Mormon church opposes federal LGBTQ nondiscrimination measure

Sure they do, they look upon all Americans as equal, this law is the opposite of that. We have laws already that address nondiscrimination.

The dems just want to create disparate victims groups, and think we need a law to single out each one individually.

 

That's just it. We should have one law to protect every person equally, to prevent discrimination.

We should not pass these bad laws, like this one, which... after they become the law, can be interpreted so as not to specifically address protections for person xyx.

 

Ronstar why are so you continually miss represent the news article. It was an article about the mormon church. So do you not believe that the MORMON church should be able to hire people that conform to their religion when hiring with in the church. That is literally the argument that is being made and discussed in your news article.

 

federal law does not protect people from discrimination due to their sexuality or gender identity. It's time to change that wouldn't you agree?

 

"the legislation would add gender identity and sexual orientation to existing federal nondiscrimination laws covering such things as employment, housing, education, and public spaces and services.

The bill has widespread Democratic backing and seems certain to pass the House, but the chances appear slim in the Republican-controlled Senate."

 

What about political persuasion?

Does a law protect us from bigoted people who will refuse to hire us because we have a sticker on your car for the wrong political party or candidate for president? What about tattoos, or piercings, or being fat, or ugly, or tall, or short. It never ends with these badly written laws. Your way would lead to election cycle, after election cycle, where pandering candidates want endless, and if you don't agree, you are an evil hater, yadda, yadda

 

What other behaviors do you think should receive constitutional protection.

 

nope.

political views can change with the snap of a finger.

...and then shift back with another snap

 

So by that metric women and Christians are not equal. Interesting

 

They also claim to believe in "small government" until they wish to use government to impose their religious views.

 

Well, that added another layer of complexity. I would defer to the Supreme Court ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado case. Here the Court narrowly decided on the side of the baker that didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple. The baker objected on religious grounds. In a rare move, the court soft pedaled their decision (IMO). That left the door wide open to tackling your objection to badly written laws.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/...es-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html

 

Nope. No should be required to accept behaviors they find objectionable.

 

I'm okay with churchs not having to hire gays. Let's just exempt churchs and be done with it.

Aside from a church, no other employer has a legitimate interest in discriminating based on their religious convictions.

 

Right? This is annoying. It's more an issue of religious rights vs. lgbt rights to force the religious into compliance against their beliefs.

 

I am not all that keen on some of the extreme manifeststions of non-discrimination ideology. Anyone should be able to refuse service without justification.

Women's only gyms and gentlemen's only clubs are a good example of where I think this sort of thing goes too far.

A Melbourne cafe is charging men more for coffee to correct the pay gap. I disagree with their politics, but hey, it's their store.

Discrimination gets a bad rap when we all discriminate a thousand times a day. There is good and bad.

 

Should religious persons be able to fire a black person because they are black?
Should a tech company be able to fire a Christian because they are Christian?

 

Are those the tenants of a religion?

 

That’s the issue with religious belief, you don’t get to choose what beliefs are valid or invalid.

Feel free to go back and answer the question.

 

A better question would be "should Muslims be allowed to stone gays or adulterous women to death?". At least then you wouldn't need to use a straw man.

 

Why do some conservatives... enough of them, anyway, that Republicans won't stand up for fair play and decency fearing the bigots in their party will withdraw support or cause internal problems.

 

It’s not a strawman because you don’t like what your answer will show. You know it will dismantle your entire argument so you choose to attempt and deflect.

You said people should not be forced into compliance against their beliefs.

Some people have stated the divisions of the races was a punishment from god and thus the races should not intermingle. Do you believe the individuals should have to violate their sincerely held beliefs and hire a black person?

Should a devout Muslim be forced to rent to an infidel (aka Christians)

Should a religious person be forced to provide medical care for an individual that has had numerous marriages (adultery)?


Or are you going to have a religious board that chooses which religious belief is valid?

Why can’t you answer the questions?

 

It is a total strawman. No religion that I'm aware of has such tenants. There's no need to make up non-existent scenarios to bolster a position, unless of course that's what it requires to make your point. And anyhow... the topic of the article specifically addresses religious institutions.

 

I accept your concession

 

Well, then, they aren't "equal" because bigots discriminate against them. They would be "equal" if there was no discrimination. We can limit the opportunity for bigots to discriminate by putting in place appropriate protection.

 

Whatever gets you through the day bud.