Blue_Moose:
Just what are you insinuating with this video you keep posting?
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.
SNIP
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 ...
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 person’s actual or perceived orientation as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual."
"Gender identity" is defined as "a person’s actual or perceived gender identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other characteristics of an individual with or without regard to the person’s 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,
porn orientation,
cross-dressing,
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...
What fun...
:)
\
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.
Mole alert?
ROTFL!!!!! :))))))))
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)
Yes?
No?
Maybe so?
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!!!
secularized Muslim
_______________________________________
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...
Blue_Moose:
Just what are you insinuating with this video you keep posting?
Sorry I’m I insinuating ?
YES!
What is your point?
What are you trying to get across?
What's yer message?
I have no message and that is the point
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.