in housing, employment and some other areas where LGBT people do not have protections Here are three key points from that press release.

1) The Church supports “fairness for all” including LGBT people while protecting key religious rights

2) People are being 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. This is just as wrong as persecution or retaliation against LGBT people.

3) The church seeks a balanced approach between religious and gay rights.

The church also admitted that this is a highly polarized discussion and that neither side, politically, may get all that they want. As per the site “We must all learn to live with others who do not share the same beliefs or values". This seems very straight forward

It is crucial to point out that the LDS church was not calling for changes internally to the Law of Chastity, a requirement of the LDS church for full membership that discourages sex outside the bounds of marriage, nor were there changes to the status of gay marriage within the policies of the church. There was no shift in doctrine.

Some people are claiming that the LDS church is looking for special privileges and rights. I spent parts of two days arguing this on a Facebook site. The gentleman I spoke with was smarter than I and he used troglodyte in a sentence which was impressive.

Here is a statement made on social media sometimes in the last two days, and I will paraphrase:

"By extending special legal protections toward a group one can belong to by choice, (the Mormon church) society effectively allows anybody to choose to receive the benefit of the special status granted to that group."

If this statement is true, then what is the special status that will be allowed to Mormons or any other religious group if such a bill is passed?

The law would support the free exercise of religion, prohibit any infringement of freedom of speech, or infringement of our freedom of the press. It would also prohibit interfering with the right to peaceably assemble.

Sound familiar? It was adopted on December 15, 1791 as one of the ten amendments that constitute our Bill of Rights. Which brings us to these two thoughts.

1) So, why are we re-establishing the amendments?  I'm not sure, but it is all the rage. Laws have been created that make crimes against certain groups worth more time in jail than the same crime against your standard Joe. Maybe we, as a society, need reiteration of current laws in order to have significance. If this is true, then that doesn't bother me. Lets re-ratify them all --  as long as it means that we are treating people with love and respect.

2) Why is there a loud contingent of social media that do not support the idea of religious rights as recently stated by the Mormon Church?  

I don't know this either, but me tell you what I think. "They" will not support anything that allows the church to publicly state standards that do not appeal to the majority or to their sensibility. 

There is a huge issue with tithing. There are people who do not want to be forced to pay it. Others are not OK with the law of chastity, and if the Mormons have that standard and they do not want to follow, they are opposed to it. Not allowing non recommend holders to witness temple ceremonies is another.

Then their are the big ticket items. Women not being allowed to hold the priesthood and subsequently not being allowed into many leadership roles. Huge. And gay people, sex, chastity and not being able to be actively gay and be in full membership. Huge issue.

Yes, this is over simplistic and is a generalization.   

So, Mormons hitching their issue to the gay rights star?  I don't have a problem with it. Rights for all, I say. At least someone is getting hitched.

"Please help him stop being gay..."

Dear Amy: I recently discovered that my son, who is 17, is a homosexual. We are part of a church group and I fear that if people in that group find out they will make fun of me for having a gay child. He won’t listen to reason, and he will not stop being gay.
 

I feel as if he is doing this just to get back at me for forgetting his birthday for the past three years - I have a busy work schedule. Please help him make the right choice in life by not being gay. He won’t listen to me, so maybe he will listen to you.
- Feeling Betrayed


Dear Betrayed: You could teach your son an important lesson by changing your sexuality to show him how easy it is. Try it for the next year or so: Stop being a heterosexual to demonstrate to your son that a person’s sexuality is a matter of choice – to be dictated by one’s parents, the parents’ church and social pressure.

I assume that my suggestion will evoke a reaction that your sexuality is at the core of who you are. The same is true for your son. He has a right to be accepted by his parents for being exactly who he is. When you ‘forget’ a child’s birthday, you are basically negating him as a person. It is as if your saying that you have forgotten his presence in the world. How very sad for him.

Pressuring your son to change his sexuality is wrong. If you cannot learn to accept him as he is, it might be safest for him to live elsewhere. A group that could help you and your family figure out how to navigate this is PFLAG.org. This organization is founded for parents, families, friends and allies of LGBT people, and has helped countless families through this challenge. Please research and connect with a local chapter. - Amy

 (Thanks to Justin Michael for finding this in the Press & Sun of Binghamton, New York. Amy Dickson writer)

Save our children from ENDA! E-mail your congressman now!

I was happy to see that Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake become the latest republicans to support the Employment Nondiscrimination Act passed on Thursday, 64 to 32.

They joined Sens. Dean Heller of Nevada, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Ron Kirk of Illinois, who is the bills co-sponsor.

 

Ten Republicans and two Independents joined the 52 Democrats to support the bill. Four Senators abstained from voting. They were getting their hair done by straight hair dressers.

This is the first time in US history that the U.S. Senate had approved any type of legislation to prohibit discrimination in a workplace environment of gay, lesbian and transgender employees.

Passing a non-discrimination law, though I think they should simply add sexual identity to the laws that already protect based on gender, race and religion, does not encourage a gay "lifestyle".  It supports our brothers and sisters, our fellow citizens and keeps them from being hurt.

Opposition in the Republican-controlled House is strong, so there is little chance the measure will become law.  It would be horable if the US  passed laws to protect it's President Barack Obama urged the House to take the bill up and said he would sign it.

"One party in one house of Congress should not stand in the way of millions of Americans who want to go to work each day and simply be judged by the job they do," the President said in a statement. "Now is the time to end this kind of discrimination in the workplace, not enable it. I urge the House Republican leadership to bring this bill to the floor for a vote and send it to my desk so I can sign it into law."

 

The bill would provide the same protections for LGBT workers as are already guaranteed on the basis of race, gender and religion, making in unlawful for employers to discriminate based on a person's "actual or perceived" sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

ENDA's  began in 1994, the first time it was introduced in Congress. Several years later, a version that only protected sexual orientation failed to get by the Senate by one vote. The bill was not brought up again for a vote until 2007 when the House passed the narrower version.

.

"The Speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs," said House leader Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel.

 

Chad Griffin, president of the LGBT activist group Human Rights Campaign, had harsh words for Boehner.

 

"The Speaker, of all people, should certainly know what it's like to go to work every day afraid of being fired. Instead of letting the far right trample him again, it's time for Speaker Boehner to stand with the majority of everyday Republican voters and support ENDA," Griffin said earlier this week.

Regardless proponents are applauding Senate action.

 

Opinion: It's 'way past time' for gay rights law

 

Several opponents of the measure have some real concerns, saying that ENDA will  certainly "have a chilling effect on free speech as well as religious liberty" by requiring secular businesses who have a moral objection to LGBT people to not discriminate against them.

 

(Yes, people. There are people who object to LGBT people, and therefore, would not hire them.  Frankly, I have a moral objection to most lawyers, yet I would hire them if I needed one.)

 

Here's another goody: The Traditional Values Coalition said that ENDA would hurt kids, and here's why:

 

"Young students in some states are already being confused by transgender teachers," a fact sheet supplied by the coalition read. "If ENDA passes, students and children in daycare centers all across the nation will be subjected to individuals experimenting with their gender identities."

 

Let me just gag now.