RedShirtUofU - Andoria, UT, you said the following: "Actually Jesus did set
the standard for marriage and sexual relations. He said that a Man is not
complete without a Woman, and that marriage is only between a man and a
woman."Can you show us anywhere in any Bible that Jesus ever
mentioned homosexuality? Anywhere he said what you said he said? You can not. What you said is an untruth by those who don't seem to read
their own scriptures.Jesus never once mentioned what you just said.
You can not prove if Jesus was ever married can you? As for
discriminations supposedly by the LBGTQ community, lets talk. If they violated
the secular laws under which they operate, they should be taken to task. Period!
If a radical right person violates others secular rights they also should be
taken to task. Period!In the secular world under which this country
was founded, the freedom of religion issue can not ever be used to discriminate,
in either direction.As for Elder Oaks' proclamations. I have
always asked the same question of him. Elder Oaks, can you name one religious
freedom that you have lost? Just one? He has lost none of his
religious freedoms. None.
@Rick;How about we just don't allow discrimination by
businesses of any size? That is fair to all of them.@IJ;"Heterosexual is easy enough to deal with; keep it to yourself."- No talk of your spouse.- No talk of your kids.- No talk of your
family.- No photos on your desk, etc. - That's what you're
asking of gay people.
@lindaj72;There are also those that believe your god is entirely
fictional. Whatever you think he said, all you have is supposition and
"christian" crowd has abandoned all morality - as evidenced by their
support of Trump.@RiDal;"Just a reality check,
here:While people may have a right to be any way they want to be; no one
has a right to force other people to go along with and accommodate their
delusions."-- "God" being the greatest
'delusion' of them all; you're right, we don't need to
support your superstitious delusions.@TheRealDJT;Good
spin on the word 'discrimination'. But IMO, bigotry is one of the
greatest "immoralities" out there. BTW; there are MANY who believe
inter-racial marriage is "immoral", should we allow discrimination
against mixed-race couples? After all, "religious freedom", right?@lost;Why does your god need spokespeople? Isn't he
able to speak for himself?@Red;You support Christians
discriminating against LGBT people, why shouldn't the reverse be
permissible too? Or are you just another hypocrite (also condemned in the
@RiDal wrote,"While people may have a right to be any way they
want to be; no one has a right to force other people to go along with and
accommodate their delusions. "Many, many people of many
different religions consider people who belong to different religions as
"deluded".I don't think a non-LDS employer has a right to
fire a Mormon employee, no matter what he thinks of that employee's
religion. Or vice-versa. Do you?If the person can do the job,
their personal beliefs are not your business, whether those beliefs concern
religion or gender identity.
I believe that if I have a right, you have a right. But there are always going
to be sticky situations. Homosexual is easy enough to deal with; keep it to
yourself. Trans is a whole different ball of wax. The commentor who brought up
Trans in the military - I was in the Navy for 20 years and I don't see how
this possibly works. Berthings on ships is tight and they can't possibly
have areas for different classes of sexual preferences. I do not believe Trans
should be given elective surgery on Uncle Sam's dime. If you have a
business that services the public, you service the public; but you don't
have to make any special concessions. Elective rights are not provided for.
Example: I don't believe birth control is a health issue. You did the
adult thing to get yourself in the way, you deal with it. Your employer is not
responsible for your private acts.
Title IX scholarships for women are under threat.The Democratic
party has expended a lot of political capital to make the point that Kavanaugh
is going to rule against women. Well, let's see how he will rule on this
one. The Democrats are going to lose credibility if he rules that men cannot
compete against women for scholarships and that men cannot enter into private
areas that are reserved for women.
Two wrongs don't make a right. So in the case of the sky diver, talking to
a client who is concerned about being strapped to an individual about sexual
orientation would make many people uncomfortable. Why talk about sex at all in
that situation -- the discussion should have been about safety. I don't
think that case is about orientation. The case about embezzlement, it sounds
like a smoke screen, who cares about orientation when they are stealing from the
till? As for the mortuary, businesses since the ACA are required to offer
insurance. Transitional surgery is very expensive and probably increased the
premiums by large amounts. Most people couldn't care less about
what's someone's orientation is, but each of these cases involve a
business that would loose money. I suspect that the first two individuals will
loose as they are using their orientation as an excuse for not fulfilling a
normal job responsibility. I suspect in the mortuary case the business owner
will loose because the added expense is a direct result of their orientation and
not that they are not fulfilling their job responsibilities. But common sense
doesn't always rule in our courts. So who knows?
In my opinion Privately owned business, especially smaller businesses should be
allowed to require employees to uphold standards and values they believe in.
Hair styles, dress standards, health-smoking codes, and even religious
objections such as prayer breaks, and openly displays of LGBTQ employees . They
should be up front and open about all employee standards before employment is
offered. Larger publicly owned and operated businesses might not be entitled to
religious objections, we shall see how the SCOTUS deals with this hot potato.
Members of the Church: Should someone be fired based on their religion?
No. Neither should someone be fired because of their gender identity. It’s
simple. I lean conservative, and am a member of the Church, and the
church has been very clear about this. Watch the religious freedom videos. Read
recent statements, especially from Pres. Oaks.
@worfNone of these cases are about interviews but as for when it comes up,
same-sex marriage is legal and it's not uncommon for people at work to talk
about a spouse, a fiancee, or a boyfriend/girlfriend in some situations at least
socially outside of work.
Why would gender orientation even come up in an interview?
fatheroffour - Wow, I am not sure how you got firing people because they are gay
from my statement. If I wrote it so that you believe that I apologize. I am
only saying that there are some who want to have it their way or the highway.
I believe we have agency and we also have a responsibility when using our agency
to not step on the toes (or rights) of others.) . I believe in rights for all -
I have a theatre background and I have had friends from just about every belief
and life style.
WeThePeople - Sandy, UTNot sure why you're having a difficult
time understanding what "consenting adults" means
To "Utefan60" what about those in the LGBTQ+ community that discriminate
against Christians. Do they need to be reprimanded also?Remember
when the Coffee shop kicked out the Christian group that was there to have a cup
of coffee? How about the religious people that have been denied services because
of their Christian beliefs by LGBTQ+ people?Actually Jesus did set
the standard for marriage and sexual relations. He said that a Man is not
complete without a Woman, and that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
employee who was fired after disclosing that HE was transitioning from male to
surgically and hormonally altered malethere, I fixed itCongress could change civil rights law to specifically include LGBT people,
but they haven’t including the desperate days when BO was in the WH."Neither government agencies nor the courts have authority to
rewrite federal law by replacing 'sex' with 'gender
identity,'"Cougfan60Shot down many times? Not so.
Argued against, perhaps, but not shot down.Jesus may not have
directly in the NT, but He did through Moses in the Old Testament, and through
Paul in the NT.ACLUFired – or prosecuted, like a baker,
florist, or photographer? How about a church that does not recognize gay unions
– oops, my bad, I forgot that’s the part of the 1st amendment the
ACLU seems to fight against, rather than for – religious liberty.FatheroffourWhere did Linda say anything about being fired? She did
talk about how people exercised their agency, NOT about what they decided
concerning their orientation. There is a difference between being and doing.
Probably a good time to reflect on the real definition of
"discrimination". Racial discrimination was wrong. But we
actually "discriminate" every day: We "discriminate" against
correct and incorrect, successful and unsuccessful, true and false, legal and
illegal, harmful and beneficial, etc, etc, etc...."Discrimination"
is the essence of "rational thought". Not all discrimination is
automatically bad. "Immorality" is the class of things that it is
good to "discriminate against". If we remove a person's
right to discriminate against what he considers moral and immoral, then there is
really no freedom of religion. The right includes not only the internal
belief, but also **the free exercise thereof. **And to preempt the
arguments based on an invalid attempt at an analogy to racial civil rights:
There may have been racists within religions, but no significant religion ever
taught that it was immoral to "be Black". Racists were always going
directly against the teachings of every significant religion.
Just a reality check, here:While people may have a right to be any way
they want to be; no one has a right to force other people to go along with and
accommodate their delusions. There is no scientific data that confirms
transgenderism is anything other than a delusion: an belief in something that is
demonstrably inaccurate. For confirmation of this, one may google the
studies on "limb dysphoria", in which some people believe their arm or
leg does not "belong to them". Some doctors have gone so far as to
amputate the dysphoric limb in an attempt to cure the patient. Of course it
never does because dysphoria are just symptoms of a deeper underlying
psychological disorder.Now consider why "gender dysphoria" would
be any different than "limb dysphoria". Similarly, the surgical option
has an incredibly low success rate. Yet we are required to consider this a
"right" and ignore the delusional nature, only because modern liberals
include it in their sacred class of "sexually-related aberrations".
@lindaj72 - SF, CASo if I understand you correctly, according to
your religion you should be fired from your job if you are gay? Any other sins
you should be fired from your job for? What about Episcopalians or Presbyterians
who may not believe the same as you? Should they be fired too?
The pro-LGBTQ-whatever crowd have abandoned all morality.They say
that instead of traditional family values, "consenting adults" should be
free to do whatever they want. So much for the Law of Chastity.And
are children "consenting adults"? Livestock?I can't
believe I'm continually asked to respect and support this farce.I hope Trump's Supreme Court will lead our country back to sanity.
I believe we have our agency and should have the right to exercise that agency.
Unfortunately, on both sides of any argument there are those that only want
their views recognized. And just for the record, our Savior as recorded in the
NT did not mention homosexual marriage because He plainly said (paraphrased)
that marriage is between a man and woman and is ordained by God. His message
is implied. With that said, there are those who believe that the God of the OT
is the premortal Christ, and there He made it clear on that subject. Just
Most people in this country recognize that it’s both wrong and unlawful to
fire someone for being LGBTQ, and many states, including Utah, expressly
prohibit this kind of discrimination. Most people would be shocked if the
Supreme Court ruled that, under federal law... businesses can fire workers just
for being transgender, gay, lesbian or bisexual. But that’s exactly what
the Trump Administration is trying to achieve through arguments in court and
executive agency action.Everyone needs a way to support themselves and
their family. Freedom from discrimination is an essential part of making that a
reality. No one should have to live in fear that they can be fired just because
of who they are. - ACLU of Utah
I'm old and could care less about sex. So what's my sexual
orientation?Gosh, I wonder if I'm being discriminated against? lol
Discrimiantion of any kind by someone who professes to be religious is an
uncovering of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Religious Freedom? Hardly.Those who attack and discriminate against anyone in the LBGTQ community
needs to be reprimanded, and hopefully leagally challanged.This
area of civil rights needs to be addressed as harshly as racial discrimination
was earlier. LBGTQ people are fired without cause thousands of times. It is
sickening. Many communities and States have put in laws that stop this
unrighteous behavior.The sad part is Trump who never served in the
military by using fake excuses now wants to ban transgender service members.
These are people who are bravely serving their country. That is true
discrimination. Sad how the GOP and Trump have chosen not to represent all
citizens. And to Bloodhood. Those arguments you posted have been
shot down so many times. It makes you look like you do not have an
understanding of what you are talking about. Please note that Jesus never once
mentioned homosexuality in the Bible. Not even once. Marriage in the Bible is
not at all like what it is today. Polygamy ring a bell?
Sexual orientation is a pretty broad term. If the Court rules in favor of
"sexual orientation" being a protected class, will it eventually be
broadened to include individuals that say they are interested in forms of sex
that are not now included in the LBGTQ grouping? Will those interested in
polyamorous relationships be included? Will schools have to hire and keep
teachers who want to have affairs with underage students? As society moves away
from Biblical definitions of family and sexuality, will we end up where truly