@ Counter"Consider this your offending post..."And now you move to another one! Conclusion: You just don't want to
acknowledge that my opinions don't fit your preconceived notions. Re: LGBT equality in the public square: Your argument requires you to
explain why it has been okay to limit the exercise of people's religious
beliefs with respect to race and faith. If it's okay to refuse a same-sex
couple, then why isn't it okay to refuse a mixed-race or mixed-faith
couple? And please don't go with the "sexual orientation isn't
immutable." Neither is faith and there is no evidence that we can change
the spectrum our orientation covers. (And please don't go to bisexuality
in response to this. It's an orientation too.) Also, the courts have
already rejected your position on sexual orientation. See Obergefell.
Again.Every sexual orientation is accompanied by the chemical
processes we call emotions. And our emotions can vary for all sorts of reasons.
Please tell me why this is only acceptable in the context of a hetero
orientation. Please provide ANY evidence - not belief - evidence - that points
to a non-hetero orientation being intrinsically wrong or harmful.
@Cougar_Trojan_Spurs_Fan"I was addressing discrimination in
general."And I'm talking about how your general principle works
in application."How do you legislate *all* non-discrimination
laws. Which groups are protected? Which ones aren't? Who decides who is in
which group? Does the "majority opinion" decide that? What happens when
that majority opinion shifts, like it always does, and will continue to do? Will
suddenly the groups who were protected lose their protection? Does the
"majority opinion" mean I go along with others, even if my beliefs
aren't aligned with theirs?"In order:Legislatures and city
councils.Nationally: sex, race, ethnicity, country of origin, disability
status, religion, marital status, age. In some areas you also get sexual
orientation, gender identity, veteran status, being a police officer, etc. and
so-on. Check your local laws.Any characteristic not enumerated in
federal, state or local laws.Legislatures (federal and state) and city
councils (local)Same answer.It's a slow process, not sudden.Yes, forcing racists to stop segregating, against their sincerely held
beliefs, was literally the point of the CRA (1964).
@ Cougar_etc."I was addressing discrimination in
general."The courts settled on the definition of discrimination
they work from with respect to public accommodations law. You're really
not plowing new ground.
@Ranch"You continue to make false claims about LGBT attraction.
"no - I continue to confront your duplicityI am homosexual
- my feelings do not change on a whim, neither does my spirituality - but they
are feelings and not a physical characteristics like skin tone or genitals
Bullying and shaming others into compliance does not change that reality. Even
if feelings result in a physical manifestation: Why are your deep rooted
feelings more important than mine or anyone else's?I am
constantly appalled at gay activists and myopic SJW's who demand a level of
"tolerance" that they do not offer
@EscherEnigma - Ridgecrest, CAFeb. 11, 2019 4:34 p.m.@Cougar_Trojan_Spurs_Fan"But if you get to discriminate
against me because of what your god says about gays? Then I had better not be
obligated to serve you regardless of what your god says about gays."I was addressing discrimination in general. Why does everything always
have to be about gay people? Per Merriam-Webster's dictionary, one of the
definitions of discrimination is "the act of making or perceiving a
difference." Doesn't *every single one of us* do that *every day of our
lives*? "As such, regardless of your personal sincerity, it
obviously doesn't reflect a majority opinion, even among folks opposed
non-discrimination laws and policies that cover gay people."How
do you legislate *all* non-discrimination laws. Which groups are protected?
Which ones aren't? Who decides who is in which group? Does the
"majority opinion" decide that? What happens when that majority opinion
shifts, like it always does, and will continue to do? Will suddenly the groups
who were protected lose their protection? Does the "majority opinion"
mean I go along with others, even if my beliefs aren't aligned with theirs?
I sure hope not!
@Cougar_Trojan_Spurs_Fan"Soooo, are you saying that you're all
for discrimination, just not against gay people? "Nope. I
specifically said that I could accept getting rid of *all* non-discrimination
laws. I can also accept protecting all. But if you get to
discriminate against me because of what your god says about gays? Then I had
better not be obligated to serve you regardless of what your god says about
gays."What exactly is the point you are trying to convey in your
post?"That I hear similar arguments very often†, but have never
seen the logical conclusion from those arguments‡. As such, regardless
of your personal sincerity, it obviously doesn't reflect a majority
opinion, even among folks opposed non-discrimination laws and policies that
cover gay people."Abe Lincoln once said that you attract more
flies with a drop of honey than with a gallon of gall."And when that
failed, he brought cannons.Which brings us back to
non-discrimination laws: the south had over a hundred years to try
"honey". Instead, they brought bricks and fire hoses.________†"Why force someone to bend to your beliefs?"‡Serious efforts to repeal all non-discrimination laws and policies.
@EscherEnigma - Ridgecrest, CAFeb. 11, 2019 2:06 p.m.Soooo,
are you saying that you're all for discrimination, just not against gay
people? What exactly is the point you are trying to convey in your
post?Don't people understand that when you disagree with
someone/something, you're discriminating against that person/thing/idea? As
a person who supports "religious liberty", you're saying I can
discriminate all I want, just not against gays? *scratches head*The
point I was trying to make in my earlier post is, if you try to force your ideas
on me, you can (and should) expect pushback. However, if you can approach the
conversation from a place of openness instead of combativeness, then you might
be able to win some people to your side. This not an idea I'm trying to
"sell" (using your words). This is me speaking what I feel is truth. You
can accept it or not, but remember that by making that choice, you're
discriminating. Just don't be surprised if the ideas you try and force on
me are discriminated against. I have the freedom to think how I want.Abe Lincoln once said that you attract more flies with a drop of honey than
with a gallon of gall.
Cougar_Trojan_Spurs_Fan;"I guess the notion of "No shoes, no
shirt, no service" is discriminating against those people who are
inappropriately dressed for that particular establishment?"--
No, since those without shoes & shirt can easily put on the missing items
and get the services they need."Why force someone to bend to
your beliefs? If a store doesn't support LGBTQ beliefs, why not take your
money and support another store who does? I can't understand why they would
want to give their money to a store owner who doesn't share the same
beliefs."-- What beliefs would those be? Also, how do we know
they don't hold the same "beliefs" in the first place? They
*refuse* to post signs telling us what their "beliefs" are. As for your "we all discriminate every day" comment; that's not
even comparable and it's a ridiculous argument to make.@CI;You continue to make false claims about LGBT attraction. Unless you can
change your attraction at a whim, it is not simply "emotional".
Besides, emotions are physical chemical processes in the brain - which is
Is it ok for a student who opposes the gay life style for whatever reason, to
run and be elected as president of a gay student club? And he hides his true
feelings? Does the club have the right to replace said president when his true
feelings come out?Or is it ok to have a “women only”
student club for persons who physically are women? Let’s
stretch it a little and ask - is it okay for a man, who thinks he is a woman, to
compete in women’s sports at the university? He is physically superior as
a born-man. Is it really fair? Won’t transgenders just take over women
sports? It already happened at that high school level that a boy won a
girls’ state event. Who really won in this case? Transgenders?
Certainly not the girl whose mother thought she was robbed for finishing second
to a boy.Discrimination happens all the time. Common sense needs to
rule the day.
@Ranch "Not happy with the rules, don't play the game" And the ultimate rule is "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, ...."Please stop demanding that
other people participate in your deeply held beliefs regarding sex - while you
trample their deeply held beliefs religious (or not) around a host of items that
go way beyond your sex life.If you want tolerance - it would be more
effective if you occasionally offered it: Unfortunately for most SJW's, it
is an entirely one-way concept.
@Karen R / SilflayUnlike you i do not maintain multiple screen names
- and I run out of postsI also do not archive your responses to go back
and reference them for you. But on a directly related item you made the
following post:"You still did not identify my alleged offending
post. Please stop telling me what I think/mean and provide something specific to
back it up. And if you can't, then prove your assertion that you're
honest and willing to accept what is actually true."Consider
this your offending post - because it is the same duplicity of your past posts
which expects people to subordinate their religious beliefs to your sexual
beliefs - then complaining that you are the victimized one when people push
back. If you have a right to NOT be forced to be involved in anyone else's
religion - then they have a right to not be involved in your secular dogmatism.
Are you honest and willing to accept that you repeatedly argue that
other people have the right to conscience only when it conforms to your
conscience: If that's not what you think or mean - then stop restating
variations of that theme. Now queue the complaints about vitriol and
screeching (aka projection)
@Cougar_Trojan_Spurs_FanYour claim, that all non-discrimination laws are
bad, is not an uncommon one.Odd then is that despite so many people
claiming to be against all non-discrimination laws, and that they aren't
singling gay people out for discrimination, all the actual legal efforts (in
courts and legislatures) are *just* about singling gay people out for
discrimination, while leaving other protected classes safe under the protection
of non-discrimination laws.So even assuming that you really are on
board with not just telling gays to simply go elsewhere, but telling the same to
women, blacks, Jews, the Irish, veterans, the deaf, etc. and so-on, it's
quite obvious that most people, including "religious liberty" activists,
are only on-board with telling that to the gays.Your challenge then
is this: either (A) convince gay folk and their allies that even though you
aren't rolling back the CRA (1964), gays should "take one for the
team", or (B) convince "religious liberty" activists to broaden
their opposition from non-discrimination laws that cover gay people, to just
non-discrimination laws.I'm fine with B, personally. Freedom
for all! But A is a pretty hard sell.
So, I guess the notion of "No shoes, no shirt, no service" is
discriminating against those people who are inappropriately dressed for that
particular establishment?If so, where does it stop? In a
capitalistic society, you take your money and support stores whose values are in
line with yours. Why force someone to bend to your beliefs? If a store
doesn't support LGBTQ beliefs, why not take your money and support another
store who does? I can't understand why they would want to give their money
to a store owner who doesn't share the same beliefs.Whether or
not you want to admit it, we all discriminate every day of our lives!
That's why we make the choices we do. If you chose to be a lawyer, you
discriminated against all other professions. Because that is what you feel is
best for you! The notion that there are those who *never* discriminate is
utterly preposterous! If you're an employer, you discriminate against all
job applicants in order to find the best one that would be most beneficial for
your company. You're not going to just hire someone based solely on their
beliefs without verifying their experience, etc. That would not only be foolish,
but not very business savvy.
Race and gender are physical characteristics (and even then - men and women are
blatantly NOT physically equal)Sexual orientation is based upon emotional
and behavioral characteristicsThere is no more evidence of a gay
gene than there is of a God gene (and telling people to just change their
beliefs is deemed hateful when applied to orientation so it should be equally
hateful when applied to the religious)Most people have no problem
respecting other peoples deeply held beliefs regarding religion - however they
get upset when they are forced to participate in others deeply held religious
beliefs (whether it being forced to participate in a public prayer or forced to
subsidize an abortion) The same to should apply to sexual feelings and beliefs.
I should not have to participate in your sex life.The idea that
sexually deeply held beliefs trump spiritual deeply held beliefs is a
fundamental bigotry of popular culture that should be summarily rejected -
particularly when the Constitution specifically calls for religious deference.
@Yar"Remember. The issue is not the customer. It’s the
request."Take the Cake in Toledo, Ohio. Got a commission for a
birthday cake, accepted it, design and all. After the customer left, e-stalked
the customer, discovered she was a married lesbian. Cancelled the order.Dieseltec in Grandville, Michigan. Openly stated that he would refuse
customers who are "openly" gay.Amyx Hardware in Tennessee.
Has a "no gays allowed" sign in the front window for over three years
now.And these are just the ones that made national news that I can
recall off the top of my head. Most cases of discrimination never make the news
because people are used to it.And of course, there's the minor
fact that until Lawrence v. Texas (2003), over a dozen states, Utah included,
made it a crime to be gay. Utah's unconstitutional law is still on the
books by-the-way. State legislators have considered striking it multiple times,
and each time have concluded it's more important to keep moral condemnation
of gay folk in the legal code then it is to have a constitutional legal code.So regardless of your *personal* views on the matter, no. The problem
is very much with the person, not the "request".
""The court suspects that some observers will portray this case as a
fundamental conflict between nondiscrimination laws and religious liberty.
Appealing as that may be, it overinflates the issues before the court," she
wrote."For example, in the headlines and comment sections of news
articles.That said, there's one big thing a lot of folks are
missing (including Kelsey Dallas): the court did not rule that it is
inappropriate or unconstitutional for a university to require student clubs to
adhere to the school's non-discrimination policy. In fact, there is quite
a bit of precedent that the university can do so, and there have been cases for
years on this, including one in which a Mormon student successfully sued for
access to a "Christian" club.What the court ruled was that
the school didn't apply the policy equally, and that arbitrarily enforced
policies could not be legitimate.So sure. Celebrate your
"victory". Your confusion over the ruling was predicted in the ruling
@ Back Talk"...he would have been the same judge who allowed gay
marriage and also ruled that religious freedom includes practicing those
principles in the public square."And yet he and the Court
declined to take that opportunity. Maybe because they understand that it's
impossible to allow unrestricted exercise of religious beliefs in the public
square and be a nation built on the idea that we're all equal. IMO, that
speaks volumes about the limitations of religion. It isn't religion that
provides the big tent into which all are unconditionally welcome. That would be
the secular tent.@ sashabill, Yar, or anyone elseI would
really appreciate someone addressing my question about whether it's right
or fair to ask another to bear the burden of your freely chosen belief.
I've never meant it as a rhetorical question, yet no one has ever taken it
head on.@ YarI'd also like to add to my reply post
to you that the belief that you are asking gay couples to acquiesce to is the
very sort of belief that they see as responsible for the injustices and
humiliations LGBTs have historically experienced. So, standing in their shoes,
the ask comes across as tone deaf and insulting.
The Supreme Court needs to rule on this issue ASAP. Justice Kennedy should have
done so in the gay cake controversy and then he would have been the same judge
who allowed gay marriage and also ruled that religious freedom includes
practicing those principles in the public square.
@Rikitikitavi;Not happy with the rules, don't play the game
(i.e., start a business where you're not allowed to discriminate, open a
club accepting taxpayer funding).
Not happy with the choice of campus clubs out there.......start your own
club.Not happy with the choice of businesses out there......start
your own business.
@Yar;I don't believe you; not in the least. You really
haven't even tried to put yourself in our shoes. We don't
know which stores will sell to us and which won't (they won't
advertise their bigotry - it's bad for business). We can lose our jobs,
residences just for being gay. We have been rejected by medical personnel,
florists, bakers, etc. Until you face that kind of bigotry (yes, that is what
it is - religion is just an excuse for it) you don't know how you'd
react.Why should we accept being 2nd class citizens? We pay taxes
just like you do.
In the business world I don’t care about sexual orientation. I had three
gays out of 15 employees, and one I promoted into management. Sexual
orientation had no bearing on employment or promotion. It was about who could
do the work best. I detest those who want to make me accept their view on
anything that I disagree with. Reasonable discussion is fine to exchange
opposing stands. But when we choose “to agree to disagree”
it’s over. I don’t want someone continuing to argue the point, and
failing at that, often running to other authorities to “force” me to
accept their position.
Hi Yar. Karen R. here.I believe you could do as you say. I could
too. But I think it's because we, as heteros, come from a place of
abundance. We have no doubt about our status as equals. We've always
enjoyed the luxury of NOT being marginalized, disenfranchised, or seen as
abnormal. Humans can be very generous when they come from such a place, in part
because it causes no real hardship.This is not the context that
LGBTs come from. They've made some great gains in equality, but they
haven't reached the summit. There are still more places in the country
than not where they can be legally discriminated against simply because of their
sexual orientation. They are still publicly spoken of by some as abnormal,
immoral, and/or perverted. We do not face this insecurity and these
indignities.So when I put myself in their shoes, I don't feel
generous. I feel threatened. I feel like I have a tenuous grip on the next
rock on the mountain face and now someone is asking me to voluntarily give up
ground and for what reason? To spare them the inconvenience of living the
consequences of THEIR freely chosen beliefs.I ask you again: Does
this sound fair or right to you?
@Karen R.I don’t know if this will change your mind or
something, but let me tell you this. If a gay baker had a religious belief that
only same-sex marriage is OK and opposite-sex marriages are immortal and told me
they won’t make the cake for me because of that belief, I would complete
understand and respect that (no really I would). I honestly wouldn’t mind
his refusal. Instead, I’ll just tell him “That’s OK. Can you
recommend me something that won’t violate your beliefs? I'll take
anything else.” After that, I’ll either take the recommendation or
just find another place (I certainly won’t attack the shopowner).
Seriously. I’m cool with that. Remember. The issue is not the customer.
It’s the request. That’s the important part.
@ sashabill"Suppose an LGBT community member owns a printing
establishment..."If the printer has sold derogatory banners to
others, then s/he has no grounds for refusing this customer. If Phillips sells
wedding cakes to some, he has no grounds for refusing to sell to others.Also, do you honestly think it's fair for people to expect others
to bear the consequences of their beliefs? This is what Phillips is doing. He
knows what the rules are and he knows the way he is choosing to exercise his
personal beliefs conflict with them. But instead of saying, "This is my
choice, I have to bear the cost," he's instead saying, "This is my
choice and gay couples that enter my shop must bear the cost."
Try this idea just to see if it flies with no opposition from University or
freedom legal fund: "Gay/Lesbian Business Leaders in Christ".
Seems to me there are choices which will make everyone happy, except those folks
who have their own agenda.
Suppose an LGBT community member owns a printing establishment, which prints up
banners, posters, signs, mailers, flyers, etc. A potential customer comes in
and asks for several large, conspicuous banners to be printed up, which contain
derogatory statements about LGBT people. These posters will be posted up and
displayed all over town during the next Gay Pride parade.Should the
business owners be compelled to take the job, or be free to decide whether to
perform it or not? Should the owner of Masterpiece Cake shop have the same
@Misty Mountain: "My five year old really, really wants to bring a loaded
gun to Show-and-Tell,.."Does she want to vote for President as
well? Maybe practice religious beliefs her parents find offensive? Invoke the
5th amd when you ask her about who ate the cookies?Is this not the
very kind of over-the-top, silly, and counter-productive rhetoric you condemned
in a prior comment? Why do you so quickly resort to it rather than trying
honest, productive discussion and debate?As you say, no right is
absolute. I don't get to yell "fire" falsely in a crowded theater
without some legal consequences. Marriage does not include siblings. And we all
accept age restrictions on RKBA. What I won't accept is that I should
endure higher liability for storage of my guns than you will accept for storage
of your medications, car keys, gasoline, or other dangerous household items, nor
bans on firearms most useful for defense of self and home, nor bans on
accessories like suppressors based on Hollywood myths.As no right is
absolute, neither is there an absolute right to service from businesses. Some
allowance for business owners to refuse to promote events that offend them must
@No Names wrote,"If court invented rights based on vague
language of the 14th amendment are not subject to popular votes, then the
specific rights in the 2nd amendment are not subject to popular votes."Yes, and it's about time that we realized this. My five year old
really, really wants to bring a loaded gun to Show-and-Tell, and the the Second
Amendment has no age restriction.
@ NoNames(cont.)I'm willing to consider forgiveness
of past transgressions, particularly those committed in our youth. What I want
to see is honesty, growth, a capacity to own one's bad moments. And I want
to see a record of behavior that solidly counters the bad moments.Also, to expect any American's history to be free of moments of bigotry,
racism, or just harmful bias or ignorance is to be in denial about American
cultural history AND the human condition."If Phillips must bake
cakes..."As the Beckett Fund keeps getting the courts to
reiterate, NoNames, you're simply mistaken about this.Gun
rights: Even St. Scalia understood that gun rights aren't absolute."If any language the left finds offensive is 'hate
speech'..."Yeah, I think name-calling is juvenile, that
over-the-top rhetoric has unfortunately become a staple of
"conversation" these days, and that people on both sides are guilty of
being snowflakes, just on different topics."And if crimes
against individuals intended to chill the rights of an entire group are
'hate crimes' then we better start protecting non-union
workers."Speaking of over-the-top rhetoric. Good grief.
@ NoNamesYou realize you had to change the subject, right? But
I'll go there with you. The topics interest me.Virginia
debacle: I agree that the left isn't very happy, but we are trying to live
up to the tone we have taken. I hope we will, but acknowledge that this
remains to be seen. Power often wins out over principle. I am happy, though,
that so far I've heard no rationalizations like, "Well, our god wants X
to be in office, so all of this mess is okay." If we're going to come
up with rationalizations to grant ourselves a pass, I hope we at least work
harder at it than this."If we 'believe the woman'
without any further evidence..."I don't agree with this
standard. IMO the standard should be, "Take the accusation seriously and
investigate.""...if any hint of racism must be handled with
zero-tolerance..."I think there's a debate over what the
standard should be. Mine is similar to what I held for Kavanaugh: (cont.)
They seem to have forgotten that many LGBT people are Christians. They also
seem to have forgotten that organizations that utilize taxpayer funded
facilities shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against some of those
taxpayers.“The Supreme Court ruled that the commission had
been unfair in its treatment of the Christian baker,...”-- And
ignored the fact that the baker discriminated against the gay couple. “I
want to be free from unfair treatment for my religious beliefs, but I want to
use those beliefs to treat others unfairly”. Utter hypocrisy.
Re: "Religion had everything to do with it. Remember the "'curse of
Cain . . . .'"Just another example of leftist newspeak.Blaming religion for being the victim of racists who imprinted their
bile on a doctrine of equality for all is like blaming Virginia for
Northam's racist and vicious anti-life views.I know you believe
religion to be the "opiate of the people," but allowing that animus to
motivate advocacy of transparent sophistry only illustrates the bankruptcy of
I have a natural lisp. In college I met a guy and we talked a few times. One
day he mentioned he needed a ride because his car was in the shop. I offered to
help. Afterwards we went out for dinner. He then indicated that he was gay.
I'm not. The next time I saw him in class I said hi. He did not respond.
With most people you can strike up a friendship and it is OK if you have
different views. Apparently not with this guy. Some will say that they support
diversity, but diversity requires differences. By not allowing clubs that
celebrate and require differences the university is not promoting diversity but
destroying it. Did that guy I met in college have to speak to me when he
learned I was not gay. No he does not. Freedom of speech and freedom of
association are guaranteed in our constitution. That also allows silence and
freedom to not associate.
I am glad the court ruled that the lgbt rights can't "trample
on the rights of conservative religious students"............... Everyone
should be treated equally.
@Karen R.: "They're doing great work for my side!"Be
careful with that celebration. As we're seeing this week in Virginia, the
left is not very happy to live under the same rules they try to impose on the
right.If we "believe the woman" without any further
evidence, and if any hint of racism must be handled with zero-tolerance, then
all 3 of Virginia's top elected officials--all of them Democrats--must
resign immediately.If Phillips must bake cakes to celebrate
homosexual weddings, then homosexual bakers must be compelled to create cakes
celebrating hostility to such relationships, or promoting anti-homosexual
religious beliefs.If court invented rights based on vague language
of the 14th amendment are not subject to popular votes, then the specific rights
in the 2nd amendment are not subject to popular votes.If any
language the left finds offensive is "hate speech" then so too is any
language that offends the right.And if crimes against individuals
intended to chill the rights of an entire group are "hate crimes" then
we better start protecting non-union workers.
@THEREALND: "What this Christian group is requiring is essentially any
student committed to same sex marriage get a divorce to join their club.
That's an unreasonable, and in my opinion an unlawful requirement."And would the pro-abortion club allow a committed pro-life Evangelical
to hold leadership position? Or would they require him to abandon his core
religious convictions? It is entirely reasonably to require club
members and especially club leadership to espouse the positions of the club.@THEREALND: "So a Business Leadership club isn't about learning
good business management skills?"It is about learning good
business management skills while living a Christian life, as the group defines
"Christian." That means they believe homosexual conduct is immoral. It
also probably means they don't think LDS are Christians. And that is fine.
I don't need to shut down clubs that believe LDS are not Christian no
matter how strongly I disagree with them. I simply won't join; I can form a
club more to my liking.There is no honest reason to join a club
whose principles offend you. This is just an attempt to silence anyone who
won't affirm & celebrate homosexual conduct.
@Marxist: Anyone who was actually religious and actually read the Bible would
know that the "Mark of Caine" was a mark of. *protection* that God
placed on Caine's descendants as a reminder to *not* persecute them.
@rlynn - "Once again shows that any done in the name freedom of religion is
really an attack on the LGBQT community."That is clearly not the
case. In fact the reverse is true based on the article: "In
2017, a gay student reported this leadership requirement to university
officials, arguing that Business Leaders in Christ had discriminated against
him."This is a case that the LGBTQ community was clearly
attacking a religious group of students, not the other way around.
Anti-discrimination laws don't require a group to associate with others
they do not want to associate with; a forced association is equal to slavery.Likewise; if the LGBTQ community wanted to setup an LGBTQ student group
and not allow "straights" that would be their prerogative; there is
nothing stopping them. They have no right, however, to attack others for
setting up their groups based on their beliefs.A public university
should NOT discriminate against students on the basis of religion! Student
groups get to pick who they want to associate with as per the First Amendment.
Just because they attend a public university doesn't mean they shed their
First Amendment rights.
It's about time the courts realized that conservative Christians also have
"rights", and not just the LGBTQ minority.
@pp "As for anti-miscegenation laws? Those laws were passed - by democrats
- in slave states trying to fend of abolitionists. Religion had nothing to do
with it, yet this is trotted out by the pro gay crowd all the time. "Religion had everything to do with it. Remember the "curse of
Cain" nonsense? That was all religion and the reason for anti-miscegenation
Liberals have been bashing white Christian Conservatives.
"In this week's ruling, Judge Rose agreed that the university's
inconsistent application of its human rights policy is a problem."There is no fault to be found with the policy itself. But the
Constitution does not tolerate the way (the university) chose to enforce the
human rights policy," she wrote."I don't know all the
intrinsic details of the case. I just know what this article states. If that is
the case, then as an LGBT man I totally agree with the ruling. If the University
of Iowa was being unfair to this Christian student group, I am glad the judge
solved this inconsistency problem.That is the way our Democratic
system should work. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it."(Attributed to Voltaire)
"In other words, the ruling won't prevent the University of Iowa from
deregistering faith-based student groups in the future. School officials would
just need to be more consistent in applying human rights standards."Very, very glad to see yet another court upholding the public
accommodations standard that Phillips tried to upend in his wedding cake case.
This is very encouraging. Maybe I should start contributing to the Beckett
Fund, too. They're doing great work for my side!
THEREALND said "So a Business Leadership club isn't about learning good
business management skills? Got it! The only business they are involved in is
the business of discrimination."The LGBT in question who got the
University involved wanted to be a Leader in this organization and saw a
'plum to be picked for crying LGBT discrimination' when he was not
allowed to be considered for a leadership position in the club.The
Court wisely saw this--and that was part of why they ruled as the did.You can bet it if had been totally the opposite---a straight Christian person
throwing a fit to the University that the campus LGBT club would not allow him a
leadership position in it, and the University reacted as it did in this case--
that the Court would have ruled exactly the same way.The
Miscalculation by both the LGBT person and the University was Assuming LGBT
rights tump religious ones in this day and PC climate..... thankfully the Court
set them straight that at least in this case, LGBT rights do not yet overrule
@Not in Utah-Good points, at least as far as this club is concerned.
From their University sponsored webpage:"About usBusiness Leaders in Christ (BLinC) is on a mission to create a community of
followers of Christ within Tippie. Through our organization, you will get to
share and gain wisdom on how to practice business that is both Biblical and
founded on God's truth. We do this by reading scripture together, hosting
Christian business professionals, and serving our community. " It really isn't about improving their business leadership skills. If
you want that type of club perhaps you join DECA.
Iowa is doing exactly what they claim to be standing against.
THEREALND - Mishawaka, IN says: "So a Business Leadership club isn't
about learning good business management skills?"No, not in this
case. Students learn those skills in classrooms and (more likely!) on the job.
Clubs like a business leadership club or that are based upon social or political
preferences are NOT for teaching and learning skills. They are for networking
and making connections and friendships that will either help while in school or
afterwards in the job market. It's the same thing with fraternities and
sororities. (I'm making the distinction because of the hypothetical chess
club example someone else gave, which would be to IMPROVE skills.)The ONLY reason I can see for the gay student to join the Christian Leadership
club (which he was allowed to do) and then campaign for leadership in it was
because of his intolerance for Christians who disagree with the issue of same
sex marriage. Surely there were other clubs which would have allowed him to
network and make friends. (And because the school bought into his intolerance,
they wasted a lot of money on a costly legal battle instead of spending it on
things that would have benefited their students.)
In the name of protection and tolerance so many of the liberal institutions of
our day are anything but protective or tolerant to those with different views.
Hardly anyone these days tries to suggest LGBQT students should be
bullied or not given the same considerations as others. But that does not mean
that other views should be squashed, as apparently is the case with this
university whose policies do not respect or demean individuals and groups with
different views. Where is the tolerance on their part?I truly love
my Gay brother and his companion. But he would never suggest, like so many
these days, that others should not have the rights to belong to groups who see
things differently. Just as I love and tolerate him even though I do not share
the same perspective, he tolerates me to see it differently. If
this crazy trend continues then who is to say that one political party will
eventually pass laws that you can only breathe, think, talk and act as the party
dictates or you will be punished. Isn't this what Hitler did? Tolerance for all... not just the politically correct group... needs to be
One the club did not prevent the gay from joining the club. That was not
a requirement for entering the club. The club rules only limited the officers
of the club to those that held the view and acceptance of its policies.And really TT, " nor it is true in our modern era that "an
individual's God-give sex is unalterable. it is, as many transgender
individuals happily attest."Prove and or show one single case or
example of just one transgendered person that has changed their God given sex.
Can't be done. Their God given sex is forever engrained in their DNA.
Does not matter what you do to the packaging or the labeling. Does not matter
if the government records are falsified. They still retain their God given sex.
Thomas, It's time to abandon this "strawman" of opposition to
interracial marriage. Race is not a pattern of action or behavior, and
interracial marriage does not change the definition of marriage.Patterns of action and behavior, however, are by definition open to the making
of moral or value judgments. Religious people are within their rights to make
such judgments, and religious groups are within their rights to maintain such
standards publicly.Marriage ultimately is either a moral construct
with a moral definition --or, for all practical purposes, it becomes a
non-construct with no definition, just a matter of personal inclination,
political expediency, random social factors and cultural trends, or whatever
the latest public opinion poll says it is.
@Chessermesser - "You missed my point about the chess club. A 1200 can get
better in a club for his/her level. Nobody wants a novice."No, I
completely understood your point. The chess club doesn't want a novice,
but they can join when they are no longer a novice. This is a
"Business Leadership" club that doesn't want certain people, not
because of their business acumen. Not because of their talents. They
don't want certain people to join their club because of who they are. That
Thomas T - your "God given sex is scientifically unalterable" statement
is proven false. You can change the wrapper, but science has shown that you
need massive medication to suppress nature. without unnatural hormone therapy a
persons true gender reasserts itself. The mental belief that you are a
different gender does not change physical realities.Science and
psychology also show that those who get sex changes commit suicide at much
higher rates than those who don't. Your claim that they "happily
attest otherwise" comment is definitively false - and very dangerous to
emotionally struggling people.
As for anti-miscegenation laws? Those laws were passed - by democrats - in
slave states trying to fend of abolitionists. Religion had nothing to do with
it, yet this is trotted out by the pro gay crowd all the time. In
general, the only reason religions discouraged interracial marriage is because
of the difficult social issues the couple might face, thus making the marriage
more difficult. In our society today no one cares. As for gay
marriage - both science and religion are opposed to it. Interracial couples can
have children. Gay couples can't. That is a major scientific elephant in
the room that leftists always ignore. My next statement applies to
both religious and non religions people equally. In almost all (if not all)
cases religion and science are on the same side. If you don't think
that's true your understanding of religion or science is lacking. The
Blackstone quote by 4/13/14 is entirely applicable and irrefutable.
@PP - Eagle Mountain- So a Business Leadership club isn't about learning
good business management skills? Got it! The only business they are involved
in is the business of discrimination. I guess if that's all that they have
to offer you must be right. Have fun with that.
Thank God for the Becket Fund! Donate to them, Hillsdale, and other defenders
of freedom and liberty, including your church, if it is founded on the
principles of Christianity. Thanks to the LDS church for its Proclamation on
the Family. Most of those who have called LDS individuals bigoted, intolerant,
etc., have stopped short of calling the LDS church the same (since they all feel
the church is just another man made organization, they feel that eventually it
will drop its 'bigoted' stance), but that day is coming! Stay
strong; stay true. Right will win out, eventually.
Threland - Chessmasters analogy was actually very good and yours completely
misses the mark. The bad chess player loves chess and really want's to be
part of the club because they love chess. Why would the gay dude want to join a
christian organization that is opposed to living a gay life? You analogy is
literally taking away a protected freedom. The first amendment says
that the govt can't interfere with the practice of religion - which the
state sponsored school did by interfering with the christian club. The 4th and
14th say that GOVERNMENT can't discriminate, but does not limit the right
of private clubs or individuals to discriminate. And being a school sponsored
club does not make the club part of the government. Just read the
comments here - religious people think that a gay group should be able to have
their own club and set their own discriminatory rules - which is not a bad thing
BTW, we all discriminate all the time and in most cases it's a good thing.
But leftists are continually trying to silence those who have a view opposite
their own, and have the courts unconstitutionally support them in their
discrimination - Wonder why that is?
@thereanldYou missed my point about the chess club. A 1200 can get
better in a club for his/her level. Nobody wants a novice. It’s like
having a cake decorating club for professional, high-end decorators and a
beginner wants in. It won’t work out for both sides. That is why
clubs/groups/organizations set rules and guidelines for membership. Yes, they
discriminate and it’s not at all rude, demeaning, insulting, or illegal.
@Speed_AltitudeIf only it were that simple. Personally, I think it
would be great if everyone gets to do what they want to do with their lives.
Like having LGBT people not worry about Proposition 8 or laws similar to it
coming back and having religious people be free to follow their religion without
government harassment at the same time, just to name one example. I want
everyone to win. I don’t care about people agreeing with me on religious
matters. I just care about mutual peace.
Latter-daySaintForever - St. George, UT says: "Hallelujah! It is so
refreshing to see some common sense play out as crazy as this world is
getting."The court DIDN'T rule based on the common sense
you're talking about. All they did was kick the can down the road again:"...the ruling won't prevent the University of Iowa from
deregistering faith-based student groups in the future. School officials would
just need to be more consistent in applying human rights standards."The school lost the court case because they're applying the rules
*selectively* by giving preference to certain groups such as the LGBTQP crowd.
THAT'S why they lost. The court took the easy way out on this. What is
going to be necessary is for the Supreme Court to rule and decide if religion
and freedom of conscience for religious persons is still a protected right in
this country or not.Personally, I can't see why anyone would
want to be part of a group with such fundamentally different beliefs. It can
only be because they are deliberately trying to cause trouble.
It is time to have a conversation about religious liberty in America.And
this time, the vast majority of normal, religious, moral people of America are
not going to be cowed into silence by the extreme Left. They have a "right
to be the way they are" but do not have a right to force us all to accept
it. Religious people have a right to practice their religion, and
that practice means they can freely influence government policies and laws, so
long as they are not actually violating anyone else's rights. And
there simply is no "freedom from religion" or a right to "never hear
about religion or be influenced by the religious people of society". That is
a fantasy that simply does not exist.
Why don't we make all clubs vanilla and not stand for anything unique? In
fact, there should only be one club that everyone can join, so no one gets
offended. . . . . . . . . . . Wait . . . . . what?
Hallelujah! It is so refreshing to see some common sense play out as crazy as
this world is getting.
@Chessermesser- I think that your chess club analogy is a terrible example of
what is going on with this club in Iowa. This is all about equal
access and opportunity. The chess player with the 1200 score has every
opportunity to practice and improve their skill to reach the 2000 score
requirement. What this Christian group is requiring is essentially
any student committed to same sex marriage get a divorce to join their club.
That's an unreasonable, and in my opinion an unlawful requirement. The basically left two wrongs to be wrong.
Someone always like they need to attack Christianity for one reason or another,
then they justify it by saying they are offended because the Christian group
doesn't agree with the lfbtq community so who gets punished, the Christian
group, finally good to see common sense for this one right.
@Henry DrummondI actually know that. I read the whole article
before commenting on this. Regardless, I am happy with the ruling. Hopefully,
the university will be a lot more thoughtful in its anti-discrimination policy
measures it uses. There is a difference between disagreeing with lifestyle
choices LGBT people make and actively trying to bully the LGBT individual
because of the choices they make after all. Seriously. The distinction should
be obvious when you think about it.
We have lost our original standard. "UPON these two foundations,
the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to
say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." William
Blackstone's, Commentaries of the Laws of England. Introduced
in 1765 and used by the Supreme Court for 150 years.As a pilot, if
you take a few degree off of center line, and don't take corrections, in
time you will be going the opposite direction.
Campus organizations should be allowed to set requirements for their own
leadership.To further protect their identity and mission even at
colleges where they are not allowed to set such requirements they ought to
consider 4 non religious requirements. 1-Anyone seeking leadership
position should be required to clearly state their beliefs on various core
issues. A pro choice advocate would not be barred from leadership in a pro-life
organization, but would be required to disclose his positions. 2-Those seeking leadership should be requires to affirm a commitment to
advance the mission of the group. A pro-choicer is eligible for leadership in a
pro-life group if he is willing to advance the mission to restrict legal access
to elective abortions. 3-Require some history of participation and
service with the group to run for office.4-Require a history of
participation and service with the organization to gain voting rights. Hold elections in the Spring for the next school year. Those who haven't
actively participated to advance the mission statement during the school year
are not eligible to vote nor seek leadership. This protects from hostile
takeover by others.
I remembered this case and wondered what had ever happened with it.It was most satisfying to read that the Court called the University of Iowa on
To practice non-discrimination you must accept things/ideas/ beliefs you
don’t agree with. Otherwise, your discriminating. The business group
wasn’t asking to ban LGBT groups from campus...that would be
discrimination. They just wanted to have their voice/beliefs represented also.
Tolerance, respect, non- discrimination needs to be practiced by
LOL! Read the ruling before declaring victory. The Court is criticizing the
selective enforcement of its policy - it does not rule that the policy itself is
Good for the court! I have never understood why it's OK for you to think
and believe they way you do but it's not OK for me to think and believe the
way I do. There are those who will never see eye-to-eye on certain topics but
all must be allowed their point of view. But that doesn't mean you can
crash my party and dictate how it is to be run. Start your own party and run it
as you see fit.
What is bothersome is that this university couldn’t see the obvious. Or
maybe they could and just decided to instigate a leftist pogrom against
religious groups. There is nothing wrong with “agreeing to
disagree”.What if students organized a club for very serious
and successful chess players. Membership required a tournament rating above
2000. Someone who has a 1200 rating could point out that they were denied
membership even though they love chess. If the point of the club is about
really successful chess players meeting together then including a 1200 player is
like letting fourth graders go to the high school’s senior prom.Most school districts have an upper age limit for athletic competition. It
wouldn’t be fair for a 23-year-old to compete in sports against much
younger people. There is discrimination in our various institutions. And
wanted as well as needed.The University of Iowa needs to take its
blinders off and recognize that discriminating groups exist on the Left and
Right, not just on the Right, and they need to apply their policies evenly.
Congratulations! Glad to see the religious club won that case! Quite frankly,
if it was the other way around (a religious person denied membership to a LGBT
club because the person believed that homosexual behavior was wrong), that
membership denial would actually be justified, since having the religious person
joining them without abiding the LGBT club's fundamental principle would
have went against the mission of the club. Same thing in this case just won by
the Christian club. The issue was not the person's same-sex attraction (or
gay status if you will). The issue was the person's willingness to abide
to the principles that are fundamental to the club's mission.
"The group requires its leaders to affirm that marriage is reserved for
unions of one man and one woman and that an individual's God-given sex is
unalterable." But any such view flies in the face of what the law allows --
as affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Marriage isn't, as
a matter of law -- "reserved for unions of one man and one woman," nor
it is true in our modern era that "an individual's God-give sex is
unalterable." it is, as many transgender individuals happily attest.Not so very long ago, the same people who hold these superannuated views
also believed (yes, on religious grounds) that marriage was also reserved for
people of the same race, and one state (Virginia) even enacted into its laws a
prohibition against black people from marrying white people. So entrenched was
this view among certain religionists that the Supreme Court was required to, and
did, validate these marriages even in Virginia (whose law prohibiting them was
struck down).The different results being reached in some courts
which permits discrimination against gay people come about entirely because gays
are not yet a protected class in America.But that's going to
"In 2017, a gay student reported this leadership requirement to university
officials, arguing that Business Leaders in Christ had discriminated against
him."This wasn't about discrimination. It was about a
Christian organization's beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. It all comes
down to having "the same right as all student groups to express our
viewpoints freely on campus, and to be who we are." After all, isn't
this exactly what the homosexual community keeps saying?
Once again shows that any done in the name freedom of religion is really an
attack on the LGBQT community.
Iowa is being held hostage by the PC crowd and their policies as enforced has
gotten them into trouble with the court. Decertifying religious groups hardly
shows tolerance for those who profess faith and I am happy the court ruled the
way they did. They'd be wise to follow the law a bit closer and quit
listening to just "progressives" which is a buzz word for
"socialist, leftist thinking and agendas."
Glad to see the Becket Fund step up and defend the students. Other groups
defending religious freedom in the courts include Alliance Defending Freedom,
Liberty Counsel, and the Thomas More Law Center. If you are interested in
religious freedom, consider supporting these organizations.
At the very least, if a University is going to have a policy of non
discrimination, it needs to be applied equally and fairly.If its
going to allow one group to reject as members people who are anti abortion, it
must then allow another group to reject as members people who don't accept
gay marriage as legitimate.Either you allow student groups to
restrict membership according to a members belief system or you don't.
This is an example of why I am proud to contribute regularly in support of the
Becket Fund, and will continue to do so.