I sure feel that way. They seem to have taken this position in desperation. Religious groups and their members already get considerable protection under the law and I feel like all this will protect is their right to ban groups from their organization as they see fit. Crack down on it and they will simply claim immunity under this law that is meant to stop groups discriminating. Anyone feel the same or differently?
I feel there are VERY ulterior motives with this.
I haven't heard anything about this, so I have no idea what's going on. What's their new position?
I can't help but think they made this move to help Romney in the 2016 general election. The thinking would be that he, as a Mormon, would not have a staunch stance toward LBGT's, and hopefully court more middle voters. You know they want a Mormon in the WH....
my two ¢ents.
Quote from: JenSquid on January 28, 2015, 03:42:26 PM
I haven't heard anything about this, so I have no idea what's going on. What's their new position?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/27/us/mormon-church-lgbt-laws/index.html
Story highlights
Mormon leaders call rare press conference in Salt Lake City
They pledge support for anti-bias laws for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people
Leaders say in return they want the laws to protect the rights of religious groups as well
They changed their tune on African-Americans in a similar way in the 1970s after their former policy was causing them PR problems.
I agree on the Mormon Elders' statements regarding religious rights for the separate faiths even though I am not a Mormon. Religious freedom is backed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and should be despite any grudges these faiths have on other groups or ideals as long as they do not violate other laws such as using violence or threatening such to those of the other groups. Nor should any of these faiths incur their own laws on any community concerning crime and domestic issues already being handled by the local state and federal courts. A lot of that lately being done in other countries.
Joelene
I am skeptical, but I am happy about the baby step. It is very encouraging to hear that church talking about LGBT discrimination. Bizzarre even.
However the religious freedom part is concerning, and idk even if it's a change in their policy as much as a repackaging. But they did actually talk abt LGBT rights, which I mean, it is encouraging.
There' 1 m in moron not 2
the propsition is hypocritical. they want a law that allows them to discriminate on religious grounds and opposes all descrimination on none religious grounds (or none mormon gounds).
the proposition is unfair by its nature.
i dont think a doctor should be forced to perform an abortion because someone says they should.
that said i dont think two poeple who love each other should be told they cant get married because someone ells says that shuldnt.
i cant understand why the church is so opposed to the same sex law. because that law if passed SHOULDNT demand a mormon glergy member perform it?
But wait... their own book would demmand it. You must obey the law of god AND the law of the land. And then again ANY marrige not performed by a Mormon isnt valid anyway in this faith. so i think when a mormon talks of marige they reffer only to their own ceremonies?? That said its unfair to...... OT
Sorry think typing again.
Quote from: big kim on January 29, 2015, 12:52:44 PM
There' 1 m in moron not 2
Their not all Morons :/
The two most amazing and supportive friends of mine are mormon. You can't lump them all in with church policy (obvs).
I actually saw this little documentary randomly this morning that actually is along these same lines. It's so so heartwarming! Watch it if you want to cry :).
http://vimeo.com/82104871 (http://vimeo.com/82104871)
The policy the church proposes here is full of problems and doesn't really feel like that much of a step forward, and that's because it isn't. It's a baby step. But this is a church that owns a mall in downtown SLC that has kicked friends of friends of mine out of it for "looking too gay." It has also supported very discriminatory legislation in the past. So I will take baby steps from this church, I really will, because it is progress, and I choose to be optimistic. I get how a cynic would think it's a trap though, cuz it may very well be. Where I live, this could affect me if it's not totally disingenuous, so I will be positive about it.
Quote from: BunnyBee on January 29, 2015, 02:16:59 PM
The two most amazing and supportive friends of mine are mormon. You can't lump them all in with church policy (obvs).
Sorry if my use of the word they was all inclusive. And if it puts you at ease as to wear i stand concerning mormons. My dad is not a moron and the home visitors arnt either. Im treated with respect and take part in descussions. They ENJOY listening to what i have to say, and have told me time and time again i seem more like a member of the church then many of the mass's.
I was actually agreeing with you! I am not mormon either :). I just live in a mormon dominated place.
Quote from: BunnyBee on January 29, 2015, 02:16:59 PM
The two most amazing and supportive friends of mine are mormon. You can't lump them all in with church policy (obvs).
I actually saw this little documentary randomly this morning that actually is along these same lines. It's so so heartwarming! Watch it if you want to cry :).
http://vimeo.com/82104871 (http://vimeo.com/82104871)
The policy the church proposes here is full of problems and doesn't really feel like that much of a step forward, and that's because it isn't. It's a baby step. But this is a church that owns a mall in downtown SLC that has kicked friends of friends of mine out of it for "looking too gay." It has also supported very discriminatory legislation in the past. So I will take baby steps from this church, I really will, because it is progress, and I choose to be optimistic. I get how a cynic would think it's a trap though, cuz it may very well be. Where I live, this could affect me if it's not totally disingenuous, so I will be positive about it.
I too am LDS and I want to clarify some things.
The church's official announcement this week is not new. It has been their stance since as long as I can remember (at least the late 90s). Their stance is to never deny housing or employment opportunities on the basis of sexual orientation in theory. Unfortunately in practice they want the church to be excluded from the employment requirement they actually promote.
So the boil it down simply: the church has held its stance against gay marriage and for religions such as theirs to be able to discriminate concerning church business, however they stand with LGBT's for fair access to housing and other (non-church) employment.
Oh, and I know the person in this video, though I've known her dad much longer.
Quote from: Just Kate on January 29, 2015, 09:25:24 PM
I too am LDS and I want to clarify some things.
The church's official announcement this week is not new. It has been their stance since as long as I can remember (at least the late 90s). Their stance is to never deny housing or employment opportunities on the basis of sexual orientation in theory. Unfortunately in practice they want the church to be excluded from the employment requirement they actually promote.
So the boil it down simply: the church has held its stance against gay marriage and for religions such as theirs to be able to discriminate concerning church business, however they stand with LGBT's for fair access to housing and other (non-church) employment.
Oh, and I know the person in this video, though I've known her dad much longer.
I was honestly afraid of that. Just a big hubbub over nothing then... The "right to discriminate" stuff, I hope that comes back to bite everybody that champions it. It is incredibly brash to call it for what it is like that, but there they are, doing it.
Oh and her dad seems utterly amazing.