In light of the news that the LDS Church has shifted gears in its opposition to marriage equality it has also given heightened attention to the promotion of religious freedom. This was emphasized in a letter dated September 15, 2013 from the Hawaii Stake Presidency to church members about the upcoming vote to legalize marriage equality in that state:
“We have received a number of questions in the last few months regarding proposed legislation that would redefine the relationship and nature of marriage in Hawaii.
“As members of the Church we should be actively engaged in worthy causes that will affect our communities and our families. This legislation will directly affect both. Members are encouraged to study this legislation prayerfully and then as private citizens contact your elected representatives in the Hawaii Legislature to express your views about the legislation. As you do so, you may want to review “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” and other Church publications available on the Church website at lds.org.You may also wish to consider donating your time or resources to one of the community organizations addressing this issue.
“Whether or not you favor the proposed change, we hope that you will urge your elected representatives to include in any such legislation a strong exemption for people and organizations of faith. Such an exemption should:
“ — Protect religious organizations and officials from being required to support or perform same-sex marriages or from having to host same-sex marriages or celebrations in their facilities; and
“ — Protect individuals and small businesses from being required to assist in promoting or celebrating same-sex marriages.
“This is an important issue. As your stake presidency, we urge every family to discuss this issue together and then respond as you feel appropriate. Thank you for your support and faithful service. We pray that the Lord will bless and protect you and your families always.”
This is a remarkable shift from the hardline stance the church took during the Proposition 8 campaign in California. Gone are the commands to donate time and means to opposing the law and instead church members are instructed to express their views. While the read-between-the-lines is still implicit with the mention of reviewing the Proclamation it is still striking to see a much more nuanced position issued by church leadership.
The other striking part of the letter is the emphasis on religious freedom. While the church and its leaders have been promoting the idea of religious freedom for decades the recent emphasis combined with the shift on its rhetoric on marriage equality serve as both a beacon of change and a shadow of a shameful past.
We have a poor institutional track record towards civil rights. The church’s current position towards marriage equality is roughly analogous to its position on civil rights in the early 1960’s. At that time we had come from an era in the 1950’s where the church quietly worked to defeat civil rights legislation in Arizona, had the Relief Society pressure the National Organization of Women to avoid supporting equal rights, had members of the First Presidency strongly opposing John F. Kennedy’s civil rights legislation because “it takes away a man’s right to contract, and to do business. […] there is no such power given to the Federal Government by the Constitution,” and had members of the Quorum of the Twelve saying that “the civil right’s movement in the South had been ‘fomented almost entirely by the communists,” was “phony,” and that “the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation?”(1)
These statements parallel remarks offered by many church leaders in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s about homosexuality equating it to a “disease” that could be “cured.”
By 1963 when President Kennedy invited religious leaders to the White House to increase support for his proposed civil rights legislation, President David O. McKay sent James E. Faust (then a Stake President) in his place and told him the following:
“I told Brother Faust that he should go and find out what President Kennedy is trying to do. I said that I did not like to see a law passed which will make the Hotel men violators of the law if they refuse to provide accommodations for a negro when their hotels are filled with white people, or restaurant men made violators when they decline to serve colored people. I said that businessmen ought to be free to run their own businesses, and not become law breakers if they choose to employ certain people; that if we have such a law as that, then it is unfair to the majority of the citizens of this country.”(2)
We now have similar rhetoric coming from the church when it comes to religious liberty and the rights of small business owners and religious institutions as noted in the Hawaii letter above. This shift is best described by Charles Haynes:
“People on the left and on the right believe that same-sex marriage is inevitable; the momentum is all in that direction,” said Haynes, director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum. “The best thing [believers] can do is to protect religious freedom — as they understand it — in this new reality.”
Whatever an owner’s personal beliefs, if a business opens its door to the public, Haynes said, it will not be able to withhold its services from gays.
As to whether churches themselves will be forced to perform or host same-sex weddings, Haynes said, “that will never happen until the First Amendment is repealed.”
The threat of such governmental coercion, he said, is “a red herring to frighten people.”
[…] “This is the freest society on Earth for religious people,” he said. “Protecting the rights of gay and lesbian people will not change that.”
The idea of a business using religious beliefs to not serve a black person should be as abhorrent as a restaurant not serving a gay couple. While the First Amendment may protect a religious institution from hiring a black person on the basis of their skin color, public opinion finds such an idea equally disgusting. May the day quickly come that we as a people rise above the prejudices of our day to see our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters for the children of God they truly are.
FOOTNOTES
1-David O. McKay and The Rise Of Modern Mormonism, 62-65
2-David O. McKay and The Rise Of Modern Mormonism, 68
I think you made some good points in your post and I agree that the Church was probably on the wrong side of history in the 50’s and 60’s with the civil rights legislation. While that is disappointing and wrong, sadly, too many Americans were on the wrong side of that issue 40-50 years ago.
However, gay marriage IS NOT a civil rights issue. I will leave it at that, because I address this very issue in another post some time in the future.
And as for having the “momentum on your side”. That might be the case if you look at very recent history. But, according to wikipedia, the marriage amendment (traditional marriage versus same sex marriage) had been put before voters in 32 states and 30 of the 32 states supported traditional marriage. In fact today, 29 of those states still have those laws/amendments on the books. In some cases, the votes was overwhelmingly in support of traditional marriage.
So I would hold off on declaring that the tide of public opinion has shifted. I would wait for more evidence to demonstrate that.
Sorry, I made a point but failed to provide the link so here you go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions
Many folks (myself included) are not nearly so sanguine as Mr. Haynes about things “never happen(ing).” I tend to be quite pro-gay rights in my general outlook (mostly stemming from my beliefs that government should stay out of everyone’s lives equally), but I have certainly been concerned by some of the rulings made by courts that dictate to business-owners who they must serve. The heightened anxiety that many in the religious community feel about judicial and legislative encroachment is often very warranted from everything we’re seeing develop.
In all the states that allow gay marriage have there been any lawsuits against churches? I have heard of none.
Just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. This is just on instance, and there are others.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on/
There is a difference between church ceremony and businesses run by religion.
I agree with Paul Barker. If this was a strictly a religious site, not charging its members for services, then it would be clearly exempt from discrimination laws. It would be like Catholics suing because of being denied to marry in LDS temples. However, if a Temple opened a place of business within, such as a clothing store (I know it sounds ridiculous, but just follow the logic), then it would be crossing a line in denying others to shop there. This retreat, as best as I can tell, is a place of business that is open to all Christians, but openly discriminates against homosexuals, so it clearly doesn’t meet the religious liberty exemption. If this site was free to members of their congregation, owned by the religious body, and registered as a tax exempt religious site, I would have a hard time seeing anyone kicking up a fuss about discrimination. I may be wrong about the legality of charging for its services, but the rest holds as placing it in the public business sphere. They would have no more argument against opposing gay marriage there as they would Muslim, atheist, or Jewish.
Yeshiva University (a private Jewish University) was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory is another example.
Is it a business or a church?
California bill SB323, known as the Youth Equality Bill, would deprive the Boy Scouts of America there tax exempt status if they failed to allow gay leaders. (If passed)
This is a private, nonprofit organization just as the church is and, there is a movement under way to say, “play by our rules and do what we tell you to do or else we will pull your tax exempt status.”
Anyone who thinks that California wouldn’t also do that to the LDS church someday is crazy. The issue isn’t the morality of being gay, but what rights a church or business ought to have.
Not that I know of in this country, Paul. Of course, the absence of lawsuits on any issue you can name was true at some point. Until, of course, it wasn’t. If you don’t think the agenda of some progressives is an eventual attack on religious institutions’ ability to restrict religious rites and access, then you and I are watching two different movies, Paul.
I wish this weren’t true. As I said, I have no issue whatsoever with gay folks wanting to be married. I believe marriage to be a civilizing and uniting institution in human society. That said, I have a major concern about the actual endgame of the gay rights lobby as it concerns dictating terms to private businesses and religious institutions.
I business owner should be able to refuse service to whomever they want. It’s their business. Nobody has the right to shop at a certain business.
I don’t think it’s a good business practice to discriminate against a potential customer. However, that shouldn’t be up for any of us to dictate to a business owner.
Religious freedom is really about the freedom of thought; to believe as one wants to believe. What good is a belief if a person cannot act* on that belief.
*obviously things that would cause harm to others should be restricted.
You write:
” May the day quickly come that we as a people rise above the prejudices of our day to see our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters for the children of God they truly are.”
So you’re concluding that if you don’t want to participate in celebrating a gay wedding that you aren’t seeing the gay couple as children of God? Seriously? That’s not a logical conclusion.
“In light of the news that the LDS Church has shifted gears in its opposition to marriage equality”
What does this mean? The doctrine hasn’t changed. None of the standards have changed. No “gears” have “shifted” regarding the law of chastity. They have begun heavily emphasizing Christ-like love and compassion when dealing with our brothers and sisters who perceive themselves to be same sex attracted, but that’s not a shifting of gears as to opposition to the conceptual self-negation of homosexual marriage. That the author begins his piece with this kind of intellectual slight-of-hand isn’t promising.
Marsh then upends his own opening assertion:
“ Members are encouraged to study this legislation prayerfully and then as private citizens contact your elected representatives in the Hawaii Legislature to express your views about the legislation. As you do so, you may want to review “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” and other Church publications available on the Church website at lds.org.”
“The Family: A Proclamation to the World” clearly and succinctly sets out the traditional and uncompromising doctrine of the family, gender, and appropriate gender relations, scuttling Marsh’s initial claim that the church had “shifted gears” in its opposition to homosexual marriage.
“This is a remarkable shift from the hardline stance the church took during the Proposition 8 campaign in California. Gone are the commands to donate time and means to opposing the law and instead church members are instructed to express their views. While the read-between-the-lines is still implicit with the mention of reviewing the Proclamation it is still striking to see a much more nuanced position issued by church leadership.”
Ahh..now its not shifting gears in its opposition to homosexual marriage, but just a more “nuanced position” on its open political opposition and encouragement of member political activism on the matter. Quite a difference, actually.
“The other striking part of the letter is the emphasis on religious freedom. While the church and its leaders have been promoting the idea of religious freedom for decades the recent emphasis combined with the shift on its rhetoric on marriage equality serve as both a beacon of change and a shadow of a shameful past.”
And here comes the new meme; the new liberal NOM/apostate narrative that has already spread across the cultural Mormon Internet world and that revels in its own self-delusion as much as in a kind of “I told you so” politically correct triumphalism in anticipation of a future in which open, practicing homosexuals will be sealed in the temples and ordained as bishops, stake presidents, and mission leaders.
Please read or listen again to Elder Bednar’s talk, last Conference, on the law of chastity. I need say little more on this aspect of the matter.
“We have a poor institutional track record towards civil rights. The church’s current position towards marriage equality is roughly analogous to its position on civil rights in the early 1960’s.”
How many times must this be shot down and how full of holes can it get before this line of argument hits the canvas and stays put?
1. Notice the Newspeak term “marriage equality” in lieu of “gay” marriage or, even better, what it is, homosexual marriage. This has, of course, a strong linguistic and psychological connection to terms such as “pro-choice.”
2. Being black is purely genetic in nature, and an inherent morphological attribute.
3. Homosexuality is a matrix of feelings, perceptions, mental states, and behaviors the origins of which are unknown and most likely very complex, subtle, and dynamic in nature.
Apples, meet oranges.
More later…
Forgive my ignorance but I read your comment twice and still don’t understand which view you take on this. Are you in agreement with the post, or being critical of it.
I for one disagree with much of it, though his points about civil rights legislation in the 50’s and 60’s seems correct. But I guess I don’t understand.
The Church’s shift would be that we are now saying that people are born gay. Before we use to do shock therapy trying to “cure” gays. We used to recommend and support therapy like green leaf and other programs that help “cure” gays. We no longer do that anymore.
The comment quoted was this….
“People on the left and on the right believe that same-sex marriage is inevitable; the momentum is all in that direction,” said Haynes…
My reply was to the inevitable comment and the momentum comment- pointing out that 30 of 32 states voted to support traditional marriage.
It’s way to early to say where this goes.
Paul, I think you mean Evergreen.
Allan – let’s not try to use the excuse that the approach taken with regards to homosexuals by using shock therapy was not known or supported by the church. Evergreen may not have been officially affiliated with the church but “Evergreen has had one or more emeritus general authority on its board of trustees and teaches LDS Church principles to Latter-day Saints and ecclesiastical leaders through working with the church as well as hosting various events, which have included firesides (informal gatherings of church members at night), workshops, and conferences.
On September 19, 2009, Bruce C. Hafen, a general authority of the LDS church, spoke at Evergreen’s annual conference,[8] which was held at the Joseph Smith Memorial Building in Salt Lake City, a property owned by the LDS Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_International
In addition to Evergreen on BYU’s campus they used these same methods with students.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
How many logical fallacies is it going to take before we can acknowledge that most of the arguments against gay marriage simply hide the truth. (Take your pick here: http://carm.org/logical-fallacies-or-fallacies-argumentation) The truth is that marriage is marriage is marriage–it’s not a gay or straight thing. It’s simply marriage.
Marriage is a contract of licensure between people and the government, regardless of who is putting what into somebody else’s whatever. Many people differ on what is considered “marriage in the sight of God”, but that’s not the argument. The argument is either for or against legally acknowledging a greater variety of relationships made between consenting adults.
Here are the options: we continue to discriminate against who can make these contracts, or we start with letting these contracts be made between people and their government. Everyone pays taxes and we’re all happy now! See how easy that was?
Marriage is a contract of license between people and the government, regardless of who is putting what into somebody else’s whatever.
Here are the options: we continue to discriminate against who can make these contracts, or we start with letting these contracts be made between people and their government.
So Dana, are you saying that since marriage is a contract of license between “people and their government” (your words, not mine)- you would support polygamy? What about businesses “marrying” each other to receive tax benefits. Neighborhood communities marrying to have benefits. To what end do we take this to, since you narrowly describe marriage as a contract of license between “people and their government.”
First, no one has said that the only and complete definition of marriage is “people and government” must be involved. Obviously, there are more stipulations than that.
Second, I won’t speak for Dana, but I would be ok with polygamy between consenting adults. It would make it much easier to sniff out the abuses of certain cultures.
Marriage is really about regulation- making sure that all parties involved have all parties’ best interests at heart. It’s good to regulate it- make it so SAHM/wives have legal recourse if their husband abandons them, makes it so children have parents committed to raising them… the benefits to a marriage between a consenting, adult, monogamous couple are numerous. It doesn’t make sense to restrict that to one definition of family- other non-typical families are going to happen, so why not protect the interests of those involved and society as a whole by making certain obligations and commitments legally binding?
All these “what if?” scenarios get taken care of when you remove government-provided “benefits” from marriage. The only function of government in marriage should be to enforce a specific contract. Adult individuals and businesses can then contract with one another however they’d like.
I think this was spot-on and well-stated. I know hind sight is 20/20, but I think in 20 years we’ll look back at this line of thought as a given, just as now we can look back at the blacks getting the priesthood and say “oh, that was policy, not doctrine, we don’t know where it came from” (which is blatantly false, I can tell you exactly which priesthood leaders- and scriptures- it came from).
We, including the General Authorities, are creatures of our time- and God gives us guidance according to the time we live in. Wait a generation or two and you’ll see a very different approach.
I really enjoyed the article. I think the writer does a great job explaining the contradictions of those against marriage equality I look forward to the day when society will no longer tolerate the level of homophobia which is reflected in so many of the comments of this blog. They are so tedious. And it’s incredibly exhausting to continually answer these same arguments.
The analogy is deeply flawed. Nobody is talking about kicking a gay married couple out of a restaurant because they have religious objections to gay marriage. We are talking about the right of a person to not be coerced into supporting what they have a religious objection to.
It cuts both ways. A LDS print shop owner should have every right to refuse a job of printing wedding invitations for a gay marriage, just the same as a gay print shop owner should have every right to refuse to print flyers promoting marriage remain by the traditional definition. Likewise the Knights of Columbus Hall should be able to refuse to rent out their building for a gay wedding reception, and a gay hotel owner has the right to refuse to rent space to those who would use it to fight gay marriage.
The government has no right to force people to act contrary to their conscience, not in their personal or their professional life. The church has wisely seen that gay marriage is being used to deny religious freedom and are pushing back. Good for them.
If you are in the biz to make money and you refuse to offer your services because someone is gay – this is not an attack on religious freedom, this is discrimination. It would be different if there were lawsuits against Church’s like the temple for refusing to marry gays. Any lawsuits in the USA? No there isn’t. Is there gay marriage in the USA? Why yes. – so my conclusion, there is no attack on religious freedom.
If gay business owners were to refuse to admit mormons, maybe the mormons would finally understand what it is like to be discriminated against.
And isn’t the penalty for that discrimination the loss of revenue and potentially bad word-of-mouth? How does the government have the right to tell said private biz owner who he must or must not serve? If people want to refuse service to anyone for any reason, how is that the concern of anyone not directly involved in that refusal?
Wow! Are you hearing yourself? Did the civil rights movement not have any impact on you? Business owners were refusing to serve people based on their race – in buses, restaurants, stores….
I feel like I’ve gone back in a time warp!
I am hearing myself, Alison. I guess my dislike for government-sanctioned force and coercion is just a tad greater than my dislike for bigots. Sort of how your dislike for bigotry is just a tad greater than your use of reason.
Name calling only weakens your argument. Not every person who opposes gay marriage is homophobic. Tell me, suppose an atheist had no issue with being gay but still opposed same sex marriage. Are they homophobic? You gay marriage supporters apply labels to everyone who oppose it, even though many simply see no constitutional basis to allow it.
Name calling is easier though I guess.
Utahhiker801,
Okay Jen, I’ll play sling according to the definition you gave instead of Dana’s. I’m happily married as is my brother. We start a business together. We decide that, purely for tax reasons, we should be married as business partners who think alike. That’s allowable by your definition because:
Consenting adults
Polygamy is allowed
No spouse will be abandoned as a result
No coercion
No kids will be abandon
No sex means no incest will occur
Everyone’s happy. You figured it out Jennifer.
Jenn,
If only Joseph, Brigham, and others were alive to us Mormons tear apart polygamy… WE ARE NOT DEBATING POLYGAMY here. Stick to what is being argued son!
With all due respect, I’m not your son.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Hahahahahaha Jen, that’s really cute.
You outline for the the A, B, C, D, and E of what you would allow and why you would allow it.
I present to you that, based on the terms you set forth, X would also be acceptable. You dismiss it as a strawman.
What you people don’t get is that, whatever the REASON that the courts or states ALLOW gay marriage- attorneys will go into court and make a case why their client ALSO deserves the right to marry- BASED UPON THE STANDARD YOU SET.
So Paul and Jen, when you say you support gay marriage- you should state why. Jen, I already asked you why and said told me.
I just told you that, based upon the standard THAT YOU PERSONALLY SET TO DEFINE WHO COULD OR COULDN’T GET MARRIED, it would open the door to this thing or that thing.
And rather than dispute or debate that point, you name call with the straw man thing.
Paul simply says move on, refusing to debate if that could be true.
Very nice slight of hand.
I never said no spouse would be abandoned, no incest would occur… you’re misrepresenting what I said then using that to point out how it wrong. It makes it difficult to debate when you end up having to defend a premise that doesn’t match what you originally put forth.
Marriage serves many purposes. It HELPS solve many problems, or at least gives people legal recourse when problems occur (which isn’t to say it has solved all those problems).
I’ve been tempted to throw https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope out there too: it does not logically follow that if homosexuals marry, all the rules go out the window.
But for this particular case- homosexuality (not incest, polygamy, bestiality or any other slippery slope argument) no one has presented to me a compelling case of why they shouldn’t marry, and I see very compelling cases of why they should (especially since they can have children- we can’t stop adoption, surragacy, and lesbian pregnancies- we absolutely owe it to those children to have committed, obligated parents).
The slippery slope argument is a hollow one since one thing can and will lead to another. So before we go there. DO this for me please.
Gay marriage is not allowed right now. Tell me the basis by which you would allow it to happen? What legal basis allows us to redefine marriage?
(and here is a clue, the basis you provide to allow it, will be the same case I use to allow “marriage” that you might not agree with)
Make your case and I will demonstrate the legitimacy of slippery slope, just as I did when you admitted you could also support polygamy too.
In other words, agree with the post or keep my comments to myself?
My reply used the basis to allow gay marriage that SHE SET. Those were her agreeable parameters to allow gay marriage, not mine.
If you don’t want opinions that disagree than I won’t comment. You said before you can’t use morality as the basis to oppose it and I agree. Your website, your rules. I’ll shut up.
To all those who are ardently against this article….Nothing better than a whole lot of heterosplaining going on….heterosexuals explaining why gay people are gay…telling them they made a choice…and pretending like gay people would actually choose to put up with the bull@&$! that comes from crusading religious people. You say this isn’t a civil right issue…you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. It is time for the church to admit they have been wrong on this issue all along….it’s time for them to quit pushing this discrimination in the name of religious freedom.
Garrett- nobody used the word choice. I reread the comments and nobody suggested that. Quote it please.
If you suggest it’s a civil rights issue, please tell me where in the Constitution gay marriage should be allowed? It’s not a civil rights issue and I wrote a piece on this that will be released in the future.
The argument is a waste of time though because it only leads to name calling, applying quotes that were never stated, and my arguments are dismissed as out of bounds.
So the echo chamber can continue. I’ll fight this another day.
Jason Husk,
Tell you where in the constitution it is at…
Please stop with this ridiculous stuff. There is plenty that is not in the constitution that was not an issue at the time the constitution was drafted that now applies. I can only hope that you will never have a gay person in your direct family because the lack of empathy and desire to understand and the willingness to push your agenda against them is overwhelmingly clear. Maybe to you its not a civil rights issue….but you are not gay and on the receiving end of the discrimination that continues to rain down from religious bigotry. It is not your call to make. How about instead of fighting against those that are simply looking for equality and try doing what the 2nd great commandment asks….to love thy neighbor as thyself. Unless you saw some sort of foot note that said it was OK to discriminate against gays in the name of religious freedom.
Garrett- We have been down this road before. Listen, YOU DON’T KNOW ME. Stop telling me I am anti gay or bigoted or whatever else. I am a libertarian about sexuality. I don’t wear on my lapel a pin that says I’m straight. I don’t wear it on my forehead. I don’t tell others about my sex life. I am a person 1st, and my sexuality doesn’t define me. And so it is with gays. I have no issues with gay people, and I have gay friends and coworkers.
IT’S GAY MARRIAGE SUPPORTERS LIKE YOURSELF THAT PUT LABELS ON OTHERS. YOU NAME CALL AND DEMEAN OTHERS WHO DON’T SHARE YOUR POINT OF VIEW. If you took off your rose colored scuba goggles, you would see that their are other very reasonable people who see this issue differently than you do.
There is no basis for gay rights being a civil rights issue and I may discuss this later but not now.
Don’t lecture me on “love your neighbor” Garrett. I do love my neighbor, even if we disagree. You should try it.
There’s been many articles that explain the single-mindedness arguments behind this “religious freedom” paranoia. It is a reactionary very singular look at a complex issue, not looking to lead on the issue from an egalitarian perspective, but from a self-serving perspective that seeks to make it sound egalitarian at one level, but exclusionary on another. Just like the old Church perspective on civil rights, ie., the Pres. McKay quotes about the rights of hotelers and restaurant owners. What I can’t figure out is how this is playing out in the USA, which already has Constitutional protections. Maybe in an international context, in countries without religious freedom protections, a worthy “religious freedom” strategic approach would make sense, but I sense that Salt Lake is not really looking at this, blinded from a right-wing American perspective. Look at the Deseret News article, that tried to portray the Church as having partners on the right and on the left in their fight for Religious Freedom protections. But clicking on the group links cited, I saw the names of Ralph Reed, Bill Kristol, and more junior members of the Bush/Cheney campaigns than ever before assembled. This is not a multi-faceted argument, it’s a one-sided singular right-wing reactionary fear-based American look at the world, fearmongering at why, looking for an “easy” external threat while important internal threats are not being addressed-If we are really worried about attacks on “traditional” marriage, then maybe we should be doubling up on figuring out issues in our own marriage and family culture as it relates to intimacy issues between heterosexual husbands and wives, expected cultural roles of husband and wife, shame and perfectionism, education, academic inquiry and what/how we teach our children, why pornography is so rampant in our culture, all these real important things to discuss openly, but that leaders and folks are scared to approach as legitimate subjects because they reveal weaknesses in who we are as a culture, here and now. LDS divorce rates are as high as they are–there’s something to talk about. But it’s easier to go directly to the external enemy.
So much for my rant. Here’s the issue about religious freedom as the Church is applying it: it will surely backfire on us–a misunderstood religious minority who has still never learned from our own discriminated-against historical past. Who now tries to makes friends with people who are friends only for political expediency. So I can’t wait for the lawsuits crop up–the ones where the evangelical Southern Baptist landlord used our own arguments against us, to evict the newly baptized Mormon family from the apartment because “we don’t rent to Satan worshippers, and we have a religious right to keep these folks and their unholy underwear off our God-given property.” Or from the God-fearing restaurant owner who chooses not to serve Mormons. Or the Christian baker who refuses to bake a cake for that Mormon boy and his cultist family. Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, oh, so many groups that aren’t “real” Christians, who don’t deserve the same Constitutional rights as the real God-fearing citizens. When you go for these “exclusionary” one-sided type reactionary arguments, it may be good to assume that maybe, some day, you might find yourself on the other side. Then, let’s hope that when the time comes, the ACLU feels like we’re worth helping.
Note that I don’t think I mention “gay marriage” anywhere in this long response. It’s not about gay marriage, it’s all about us wanting to be allowed to make an exception, just because we don’t like the way the issue’s not going in our favor. At least here in USA, we have religious built-in protection. But this vaguely defined new Church approach gives no one any strategies that are positively exportable to places in the world with real religious freedom problems. It only strengthens the discriminatory abilities against the Church in other places around the world, by us here in America adopting the foreign often anti-Mormon pro-discrimination position, against our own long-term interests.
Well put, thanks for your comment!
Thank you for stating this so eloquently. I think the arguments made by people for the right to deny business services to one group or another are made by those who are generally part of the majority and have not had the experience of being victims of discrimination.
Thank you for articulating that so well.
And that is not what we are talking about either. If a gay person goes to a print shop owned by a Mormon to have invitations to a birthday party made, there is nothing about that makes the print shop owner support or promote gay marriage so there is no grounds for him to refuse the job, but if it is for invitations to a gay wedding that is different. It isn’t about the person being gay, it is about being forced to participate in, support, facilitate or promote gay marriage when it is contrary to your conscience. When you understand the difference then we can have a reasonable discussion about it.
If that print shop is a public business then the government has said it can’t discriminate who it serves. I honestly don’t understand why this distinction cannot be understood! If you are a religious organization that is not a a public business – so the government cannot tell you who you can/cannot marry in your temple. They cannot tell you who you have to ordain to the priesthood. If on the other hand you are a private business serving the public you cannot say to someone sorry I don’t agree with your religious/non-religious beliefs or your sexual orientation therefore you cannot purchase/participate/eat/etc… in my public business. That is called discrimination and it’s not allowed. This really is not this complicated. If you don’t want to sell wedding invitations to gay people in your print shop…. well you’re just outta luck because you are a public business.
So interesting that people are advocating that business owners should be able to choose who they want to serve!! Are they listening to themselves and thinking this out?
What I find interesting is that gay marriage supporters always preach and lecture others on tolerance.
Yet many of them are not tolerant of those who have a different point of view. They have no tolerance toward people who see this issue different than they do, for whatever reason.
This is a blog. This can either be an echo chamber where everyone gives an “AMEN” to every post that is written, or we can share ideas and different points of view and respect that others see it different than we do. We don’t have to agree and we can debate it, but I hate the name calling and the dismissing of arguments because YOU don’t find them acceptable.
Someone please let me know if this is going to be an echo chamber where others simply offer an “AMEN”!
I think the descent in some of the earlier replies into ad hom statements and assuming someone is saying something when they’re really not is frustrating.
To address your question, I think there’s a fundamental disagreement as to whether or not gay people deserve anti-discrimination protection. My article is written with the assumption that they are. I find this to be consistent with the needs of other minority communities that have sought legal protection in the course of our history.
You probably don’t feel the same way and thus the source of the disagreement.
Jon, for me the issue is one of respect. Good people can come to different conclusions and have different positions on this issue. I think you have shown respect toward my view.
Too often if you disagree, they apply some label on you like homophobic, bigot, or whatever else. Why can’t good people just disagree on this issue without resorting to name calling.
Fighting marriage equality is a battle the church has lost. Fighting for Freedom of Religion is a battle they can (and will) win. I think it is a great that they have shifted their focus to a fight they can win. It is sort of an escape clause the the church (and Mormons in general) badly need to re-frame their involvement in Prop 8 (which clearly served as a catalyst speeding the adoption of marriage equality in our country, both in the courts and in public opinion)
.
The question I have for gay marriage supporters is this?
Let’s suppose that gay marriage is the law of the land throughout the US someday. And your comments (most of you) is that businesses DO NOT have the right to deny service to someone who is gay.
If those things are true, does the church have the right to deny membership or temple weddings to gay couples?
Would they face losing their tax exempt status or something if they denied sacrament to gays?
This is what they fear when we talk about religious liberty. Is their fear justified, even if you morally disagree with their actions.
Jason – please try to understand this basic fundamental issue. The church will not have to do any of those things you just suggested because they are not a public business. The government cannot and never has gone into churches and demanded that they give holy sacraments/blessings/marriages to certain people. It’s not done and hasn’t been done. There are NO legal precedent for this or cases to show this. If on the other hand you are a public business you must allow everyone the same access to your services/product.
This types of fears are totally ridiculous and not based on anything legally real. They are to rile up people and throw out all kinds of unrealistic fears of what if…….
Enjoy the rest of the conversation. Jason has reaffirmed why I cannot stand talking with many Mormons. This conversation is going no where and he will continue to attack anything said that goes against what he thinks….bigotry is alive and well and I want no part of anyone who is willing to directly or indirectly continue on with that bigotry. I’m sure Jason will have some rebuttal about how he’s right and I’m wrong and I’ve assumed things….and to be honest I don’t care. Conversation cannot happen as long as there are close minded people unwilling to question how and why things are done and have been done. At some point the church will come out on the future and will make a declaration a la blacks and the priesthood in 1978…they will state that they have received further light and knowledge and that bigotry towards gays in the name of religious freedom is not OK. They will never apologize and will never admit wrong doing. Then, most everyone who has fought for religious freedom and furthered these bigoted practices will praise the church for their progressive move of acceptance of gays…forgetting all alongthat the church and many of its members were alive and well in bigoted protection of those religious freedoms. I outta here….I have better things to do than read Jason’s continued mouth filth
Garrett-
We need not be disagreeable even if we disagree.
If I said something to you and offended you than I’m sorry. I believe in the church and you don’t and that’s okay, we can disagree.
I mean no harm against you personally and again, if my comments were rude to you or I offended you- please forgive me.
I wish you well.
Excactly. Freedom of association includes the freedom to NOT associate with somebody if you don’t want to.
No, in the long run this won’t be a fight they win either. The gay activist will push and push and the concept of freedom of religion is so poorly understood and considered so unimportant that you will see a push to force the church to marry and seal gays. The church is buying time, and when eventually temple work is in danger of being forced to end over this, then the world’s cup of iniquity will be full and his wrath will be poured out. My guess anyway.
We are talking about a private business (ie: privately owned). I think you are mixing your terms with the public marketplace (meaning any member of the public can conduct business in the marketplace). Such a business is the property of the owner(s).
Does opening a private business make you a slave then? Denied a basic human right of freedom of religion and conscience? That is what you are saying. They in fact have every right to decide for themselves to refuse customers for a variety of reasons, including the right to refuse to have their business used to support a cause in opposition to their faith.
No potential customer has the right to make a slave of a business owner, deny them their right to freedom of religion, and force them to provide support for a cause contrary to their faith, and any government that says otherwise is totalitarian for doing so.
No, it’s called freedom of religion and it’s a basic human right.
It’s really not that complicated. Forcing a person to violate their conscience is totalitarian.
Yes, that freedom to choose what jobs they will take is part of what makes them business owners and not slaves.
I’m going to try and explain this one more time since you seem to still be confused about the actual laws. You are privileging your own position by comparing public accommodation laws with slavery.
If a business is open to the public and not affiliated with a religion (i.e., having religious beliefs doesn’t count), then it absolutely cannot discriminate against protected classes of folks in denying services. Under the ’64 CRA, those classes include race and (IIRC) sex and religious beliefs.
In some states, anti-discrimination statutes include gay folks. This is not universal across the states and is not yet a federal law.
This is not slavery! These prohibitions do NOT prohibit belief. They can be against gay marriage or miscegenation or whatever and can even publicize it at their stores. They simply cannot refuse service.
Allison, Please tell me something.
Can a Muslim owner operator truck driver refuse to haul a load of beer if he owns his own truck and trailer?
Legally, I don’t know the answer. But if he was willing to carry beer for as arab, but unwilling to carry beer for a westerner, then I’d say it’s discriminatory. The service being offered is identical.
Making flowers for a wedding- the flowers do not change in nature whether for a gay marriage or a straight one. The only difference is who you are serving.
Gays are not asking anyone for a new, objectionable service. They are asking for the same service already offered to straight people.
For another matter, beer is not protected by anti-discrimination. It is not human, it does not care about rights. This isn’t about what people are willing to do as far as services offered, it is about who they are willing to do it for. And if your service is to make wedding invites, saying you’ll make one invite for a straight couple, no problem, but the exact same invite for a gay couple (just with two male names on it), no way- THAT is discrimination.
The issue of the beer is that, based on religious grounds, he was and is able to NOT PARTICIPATE IN COMMERCE. It violates his religious beliefs to haul it, so he can decline. I have known many that do for this very reason.
Can the State of California pass a law that requires gay leaders or they will take away their tax exempt status? They have already tried to do that, even though the BSA are a private organization.
Who’s to say a liberal state might not tell the LDS church that they have to perform gay sealings in their LDS Temple or face being shut down or losing their tax exempt status? Nobody can say for sure that won’t happen. It’s a slippery slope you go down when you take away a business or organizations right to operate as they deem fit. Should we sue Disney for allowing more rides for skinny people?
Where does it end?
Oh, I understand what you were trying to get at with the beer, but I don’t think the analogy works, because by asking him to carry beer, they are asking him to provide a different SERVICE. He wouldn’t haul beer from any person- he didn’t care who. He would not offer that service. Also, beer is not protected by anti-discrimination. Gay individuals- who even the LDS church now recognizes do not have a choice in their sexual attraction- are protected. It sounds to me like that is the real beef of our disagreement- not whether or not gay marriage should be allowed, but whether or not practicing homosexuals are entitled to not be discriminated against.
My point was that a gay marriage is not asking for a different service, they are asking for the exact same product (a wedding invite, flowers). To not give it to them because of their sexual preference is discrimination.
First, the issue of whether or not there are anti-discrimination laws exists entirely separately from Gay Marriage. Anti-discrimination laws exist even in states where gay marriage is illegal- many have existed for decades.
And, remarkably, with all of the different types of anti-discrimination laws that have existed over time, the LDS church still picks and chooses who they will marry in their temple. It has never been legally challenged.
There is zero legal reason to believe that the LDS church’s ability to choose who to marry would be threatened in any way by either anti-discrimination laws, or legalized same-sex marriage. Take it from Morris Thurston, an active LDS lawyer in California (and a family friend of mine): http://www.dvjacl.org/news/ThurstonMemoOpposingProp8.pdf
The BSA ruling does not REQUIRE gay leaders, it requires that whether or not someone is gay is not a deciding factor for a position that has nothing to do with sexual preference. Seems fair and just to me.
You keep using the “slippery slope” fallacy with no precedent or evidence that all these horrible, right-infringing things would happen.
You know what WILL happen if gays are allowed to marry? Gays will be allowed to marry. That’s about it. The only thing that would change. Anti-discrimination laws that already exist will continue existing. More will probably (hopefully) come about so that the rights of individuals are protected more than the rights of an idea.
It might be nice, to some business people, to pick and choose who you do business with. But if you open a store and then post a sign on the door that says, “no blacks allowed” you will lose your business license, get sued, and perhaps go to jail. Businesses, by law, are not permitted to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex – no matter how much you may want them to. The ONLY holdout left in some states is sexual orientation. But discriminating against someone (i.e. withholding services) because someone is gay is going the way of the dinosaur.
The troubling thing is that people just assume that “the government can’t make a church do x because it’s a private church”. Says who? We have already seen instances where some have asked the government to weigh in on the Boy Scouts/gay scouts. Will them being a private organization allow them to decide or will the government force them to do what the government wants them to do.
The government didn’t look at all internet communication, emails, and monitor all phone calls until they did. Prior to that, they never did. And so who’s to say that the Government won’t impose itself on a private church and dictate what it must do. I mean, we already have people on this blog suggesting that PRIVATE businesses should not have a right to religious freedom.
Religious freedom as a principle is not what the original article is trying to negate. You’re right, the government requires constant oversight–that’s why the Constitution was written the way it was–checks and balances against power and privilege. Religious freedom is a valid concern, and like all freedoms, requires constant vigilance to ensure its not chipped away, which includes changing laws if needed. But right now, there is law and the law requires certain behavior. It is a given that religious freedom is a concern to Church leaders not just in this country. My point is I think similar to the original article’s point, that the Church’s method, timing, and allies all point to a reaction to the problem that is short-sighted and very American when compared to more serious religious freedom problems being dealt with in other places. Techniques and strategies now being used against Them, can at a later time and in the hands of others can be used against Us. Take any statement in this thread that says the word “gay”, and replace it with “Mormon” or “Jew”. Black. Indian Savage. Quaker. Anglican. English non-anglican Dissenters. Puritan. Lutheran. Bigamist Mormon. Irish. Italian. Polish. Catholic Papist. Chinese. Hindu. Sikh. Mennonites. Greek. Philipino. Lebanese. Huguenots. German. Japanese. Hispanic. Mexican. Baha’i. Tibetan Buddhist. Coptic Christian. Muslim. Who’ll be next in the headlines?
Exactly.
And when they come to discriminate against you just because they can, and for some reason you represent something they think is abhorrent, will you be the first to sit up and whine about it? Or will you sit back and say, “you know, if I was in their shoes, I’d let them discriminate against me. They have a right to make me a second class citizen.”
Private businesses make up the public marketplace, and we live in a land with Constitutional laws based on social contracts that promise protective outcomes to not just business owners and tax payers, but EVERYONE, citizens and non-citizens alike. Have you read the Constitution lately? Next time, read it imagining you were your neighbor who is not like you. Read it as if you were an African American slave descendant who may have a longer New World history than your own. Read it as if you were a Jewish immigrant seeking the same American dream as the protestant Puritan. Read it as if you were a Native American who was denied citizenship of the land that later became the physical marketplace, just because he was a savage and non-tax payer.
It seems like folks want to define and re-define the past in new ways that promotes a new self-motivated ideology of personal freedom and choice. Yes, Alison asks a valid question: have we all not learned anything from civil rights? Civil rights wasn’t just a series of laws, it was a movement that was based on Biblical principles of inclusion, equality and love of all fellow men. If you don’t agree with civil rights, than be honest, what does it mean to you when you say the concept of civil rights is wrong? Has the Jew not learned how to treat others, from millenia of being on the outside of the marketplace, literally? Has the Mormon not learned from the stories and histories of their ancestors seeking their Zion–ancestors whose muddy & bloody journey westward was coincindently parallel to the westward plight of Native Americans being displaced off what they considered their God-given lands? Those early dirty & ragged Mormon immigrants were exactly the same spurned folks that shopkeepers & landowners of their time were discriminating against–because they were not “the right kind of people”. As I stated way above in another response, this isn’t about gay or straight–it’s about “real” versus “not-real”, about self-justification versus others-justification. What about the European immigrant who sought to remove the Native American from their lands, forgetting themselves that the reason they chose this new land was because the European public & private businesses & marketplaces controlled by the aristocracies were denying them the very life, liberty & pursuit of happiness they were now seeking in a new land. It seems like we’ve all had to re-learn these things over and over, not learning at all from our own histories. Do you believe in the freedoms spoken about in the Constitution, consider then God-given and inspired? And then, do your principles somehow have an “out” clause only when the Rule of Law come in conflict with your own self-serving interpretations? We are all in this together, no matter how difficult that is.
I’m familiar with the Constitution thank you. So tell me, does the freedom of association not also include the freedom FROM association. Does the freedom of commerce not also include the freedom FROM commerce? Does the freedom if religion not also include the freedom FROM region?
Should a Muslim owner operator truck driver be required to haul a load of beer? No. And I’ve seen many who have insisted not to because of there religious beliefs. Can a Jewish shopkeeper refuse service to skinheads? Of course they can and probably should.
You talk about the Constitution and freedom, please, tell me what freedoms a business owner has that are protected from the Constitution.
Bamball,
Can you answer me about a Muslim hauling a beer load? A Jewish shopkeeper doing business with a skinhead?
Do they have religious rights? You mentioned them in your post.
Please address the question. Thank you.
Beer distillers are not a protected class so you cannot argue that if a trucker won’t haul your beer you are being discriminated against. A business owner can decide what products they want to carry/sell/transport.
Question for the naysayers-
Augusta national golf course is a private course where the Masters Golf Tournament is played every year.
Up until 1990, they prohibited black members to play. Up until August 2012, they prohibited women from joining their club.
Tell me Bill McGee, how were they able to legally do this? Why were they not closed down and sued?
Because they were a private club and they set their own rules, even if we hated their rules. And so it is with any other private club, organization, or church- they are free to decide for themselves who can join and who can’t.
As for businesses, if the business is a private business- they should be allowed their religious freedom.
And Jen, these aren’t slippery slopes, they are real things that happen. And it isn’t about the morality of the act, but about what’s legal.
For example, I don’t think birth control is immoral but the Catholics do. I was very uncomfortable with the idea that the federal government REQUIRED the Catholic church to provide birth control to their employees through their insurance. In fact, I think they also required that their insurance cover abortions too, though I’m not certain of that. The Church’s answer was to drop health coverage for their employees. Where does the government get off telling a church what they have to provide their employees, even if it infringes on their religious freedom.
And that, my friends, is the slippery slope we get with this. If a private business has to do X, and a private organization like the Boy Scouts have to do X, and a religion like the Catholic church has to do X for their employees, why should we not fear what the Government may someday require for the LDS church. Do you really trust your government that much?
Did your government tell you that they were going to monitor ALL PHONE CALLS, ALL EMAIL COMMUNICATION, ALL INTERNET ACTIVITY when they passed the Patriot Act? Of course not.
There is universal agreement on the fact that churches and individuals are afforded wide latitude under the First Amendment to freely exercise their religion.
Thus, when you assert that the federal government was forcing the Catholic Church to provide birth control coverage in the health insurance they offered their employees you are misrepresenting what actually happened.
Not a single priest, nun or other employee of the Catholic Church was being forced to accept this mandate. However hospitals, universities and other private organizations that are sponsored by the Catholic Church were being required to offer birth control coverage in their health insurance.
Note that they weren’t being forced to use that coverage but they were being required to offer and pay for it. Nor was it the church itself, it was simply organizations sponsored by the church.
To address your other point about religious freedom of business: can a business belong to a religion? Does Deseret First Credit Union consider itself a member of the LDS faith? Should it be able to legally discriminate against black people because it thinks they were less valiant in the pre-mortal life? Do the Civil Rights Acts apply to private enterprise? Where does the ability to discriminate end and religious freedom begin for a business?
I find the idea that a business gets to declare itself “Christian” and exempt itself from a law it doesn’t like to be antithetical of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Crickets. Crickets… ?