Mormon church opposes federal LGBTQ nondiscrimination measure

Yes, if your religious practices are contrary to public policy. You don't have a right to have sex with children as part of your rituals.

Can't have sex with kids? So sad, too bad.

 

I think if a religious person is allowed to refuse service to someone based on what an imaginary person says then people should be able to refuse service to someone who believes in imaginary people. Seems only fair.

 

I agree. But this is not a thread about services that businesses give. This is a thread about should the mormon church be allowed to hire who they want. Did nobody read the article?

 

How about protecting elementary public school teachers who decide to wear shirts with "NAMBLA" in big letters across the back? Can't do that? How about a "NAMBLA" bumper sticker on their car? How about a "There is no God!" shirt? Or a "God loves you!" shirt?

 

And the very concept of a business license is an immoral and self defeating idea.

What you seem to be missing is that just because there is a law does not mean the law is moral or good.

 

To be fair,The thread title was changed. It was.."Conservatives rejecting LGBT anti-discrimination bill"

 

A cop can refuse to protect Christians?

 

That would all make since if these laws were made in a vacuum without reason. Yet there are segments of our society that are intentionally kept down and denied opportunities for nonsensical reasons. Unfortunately it is not an aberration or isolated situation but something that has been culturally accepted and even promoted by many people. If we could wave a magic wand and stop this nonsense we would. But unfortunately people suck and magic is not real. So we use want meager tools we have at our disposal.

Now I do acknowledge that at times the left and government go to far with their laws and regulations. I think that we would be better served using propaganda and cultural manipulation to end most forms of discrimination.

 

There are some things that a civil union provide legally that is beneficial. The ability for your significant other to make decisions when you are incapacitated, the settling of your estates, and financial responsibilities as it pertains to children. All those things have a legal basis that is important to government. The religious institution of marriage on the other hand should not concern the government.

 

Yes if you read my earlier post I made that comment. Ronstar has a tendency to the goal post when he creates threads. Read post 67. That is the problem with alot of threads here, people make statements about articles that are not even in the article but close. And nobody bothers to actually read the article. I did not see anywhere in the article about mormon business owners, it was about the Mormon church hiring people. And not letting a church hire people how ever they want seems silly to me.

 

Thank you for the lecture. No doubt you made a good hall monitor back in the day.

 

If you die with out a will you are idiot. Even if you are married you should have your affairs in order. And not having a living will is just as stupid. You do not need civil unions to do these things the the willingness to go to a lawyer and get your affairs in order.

 

I am not lecturing I am one of the few that is actually commenting on the news article that this whole thread was started on.

 

I thought this is a thread about should the mormon church be allowed to hire who they want????????

 

That is a weak argument- it is not additional protections but just calling out what the protections are for everyone and how they apply to that group. You will get the same protections as the people who belong to that group.

If you were an adult in the 60s you probably thought Blacks had the "right" to vote in Mississippi. Or That a Black could get a mortgage in the south end of boston. No one is getting more rights- it is just those rights in certain circumstances are being called out for clarification.

 

A false narrative. Not surprised coming from you. The Mormons don't represent conservatives.

 

Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."​

It's an easy call--in the United States, you obey the law.

Yep. Some leftists want to run you out of business. OTOH, most liberals are Christians and have no such inclination.

What if the EMT refuses to treat blacks? Or Muslims? Or Christians?

That group should smoke less dope.

It's not now, nor was it ever, a "Christian country." We have decided to protect the right of people to practice a faith, but that right is subordinate to the Constitution.

 

Absolutely. The Constitution is the law of the land.

 

Perhaps, but ones mortality is often times hard to comprehend. Many are scared of even contemplating it. Others do not consider it. Then of course many just think it is a problem for the future and death catches them. But as a poster after this said we have strayed a bit off topic. My bad.

 

Really? Gays want "in" on the institution.

Logical Fallacy Alert!

https://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html​

My wife and I have been married for 52 years. Never even a moment of regret. You want to marry your boyfriend? Be my guest.

 

Up to a point. They had to drop polygamy before Utah was admitted as a state.

Muslims? Male Muslims marry more than one woman? Nope.

 

Aw c'mon, everybody knows what this is about. This is a bid to force fundamentalist Christian churches to employ people who are diametrically opposed to their mission statement. Infiltration and destruction from the inside. You might as well ban Christianity and get it over with.

 

Pathetic bombastic hyperbole is not an argument - it's an excuse given by 5th graders.

 

NAMBLA ??? In public schools ??? Sorry not political speech, encouragement to commit sexual assault against a minor child. The rest of it is just fine and such protections already exist.

 

Holy paranoia.