Posted on 11/11/2009 1:51:21 PM PST by kingattax
Gay rights legislation in Salt Lake City receives its first ever endorsement by the Mormon church.
Salt Lake City, Utah (WiredPRNews.com) - The passage of gay rights legislation in Salt Lake City, Utah was supported for the first time by the Mormon church. As reported by the Associated Press (AP), the church announced its support of laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in housing and employment prior to a vote on the legislation Tuesday.
Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is quoted by the AP as stating of the measure, “The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage.”
Brandie Balken, gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah director, is further quoted in the report as stating of the action, “What happened here tonight I do believe is a historic event…I think it establishes that we can stand together on common ground that we don’t have to agree on everything, but there are lot of things that we can work on and be allies.”
If you're going to reference me in a post, please ping me. Otherwise, it amounts to gossiping behind my back. (Is that what you do in your private life?). Do you need remedial training for online etiquette?
If this is "splitting hairs", as you put it, then stop trying to split hairs on how relevant of an import this is.
Mitt Romney and I share at least one thing: We're both descendants of Mormon polygamists. Now when Mitt was on "60 Minutes" on May 9, 2007, what was his conclusion about it?
"I have a great-great grandfather. They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert and so he took additional wives as he was told to do. And I must admit, I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy," he said. (Reuters, May 10, 2007) http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1018509620070510
Now that was a GOP POTUS MORMON candidate, circa 2007. He said he couldn't "imagine anything more awful than polygamy." Now, MB, you would think that things that are bottom-rung "awful" are going to rank to be of import, provocation-wise, right?
But at least in this case Mitt (for once) sounded more like our early-day fledgling Republicans, who in 1856 announced they were going to tackle the "twin relics of barbarism" -- polygamy and slavery.
We all need to understand that it wasn't just the need to take aim at something; rather, our Republican forefathers declared they saw the need to protect one-woman marriage.
That is what the still-existent threat of polygamy is.
That is what the ever-present threat of same-sex "marriage" is.
The apostle Paul still speaks to our consciences when he wrote under guidance of the Holy Spirit: "...do not share in the sins of others." (1 Timothy 5:22).
The issue is someone (a landlord, for example) who as you said opposes sex outside of marriage (be it hetero or homo-sexual lifestyles) being forced by penalty of law to participate in the sins of others.
Property management is a stewardship matter. A concientious property owner may attempt to honor the LORD in everything they do; and a landlord saying "no" to a cohabiting heterosexual couple is trying to conscientiously follow biblical passages like 1 Tim. 5:22.
In this sense, it's not much different than a father or mother saying to their 18 yo, 19 yo or 20-something adult kid, "No, you can't sleep with your boyfriend/girlfriend at our house. No, I'm not going to set up quarters for you and your cohabiting partner -- of whatever sex -- to live with us for a while. Why would you ask me to actively sanction your sexual relationship?"
In both cases above, the property owner is attempting to honor the Lord. If certain drugs became legal, like Breckrenridge, CO just passed a vote to allow marijuana smoking; and if a Breckrenridge property owner had a tenant who had marijuana parties every night, don't you think the landlord should have the right of association if their property is to be so used for that purpose?
I see no reason why gays should be denied housing or jobs just because they like people of the same sex.
How naive...you think it comes down to whether somebody else likes" somebody particular? Try on the following for size:
#1 So forcing a retailer to say, higher an open cross-dresser, meets your "anti-discrimination" campaign approval?
#2 Unfortunately, none of this ever is limited to homosexual behavior. These ordinances are usually based upon vague "sexual orientation" language. So, imagine being a business owner or workplace manager. Now sit down & write a long list of various "sexual orientations" -- and all of these so-called "what-they-do-in-the-privacy-of-their-own-homes" can be imposed into very public business. (For example, an exhibitionist could be deemed a "sexual orientation"...as public clothing codes start going by the wayside, good luck trying to pre-empt that "sexual orientation" in your place of work. Every "sexual orientation" under the sun becomes a protected class status)
#3 Likewise, imagine somebody applying at a child care agency or school or Lds seminary or Boy Scout group, saying that they have a "sexual orientation" toward children but they've never acted on it. No criminal record. No crimes have occurred. They say they're "clean" behaviorally. So, you're just suppose to conclude as either a church administrator or somebody considering hiring such a person that their "sexual orientation" is irrelevant?
Would YOU let such a person become a Cub Scout or Boy Scout leader?
What we fail to understand is that no matter how compassionate and accepting we want to be to the homosexual community, their public policy goals always seek to define morality for all. They impose their will upon others -- effectively telling them that people can no longer make any distinctions on sexual morality other than what is legal or illegal...and that changes according to how hard a given "sexual minority" lobbies lawmakers and accomplishes end runs thru the courts.
If you want your morality to be defined by the slogan "whatever is legal is moral," go for it.
The LDS church frowns on any sex outside the confines of the marriage institution. Homosexual marriage and homosexual sex they oppose in its entirety,
_______________________________________________
Welcome to FR, n00b...
While the mormons dont seem to object to homosexually any more....(Some tax exemption problem again)
The LDS only frowns ??? as in “tou have an option...”
The God of the Bible does more than frown upon all deviant sex...
God commands us not to commit the u8nclean sins of homosexually or polygamy AKA celestial marriage AKA spiritual marriage AKA a new and everlasting covenant AKA the first principal AKA adultry...
That’s a big difference between what the mormons claim their mormon gods told Joey Smith to do and the beliefs and practices about marriage of Judeo-Christianity...
With Chrsitianity there is no frowning or option...
Its Thou shalt not commit adultery..Genesis 20:14
God treats the sins of homosexually and polygamy equally...
You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don’t you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunks, slanderers, and robbers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
The Morg might need to stop holding on to all those millions of tithe monies and start giving some of it to the poor...
Build a hospital in Africa people who cant pay them back with interest, or something...
Good gawd. That leaves out everyone south of the Mason-Dixon.
everyone south of the Mason-Dixon
_________________________________________________
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
The South was not part of Mexico like Utah was...
Ya know SOUTH OF THE BORDER ???
The reason the mormons left the US and went into Mexico (the Utah territory) was so that they could practice their unGodly unlawful lifestyles away from the justice of the US government or US army...
Gollies and that was suppose to last forever...
The US and the rest of the nations were suppose to become part of “Deseret” and embrace mormonism...
What hapened to the plans of the mormon god ??
Sometimes there are posts that claim the mormons were so called “victims” who had to run for their lives...
But nobody was chasing them ...
If they were they would have continued right to where BY had his property in Utah...
The wicked man flees though no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion. Proverbs 28:1
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsStatement Given to Salt Lake City Council on Nondiscrimination Ordinances
SALT LAKE CITY 10 November 2009 The following statement representing the position of the Church’s leadership, was read by Michael Otterson, managing director of Church Public Affairs, as part of a public comment period discussing the ordinances at a Salt Lake City Council meeting 10 November 2009:
Good evening.
My name is Michael Otterson, and I am here tonight officially representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The nondiscrimination ordinances being reviewed by the city council concern important questions for the people of this community.
Like most of America, our community in Salt Lake City is comprised of citizens of different faiths and values, different races and cultures, different political views and divergent demographics. Across America and around the world, diverse communities such as ours are wrestling with complex social and moral questions. People often feel strongly about such issues. Sometimes they feel so strongly that the ways in which they relate to one another seem to strain the fabric of our society, especially where the interests of one group seem to collide with the interests of another.
The issues before you tonight are the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against. But, importantly, the ordinances also attempt to balance vital issues of religious freedom. In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor Becker is taking on this matter.
In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations, for example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their tenets, or when providing housing for their university students and others that preserve religious requirements.
The Church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage. They are also entirely consistent with the Church’s *prior position on these matters. The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.
I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree – in fact, especially when we disagree. The Church’s past statements are on the public record for all to see. In these comments and in our actions, we try to follow what Jesus Christ taught. Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but will also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society. Thank you.
*The Divine Institution of Marriage
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.