Just what are you insinuating with this video you keep posting?
Skip to comments.Mormons and Gays Find Common Ground in Utah
Posted on 11/13/2009 4:39:22 AM PST by Colofornian
(RNS) With the passage Tuesday (Nov. 10) of nondiscrimination laws in Salt Lake City that expand gay rights, Mormon officials and gay activists have found a patch of common ground.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and gay organizations both advocated for the laws, which prevent discrimination in housing and employment.
The Sutherland Institute, a Salt Lake City-based conservative think tank, expressed disappointment in the church's action.
"As a public relations opportunity, the LDS church's statement before the Salt Lake City Council may assuage the minds and soften the hearts of advocates of 'gay rights' in Utah," the institute said. "As a policy statement, it is problematic. The approved ordinances before the Salt Lake City Council are unsound in principle, clarity, and effect."
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.beliefnet.com ...
Et tu, Brute?
I'm kidding, Mormons! :)
I think the LDS church made a HUGE error here ... they probably think the Qs will call off the harassment now ... fat chance they are only emboldened.
Indeed, the most viewed article in the past 12 hours at the Salt Lake City Tribune is article headlined, "LDS apostle: SLC gay-rights measures could work for state"
An excerpt from that article makes me wonder if the LDS church is going to take its P.R. dog & pony show on the road & try to influence similar legislation & ordinances around the country:
The LDS Church's unexpected endorsement of two Salt Lake City gay-rights measures has many observers wondering if another surprise could follow: a friendlier reception in the 2010 Legislature for such protections statewide. Even an LDS apostle -- continuing the string of stunners --thinks Salt Lake City's ordinances could be a model. "Anything good is shareable," Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said in an interview Wednesday, referring to Salt Lake City's new policy aimed at protecting gay and transgender residents from discrimination.
Because if homosexuals can have "normal" rights, so can the polygamists.
Homosexuals rode on the backs of slaves to get their agenda passed. Mormons can ride the backs of homosexuals to get their agenda passed as well.
There can't be favoritism in the law for one sexual dysfunction over another. If homosexuals can marry or have civil unions, why can't polygamists have more than one wife or receive civil union benefits for all those they choose to live with, too?
As far as polygamy is concerned, this is a smart move for a Mormon church in Utah. Now the homosexuals can pay them back when it's their turn to go to court for their rights.
I don't approve of either personally. I don't want either anywhere near me or my family. I think they're all insane perverts.
Honestly, ldsers have caved on many important issues (according to their own tenants).
I am honored to have a God that Who is the same yesterday today and will be tomorrow.
I don’t think it’s especially controversial that gays should be treated with respect. Where the controversy comes in is when they demand special treatment - (eg. changing the ages old definition of marriage).
are mormans courthing gays now.....i thought this was fed law?
Respect? Why? What have they done to earn respect? Did I miss something?
Utah is well known for it's Mormon polygamy. They have a lot in common with homos and their quest to redefine marriage.
Not all Mormons are on this quest, but there are still as many polygamists out there as there are homosexuals - probably many more.
I think you respect people by default. Until they do something to lose it. Not the other way around.
At least you didn’t change the headline this time. I see where that spanking you got from the Admin Moderator for altering facts to fit your agenda must have worked.
Wrong. That's the liberal view. Courtesy is given by default, but respect is earned. The Mormon Church has just given its stamp of approval to homos, thereby reaping the condemnation of Romans 1:32
". . . the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."
Ahh, the Magical Mormon Revelation Machine is once again in operation.
Though sometimes it works for good....
Polygamy is good. No, wait, we have had a revelation that it’s bad. [Translation: We want to be a state]
Blacks are cursed. No wait, we had a revelation that they are not bad. [Translation: We don’t want to be seen as rascist]
Gays are evil. No, wait, we had a revelation that they are really OK! [Translation: we don’t want to be seen as homophobes]
They did do something to lose it. They acted out on their perverted thoughts and then tried to force the rest of us to accept and respect them. Even worse, they're teaching their "indiscretions" to Americas children.
I don't respect rapists, either, or those who do animals. Something just isn't right with these people. They need to seek help rather than warm objects, and no way do they deserve "respect."
Give me a break!
The comments of Utahns in other websites are interesting...
1. There’s an embarassing movie about Prop 8 that will be shown at Sundance (that should be January I think)
2. Paving the way for polygamy coming out of the closet..
3. What will the Morg do now that gays can buy those over priced over looking condos downtown ???
4. Did the Morg even think about that possibilty..
5. General dismay and questions of possible apostacy of the Morg leaders...
You speak in total ignorance. But since you won't give it up, I typed in the exact headline I saw. (No changes). On both news threads. I did absolutely nothing different than I haven't done on any other thread-posting. Did I double-check to see if I inserted a typo? (No) You keep insisting that some deep-dark change was inserted into the text. It wasn't.
The lesson learned? The AM said I should have cut&pasted. And he's right. If you want to avoid even being off by a letter, cut & paste. Since I didn't keep up what I posted to go back & check where I was off-base, I can't even tell you. But based upon my record of accuracy & removal of a harmless thread yesterday removed for no apparent reason, I can conscientiously say I still don't think I was in error on anything; but since I'm human, I'm not going to fall upon a sword by claiming perfection.
You, on the other hand stand by your mistakes. You've said twice in the last 6 days on these threads that you want your open bigotry toward Muslims to become law of the land & want all Muslims kicked out of the American military. Is this something you recommend for all European military forces as well?
Then you have the gall to highlight three times that I made some typo. Take the Muslim beam of bigotry out of your own eye before you try to correct my sliver typos.
Wonder when we will see...
Women are slaves. No wait, we had a revelation that they are not slaves. They are equal with men. [Translation: We dont want to be seen as sexist. We want the tithe money from all those single Moms]
Respect? Why? What have they done to earn respect? Did I miss something? [Concerned About Politics]
I think you respect people by default. Until they do something to lose it. Not the other way around. [DManA]
Wrong. That's the liberal view. Courtesy is given by default, but respect is earned. [aimhigh]
DManA, you've framed this whole issue wrong. The issue isn't whether or not we give respect or dignity or assign value to homosexuals (and I think you can give dignity & value to homosexuals without respecting their lifestyle); the issue is can government enforce respect by threatening fines?
So, I partially agree each of the other posters named above:
Give courtesy (& hospitality) by default (aimhigh)
Yet we don't have to respect every "sexual orientation" under the sun -- exhibitionism, voyeurism, transsexuality, multiple-person sexual orientation, polygamists, polyandrists, porn orientations, cross-dressing, etc. We can make distinctions between keeping dignity for all people while still highlighting problematic social & personal aspects of these "orientations."
The Q is, DManA, why you think government has the right to mandate respect for, say a cross-dresser who comes into your retail business & demand you hire him -- daily wardrobe & all.
Is it because you think the government has a right to mandate Democratic party-like "compassion" by forking over our tax $ for every "compassionate" project they embark upon?
BTW, why do you and so many other FReepers mistakenly keep thinking this policy is only about homosexuals and lesbians? (It's not)
According to one blog describing was Salt Lake City passed -- http://www.worldofworklawblog.com/2009/11/articles/states/utah/new-salt-lake-city-ordinances-prohibit-housing-and-employment-discrimination-based-on-sexual-orientation/ note how the Salt Lake council legislated this:
"Sexual orientation" is defined as "a persons actual or perceived orientation as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual."
"Gender identity" is defined as "a persons actual or perceived gender identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other characteristics of an individual with or without regard to the persons sex at birth."
IOW, a person doesn't even have to be a homosexual or have a certain gender identity...it could be simply someone "perceived" to be that way. Example: A cross-dressing employee or applicant. [So now we keep codifying vague "perceptions" that someone might have? What other thought patterns do they want to legislate?]
The employee or potential employee in question might be "straight" -- but they reflect upon your business if they dress in a flamboyant or "flaming" type of way. Now SLC business-owners aren't allowed to have discretion lest they be accused of "discriminating" vs. such a "gender identity."
Or let's say a male employee started using a female bathroom at work because it coincides with his "gender identity." Such an employee can no longer be fired for such behavior without governmental recriminations taking effect. [This ordinance says any 15-employee businesses & up could be subject to a $1,000 fine...and the ACLU, which was openly identified by SLCity Council as a "stakeholder" in this, is ALWAYS looking for precedent-setting cases...Isn't it grand to see the ACLU & Lds church holding hands in SLC?]
Where the controversy comes in is when they demand special treatment - (eg. changing the ages old definition of marriage). [DManA]
They already have demanded special treatment. This ordinance effects the broad "sexual orientation" categories -- homosexuality, bisexuality, AND heterosexuality -- and therefore EVERY "sexual orientation" that are sub-categories of these:
multiple-person sexual orientation,
transsexuality [covered under "gender identity" definition]
polygamists and polyandrists,
exhibitionism to a certain legal degree,
voyeurism to a legal degree,
(you name it -- if it's either legal or not oft' enforced if illegal)
Business owners of operations w/15 or more employers MUST now accommodate any & all sexual minority groups & individuals. According to the "gender identity" definition, all an employee or potential employee has to do is claim their behavior is a certain "mannerism" linked to how they want to identify themselves & if it's "perceived" that it's being infringed upon, look out! The weight of government will fall upon you.
(All with the vocal blessings of the local Mormon "prophet" and his leaders!)
Gay employees tripping up and down the hollowed halls of Morgdom dressed in their pink feathers and G-strings and long black boots...
Broke Back Canyon’s ?
Mopre like Broke Back Mall...
Interesting. Open wonderment about general authority apostasy in the last times, just as the Bible verses Lds love to quote forecasts, eh?
As for polygamy, Lds apostle Bruce R. McConkie taught that earthly polygamy would be re-instituted when the Mormon jesus returns. So this just might be a step in the direction of their next "manifesto" on how the Mormon lord has changed his mind yet again on a social issue.
I agree with you but this specific topic was not about government policy but LDS policy.
OK, I'm not sure how you missed it, but from beginning to end, this posted article covers...
..."laws" [first sentence of article]
...and "ordinances" [last sentence of article].
So, unlike this parsing "dance" move approach you've just taken, the whole thrust of this deals with the Lds church coming alongside these GOVERNMENTAL laws and ordinances -- not vice versa. (Unless you're telling us that SLC City Council is only some formal rubber-stamp extended operation of the church, and that all SLC City Council was doing was codifying new CHURCH policy -- expressing it in customized GOVERNMENTAL language.)
Ya wanna tell us why you think the Lds church, whenever it's socially pressured, simply caves? (Polygamy in 1890; blacks as priesthood holders in 1978; now this? A Prop 8 triggered response where the Lds church is perhaps doing a "trial social manifesto?")
And what does that say about the Mormon god? A god of appeasement? A god who caves when Americans get too riled up? A god who was once a man who just can't take the social pressure of a relatively small country compared to the rest of the universe?
Meant to ping you, svcw, on #29 — ‘cause you’re absolutely right.
>>”Is this something you recommend for all European military forces as well?”<<
European military forces are not of any concern to me, AMERICAN miltary forces are, however.
Your continued defense of Muslims (Islamic radical extremist terrorists who want us dead according to their “Bible”) is disturbing to many of us here at FR.
Pan, I love you at least for entertainment value!!!
You think that just because I've opposed your Kristallnacht juggernaut initiative to toss out 100% Muslims out of the U.S. military, I've exhibited a pro-terrorist "mole" bias?
I'm sorry, but you've made my funnybone day. Thank you.
Keep goin'. (You might earn a special nickname like "Chuckles the Clown" or somethin')
Oh, & just to try to be serious for a moment, you do realize, don't you, that it's absolutely and seriously vital to the security interests of this country that we have "INTEL" people in the military who are fluent in Arabic & distinctive dialects & languages spoken by Muslims? (Indonesia alone is a high challenge, language-wise)
And you want to kick many of these military INTEL people out -- a good chunk of them who are either Muslim or secularized Muslim??? Seriously??? ROTFL!!!! (I'm sorry...for a second outburst!!! But you are hilarious! Do you do local stand-up comedy? You'd be worth door admission!)
Now, for ACT II, are you next going to introduce that whatever formal militaristic associations Iraqi and Afghan Muslim military personnel may have w/our operations, that we "cease and desist" that, too? [Tip: For maximum outburst effect, please respond with as serious of a tone that you can muster...it just adds to the delivery & atmosphere!!!]
Appreciative of you lightening up my day! Thanks!!!
Just as there are Jack Mormons, or secularized Mormans, there could be “Jack Muslims”...
I dont know how loyal to the US they are...
But right now Registered Aliens are enlisting in the US military, being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, and after sending just ONE DAY there becoming American citizens...
So the security measures for as far as vetting new applicants for citizenship has gone by the wayside...
Get back to you later. I have to help out my neighbor with a sick & down cow right now. BTW, he (100% Italian) speaks perfect Mandarin Chinese. Go figure?
No, we don’t need Muslims in the military to interpret etc. YOU CAN’T TRUST THEM!! Remember Fort Hood?
gotta go......for now
sory ... i call it shacking up
And then there's those TUNNELS that interconnect everything together...
Just what are you insinuating with this video you keep posting?
Sorry I’m I insinuating ?
What is your point?
What are you trying to get across?
What's yer message?
I have no message and that is the point
So naive. Now no newspaper, TV station or school can fire (or not hire) someone based on morals concerns. Thus only liberal orthodoxy will dominate public debate.
No WONDER I couldn't find one!
Thanks for the explanation.