LDS Freedom Forum

The writing is on the wall:
http://www.adn.com/2012/03/31/2401321/p ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Read the article and comments

I don't really post or read here anymore, but thought you'd like to see things playing out...

would usher in a new era of intolerance in Anchorage, all done in the name of "ending discrimination."

Scary, because it is sure to spread.

Yes- likely to force a shut down of Church; but Obama, economic collapse, or martial law now seem just as likely.

Number one, I miss you around here.

In the topic of the article, Wow, just Wow. They are so sophisticated, from a worldly standpoint and have crafted their message so carefully. We shall see if their effort is the one that "pollutes the altar."

While I maintain that individuals acting as agents of Government or government funded entities should not be allowed to discriminate for any reason prejudicial reason (i.e. a reason other than merit or lawfulness), I also maintain that any individual or private entity not receiving government funds or acting as an agent of the government has the right to discriminate against another person or group of persons for any reason whatsoever, including but not limited to religious belief (or lack thereof), age, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, "race", skin color, disability, etc.

While I agree in part with what I hope was the original intent of Prop 5, I do see some significant flaws which I believe make it an unsuitable proposition to support. I believe government should stop discriminating when it comes to same-sex and multiple-partner marriages; I believe such discrimination to be contrary to the principles of Liberty upon which this Nation was founded. I believe government, as an agent of ALL people has a responsibility and duty to act with impartiality in protecting the rights and liberties of all persons, and that includes the civil contracts and partnerships defining relationships between two or more individuals. I nevertheless also maintain that government has no duty, responsibility, or obligation to compel private individuals, groups, or entities (businesses, clubs, organizations, churches, charities, etc.) to not engage in discrimination; and because it has no such duty or responsibility to do so, it must NOT do so.

I also believe a legal distinction ought to be made between a "public business" and a "private business". I believe a public business should be defined as a business which derives a portion of its income or has a portion of its expenses paid for by public monies (i.e., from government laid taxes, fees, etc.); and a private businesses should be defined as any and all other businesses which do not derive a portion of their income or have a portion of their expenses paid for by public monies. Thus, individuals operating private businesses, and private organizations such as churches, clubs, etc. are all free to discriminate however they see fit; but those who derive their income or have their expenses paid in part by "the public" must not discriminate.