LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **December 21st, 2013, 1:55 pm**

jdawg1012 wrote:
Janadele1 wrote:
seer stone wrote: ... Does not providing equal rights to one person create loss of rights to the other?
Yes, it most certainly does
Incorrect, it most certainly does NOT. Equal rights are just that, equal. However, anti-discrimination laws (what that posted alluded to) do hinder everyone's right to liberty, equally (not one over another). Don't confuse the two concepts.

I can understand the intentions of what you say by nondiscrimination laws, don't get me wrong, but no one trusts society to go on it's own without them. That's why undoing it doesn't work in the real world.

Posted: **December 21st, 2013, 9:08 pm**

jdawg1012 wrote:
seer stone wrote:I know that in other states, businesses have lost court cases after refusing to provide services to a same-sex couples.
This is a false dichotomy, but I'll address it. Businesses (not clergy), in other states have lost discrimination cases in which they violated their OWN states laws concerning services to the public. (Contrary to popular belief, businesses DON'T have the right to refuse service to anyone). It's synonymous with someone in a commercial setting deciding not to serve Latter-Day saints because they don't agree with their religion. Those cases involving discrimination are few and rare, but admittedly they do happen. I'm not for anti-discrimination laws, and have never advocated them. I don't believe that the state should take away the rights of individuals to govern their private property. However, long ago the public decided that they would make anti-discrimination laws in order to accommodate women, minorities, age, marital status, religion and a host of other statuses. Some areas and jurisdictions have included sexual orientation to that list. Many have not. While I don't believe in forcing someone to sell you a cake (be you black, gay, female, old, or of a different faith), the public has willingly accepted that legal bondage. I fight against it too.

Perhaps you'd like to join with me in advocating for the abolishing of anti-discrimination laws. That way, no one would be legally forced to serve anyone else (be they black, gay, female, old, handicapped, etc.). You can manage your property as you see fit. So could everyone else. I would advise you to be prepared to not be served by some religions based upon your religion, and some establishments to discriminate because of your skin color, etc. I have no problem with that, because I believe in equal rights (thus, no one has to serve someone they choose not to), and the right to govern our own property (the other necessary component). Anyone could enter into any contract they saw fit, and you wouldn't have to service them. So nope, no one would be forced into making cakes for gay couples. But people could fire, turn you away, and evict you at their whim and pleasure (in accordance to any contracts they have with you), too. That's perfectly fine with me.

Shelby's ruling actually INCREASES religious freedom. There are currently many faiths that believe in/allow same-sex marriage. Their churches and their congregations support their religious freedom to get married. The state denied them that ability. Latter-Day Saints believe in allowing men and women the freedom to worship how, and what, and where they may. Therefore, people that believe in same-sex marriage are allowed to have them, and people that do not, don't have to get one. In a perfect world you wouldn't have to acknowledge them whatsoever. I in fact support that. but no one would have to acknowledge your marriage either (as a religious rite, not as an enforceable contract). Now, religious liberty is preserved. Private businesses may one day be unable to discriminate in more jurisdictions, but those anti-discrimination laws (which, again, I don't agree with) came long before same-sex marriage came to the U.S.

So businesses don't really have the right to not provide service if you are not wearing a shirt?

Posted: **December 21st, 2013, 9:39 pm**

Benjamin_LK wrote:I can understand the intentions of what you say by nondiscrimination laws, don't get me wrong, but no one trusts society to go on it's own without them. That's why undoing it doesn't work in the real world.

It doesn't matter if people trust society (you can interpose, "trust other people"), to not discriminate.

There are two, and ONLY two situations with/choices about agency. Men are free to choose, or they are not free to choose. That's it. They cannot control the NATURAL (NOT "man imposed") outcome affixed to a choice, but they get to make the choice itself. There's no "They can choose from among the choices I let them." Or "They can choose as long as it's what I deem is right." They get to choose, or they don't. Natural consequences stem from that. At some point, the police state and big government (people who want to take God's place, in other words) ran amok. They said, "People aren't choosing like we want them to, so we'll use the force of government to make them." I don't care if it's anti-discrimination laws, sin taxes, or any number of the behemoth criminal code that includes prison time for lobsters that are too short, looking at a moose from a helicopter, modern day thought crimes, or a number of other things. You have no divine right to force your neighbor to do your will. You have a right to protect yourself from harm, but you don't have the right to micromanage someone else "for the good of society" (translation, to your benefit over their freedom).

Then the only relevant argument is, "Are people free to choose between good and bad, or are they forced to do 'good' or bad." Again, that's it.

Any argument for anti-discrimination laws simply put, are statements that come down to two ideas: that people can't be trusted to choose the right thing on their own (a rephrasing of your exact statement), so...
1) So what, let them choose anyway.
2) So force them to make the "right" choice. (Meaning whatever the person with more ungodly power of force can inflict upon them).

As I have always stated, virtually all of societies' ills are caused by growth of government (meaning people), into ungodly territory. You don't have a Godly right to make you neighbor go to church, to keep them from going to church, to make them paint their house a certain way, to cut their grass to a certain height, to not collect rain water, to license their dog/cat/fish. These are not Godly. And you certainly don't have a right to deny your neighbor over a thousand other benefits of a secular, civil marriage, when you yourself get to enjoy those same rights.

To remedy that, you either A) Give them those same rights on equal terms ("marriage"), or B) You remove them from the equation.

Notice no one EVER has a legitimate argument when faced with the dilemma. What if 1000's of benefits, like tax status, power of attorney, inheritance taxes, property transfer, etc. etc. were all based upon you being baptized a Catholic and not a Latter-Day saint? What if some overzealous moron stated, "Everyone is free to chose the majority's Catholic baptism, so everyone has equal rights," ? That's stupid. It was attempted with anti-miscegenation laws. That's interracial marriage, if you're unfamiliar with the term. Zealots again argued, "Everyone has the right to marry someone of their own race, they just can't marry someone outside their race." Sounds stupid now, but it's the exact same rational basis against government also recognizing same-sex marriage. They also argued divine right, religion, and the Bible to make that case. It was struck down for the exact same reasons.

And yet, people are claiming on the one hand that marriage is a "religious rite and term." Baloney, historically, you can in fact go and get married today, with no religion involved, but no matter. That position is fine, then don't attach ANYTHING like government benefits to it then. But "everyone is free to choose to have marriage according to a certain religion's definition," but not in accordance with any other religion's definition (including polygamy, same-sex marriage, first cousins, etc.). So the argument for "religious liberty" is a big fat whopping lie. It's not about religious liberty. It's about having one's cake and eating it to. It's not just about getting the rights and benefits oneself, it's about not letting other people have access to those same things.

Most people in the country are AGAINST the marriage inequality (More than half are FOR the legalization of same-sex marriage). There's more than one way to reach marriage equality. You can let everyone marry in their own religion, and get government out of it, and no legal benefits attached to it (my preference). Or you can let everyone who wants to marry, marry. That's it. You cannot expect to have the courts rule in your favor if what you want is a legal disparity.

The people (as a nation) do not approve of the discrimination (even Utah's own defense admitted to the discrimination, they just said it was their "right" to do, hence a swift and speedy judgment--They made NO case for harming others, they just said they have the right to do it). And most of the states that have legalized same-sex marriage have done it through normal legislative channels, and/or by popular vote. And more and more states will change. 12 states in 20 weeks have legalized same-sex marriage. 12 in 20. It's just less than once a week. If the argument is about what "society wants," society doesn't want the disparity. We can either seek for a CONSTITUTIONAL solution, or you can keep trying unconstitutional methods that are struck down every time they are brought up in court. The problem is, if you keep taking the unconstitutional route, by the time courts get done, NOBODY has any freedom, NO ONE. That's why I am not for more laws, but less.

Posted: **December 21st, 2013, 10:38 pm**

If there is no victim, there is no crime. ;)

Posted: **December 21st, 2013, 11:28 pm**

seer stone wrote: So businesses don't really have the right to not provide service if you are not wearing a shirt?

Sorry, I missed your post, which is why I took a while to reply. I apologize. I suggest you read this one, because it may be the most important one I have every written (excepting the one on forgiveness.)

Since I never said what you're implying I said, I won't address it.

Since you seem to be confused, I'll make an easily understandable explanation of what I did say.

Businesses do not have the "Right to refuse service to anyone for any reason." The jurisdiction that grants them a business license (again, it's something I don't agree with), also grants them the right to be in business, provided they meet certain terms, laid out by that jurisdiction (usually state laws, and city ordinances). For example, you cannot deny black people the right to use a taxi and stay in business (not for long, if you keep doing it). Nor can you deny old people from going to a club. Or Latter-day Saints from going to your restaurant. You can't deny housing to Jews. Nor can you fire someone who is a woman, simply for being a woman. This concept should be abundantly clear by now. I've addressed discrimination ordinances you're probably familiar with, now I'll turn back again to the initial question you first asked (and that I already addressed), and still seem confused about.

In some jurisdictions, you cannot deny services to same-sex couples or individuals. The court cases you alluded to, to date, ALL involve businesses that broke their jurisdictional laws on discrimination. Those laws apply to BUSINESSES not churches (I addressed that in my initial response to you, but you seemed to not understand it). Not Clergy. Businesses. If a church engages in business, then their business portion is still being explored judicially (it's not completely decided yet).

While there IS INDEED a court case pending before the Supreme Court (Hobby Lobby, over Obamacare, if you're interested), to argue if a business has the collective right to conscientiously object to a law, it's not the case so far. So therefore, you can't hide behind religion, while engaging in public business to discriminate against people you don't like, or want to service. Hopefully you grasp that concept. Otherwise one religious group (let's say Muslims), can have doctors that say they refuse to treat women, or Jews, or white people. Then they can say, "Sorry, It's against my religious beliefs to do so." Or, if you want to go out to dinner, and you go to a restaurant. And the servers ignore you, and ignore you. And finally you say, "Why don't you seat me?" And they sorry, we don't serve, "[Insert your race here]." And when you are upset, they say, "My religion says that your race is inferior, or that I shouldn't let [this race] and [that race] eat in the same room."

You could literally deny anything and everything in the name of "Religious rights." (Which, as I stated, hiding behind "religious rights" is a giant, bold-faced lie). I don't believe in anti-discrimination laws, period. I think you SHOULD BE ABLE to refuse to cater to anyone, be they gay, black, female, young, old, whatever. I believe you have the right to your property, and to administrate as you see fit. That's liberty, and justice, for all. The problem comes when people say, "I'm ok with making people serve interracial couples, or blacks, or women, or Methodists, or handicapped," etc. but turn around and say, "I think they should be able to turn away [gays]."

Either you can turn away everyone, or you can turn away no one. For the better portion of 200 years, people could turn away everyone. Then came the "women's rights" and "civil rights" movements, and anti-discrimination laws. People decided that no longer could be serve, or not serve, the public as they saw fit. They determined they could force people to serve everyone, equally. But "everyone" doesn't exclude gays or anyone else you don't like/want to service, it means EVERYONE. And there's the rub.

So the options for equality are:
1) Everyone is free to choose who they will and will not serve. (This is called "Liberty.")
2) Everyone is forced to serve everyone, like it or not. (This is called "tyranny.")

Both are equal. No one group benefits over the other. Everyone gets to share in the liberty, or tyranny. Hopefully you read and understood it. It's fundamental to grasp, if you want to make any type of reasonable sense of the state of the world, or even the purpose of life itself. This is the sentiment behind why Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty, or give me death." Because as soon as you rationalize the government getting to make choices for you, there's no end. Intentionally, or ignorantly, people advocate for Satan's exact plan. To make himself a God, by making us all subject to him, and not our own will and God's freedom.

You do not get another choice.

In the war over agency, whether pre-mortal, mortal and eternal, you choose to let people choose (like God), or you force people to make choices you want (Like Satan), there never has been, nor ever can be, a middle ground. And of that, I so testify, in the Sacred Name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Posted: **December 22nd, 2013, 12:13 pm**

So JDawg, I take it that you are pro-choice when it comes to abortion? I am, I take a lot of grief from my family for that, they can't see where agency applies in that situation.

Posted: **December 23rd, 2013, 6:03 am**

idahommie wrote:So JDawg, I take it that you are pro-choice when it comes to abortion? I am, I take a lot of grief from my family for that, they can't see where agency applies in that situation.

This will take a second, so bear with me.

First, I have to state, that my position on how to handle abortion (and indeed "Birth control,") has evolved over my lifetime, and I reserve the right to feel differently, if a compelling argument is made that alters what I believe. That being said:

I'm obviously "pro-choice" when it comes to every subject, in the sense that I believe all people have the right to choose their own actions, but not consequences.

I don't believe in performing abortions. I have advocated against them, forever. I don't believe in the use of public funds to pay for them. But I don't believe it should be criminal either, depending upon the circumstances (allow me to define terms to qualify that).

I grew up being taught that the church's position is that until a baby's first breath, they're not considered "alive." Why do I mention that? Because if a baby can potentially live on its own, outside the womb, but yet is still within the womb, it's a gray area to me (I think it's probably murder). If someone has a partial-birth abortion, I think that's "murder." (If you don't know what that is, I'll spare you, but it's essentially inducing a baby to be born, and then partially delivering them, and then killing them). It's complicated for some things, and I would have to address where I think criminal discipline is involved, but if a baby is living outside the womb (even if only their upper half is outside), and then killed, that's murder to me, plain and simple. How it should be resolved, I'm not sure, yet.

Now, if there's an early fetus/"baby" (say 10 weeks), that is non-viable on its own, then, I personally don't feel an abortion is murder. Some people disagree, I'm ok with that. Like I said, my position can change based upon evidence. I definitely thing its a bad choice, and I'll do everything I can to help a mother who's contemplating that abortion, but I don't believe that that should be criminalized. There no way to truly enforce it, either. No one could guarantee that the fetus/baby at that stage would have ever lived to birth. So essentially, it's pre-crime. And I don't know how one would force a woman to carry a baby to term that she didn't want to. Would she be chained down and sedated to ensure she delivered? That's preposterous. And if not, there are methods they can employ to terminate a baby themselves. Who can say if something was an accident, or a miscarriage, or an abortion? Not me.

I have to run now, but in that sense I am "pro-choice" meaning I don't believe in criminalization of abortions of a fetus that is not viable (which I believe is accurately termed "abortion"). And I'm "pro-life" meaning I do believe in criminalization for someone that terminates a delivered baby (which I consider to be outright "murder"). For babies that are old enough to be viable outside the womb (like say, 8 months), and terminated/killed in the womb, I think it's a gray area, and I don't for certain how I feel about that know yet, on a criminal/legal level.

I will say, I've known a few women who had made the awful choice of having an abortion. They regretted it years and decades later, and it haunted them. I think to me, that's punishment enough.

Take it for what it's worth.

Posted: **December 23rd, 2013, 6:42 am**

I would have to say we agree on the subject.

Posted: **December 23rd, 2013, 7:17 am**

Application of the Laws of Nature to Controversial Social Issues

Let's look first at some real thorny, controversial laws like abortion and same sex marriage. How do they stack up against the laws of nature?

Abortion & Medical Suicide.
Let's look at abortion first. If the laws of nature are used as the basic measuring stick for evaluating the laws of man, how do laws legalizing abortion stack up? On one hand, we've got the paramount and almost pre-eminent natural law threshold -- freedom of choice -- that all human beings are innately endowed with. This isn't a right that is endowed by manmade laws. It is a right they are born with. On that basis, shouldn't a woman have freedom of choice as it relates to her own body. Of course she should -- to the extent her exercise of self-governance does not interfere with someone else's freedom of choice and right of self-governance -- in this case the baby, and whether it should have a choice to have an opportunity to live.

In this case (except in cases of rape, etc.) the woman has already exercised freedom of choice in the events leading to her pregnancy, which most often is a natural and very well-known consequence of her actions. On the other hand, the baby has no control, whatsoever, as to its mother's actions and whether it will live or die. If there is an empasse between these two entities as to who has the greatest right to freedom of choice (which we don't believe there is), it can be resolved by application of yet another natural law -- those who are capable (i.e., people -- acting together through government, if necessary) have the natural obligation to protect and defend the helpless and those who cannot defend themselves.

When attention is turned to medical suicide by competent and well-informed adults, natural law and the fundamental freedom of choice gravitates in favor of allowing people to make that choice. Absent compelling reasons to the contrary, according to the laws of nature, people should have the right to make that choice.

Same Sex Marriage
What about same sex marriage? Although some argue that homosexuality itself violates the laws of nature -- and we're not going to argue for or against that position at this point -- the paramount right of freedom to choose, particularly when such choices do not necessarily affect or impact anyone else means that human beings should be able to have homosexual relationships if they choose. But what about marriage? By nature, marriage is the foundation of family, and family is the foundation and core unit of society. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were given to each other in the first marriage, with the commandment to be fruitful, multiply and replenish the Earth. But what if you don't believe in the Bible or Adam and Eve -- what if you believe in evolution? Regardless of the Bible and/or Adam and Eve, should members of the same sex be able to marry? They can have children through adoption, and thereby create a family. But obviously the core purpose and objective of marriage is to bring two people who are capable of mating naturally and reproducing children, together, to create a family. Can members of the same sex mate and naturally reproduce children? Can any reasonable argument be made, based on the laws of nature, that homosexual relationships should be able to be called "marriage"? Like so many other things, when we attempt to do so, we're trying to bend the laws of nature.

Posted: **December 23rd, 2013, 10:20 am**

As I have thought about this over the weekend, it is just saddening. There is an argument as to whose rights the constitution protects, and good arguments for both sides. I am more of a self-described conservative libertarian and lean toward equal rights for everyone - but I have to say that I am staunchly against gay marriage because I feel deep down that it is evil at its core. But to me there is another more important underlying message to use here. It isn't so much whose rights are protected and which groups are granted equality as it is the sin itself and the fact that so many people support it. I personally don't feel so much like this is an equal right push so much as I feel it is Satan cunningly destroying all that is good in Utah, the US and on the entire earth. It isn't so much what a judge deems to be constitutional as it is that this is even an issue with so much support to begin with. I feel as if we are being shown just how far from God this world has fallen. When I saw all of my friends on Facebook that actually changed their profile pictures to pink gay support equal signs and how many others seemed to cheer this one with phrases like, "it's about time you got something right, Utah!', and "Yay for equal rights!", I coldn't help but picture in my mind our country collapsing to the ground and all these people seem to be cheering it on. It isn't about the issue itself, but the war on good vs. evil that started before this world was and is reaching a final climax. I fear that if a judge can order a bakery to bake a cake for a same sex marriage in other states, that it is only a matter of time before a judge can make a bishop preside over a same sex wedding. And then how long until a judge can rule for gays with regard to the holy temple? I used to think it wouldn't be done but now I feel with a surity that the day draweth nigh. Evil is gaining all around us. You are a bigot and ignorant if you don't follow the ways of Babylon. As time moves forward, we who stand in opposition of sin will be persecuted if not more than by words - we will be called every possible name and given a label that will try to make us feel ashamed and try to force us to step away from what we know to be good and true. Oh how important it is to stand in Holy Places and be filled with the spirit of God if we are to remain standing! I whole-heartedly feel that the walls are closing in on us and many who feel they will not fall with be deceived and in fact are already being deceived into changing their belief system to appel more to the world and therein giving satan power over them. Please keep in your hearts what you know is good and true and do not waiver. We will all face this test in the coming years. That is my prayer to our father - may we be strong and valiant in holding up anything left in this world that is Godly because we know all that is Godly is being destroyed in every possible way. May we be not deceived and may we also be a strength to one another.

Posted: **December 23rd, 2013, 11:46 am**

jdawg1012 wrote:I have to run now, but in that sense I am "pro-choice" meaning I don't believe in criminalization of abortions of a fetus that is not viable (which I believe is accurately termed "abortion"). And I'm "pro-life" meaning I do believe in criminalization for someone that terminates a delivered baby (which I consider to be outright "murder"). For babies that are old enough to be viable outside the womb (like say, 8 months), and terminated/killed in the womb, I think it's a gray area, and I don't for certain how I feel about that know yet, on a criminal/legal level.

I largely agree with you and I also find this to be one of the more challenging issues to come up with a consistent view on. I'd like to explore this topic a little more though, specifically regarding a child's viability outside the womb. I hold a similar position, but it bothers me that it is fairly arbitrary. A newly born child may be able to breath on it's own, but it is still just as dependent on it's mother (or a surrogate) for survival as it was in the womb.

Imagine a hypothetical. 10 years down the road we've developed medical technology that would allow us to take a fetus at risk in the mother's womb and transfer it to an artificial womb where it can grow safely and with medication to cure whatever ails it. Does that now qualify as murder because the baby can survive outside it's mothers womb?

Not looking to be contentious in anyway, but I can tell you've thought at least as much on this as I have and I'm interested in working this out more.

Thanks!

LDS Freedom Forum

Utah Judge rules same sex marriage laws unconstitutional

Re: Utah Judge rules same sex marriage laws unconstitutional

Re: Utah Judge rules same sex marriage laws unconstitutional

Re: Utah Judge rules same sex marriage laws unconstitutional

Re: Utah Judge rules same sex marriage laws unconstitutional

Re: Utah Judge rules same sex marriage laws unconstitutional

Re: Utah Judge rules same sex marriage laws unconstitutional

Re: Utah Judge rules same sex marriage laws unconstitutional

Re: Utah Judge rules same sex marriage laws unconstitutional

Re: Utah Judge rules same sex marriage laws unconstitutional

Re: Utah Judge rules same sex marriage laws unconstitutional

Re: Utah Judge rules same sex marriage laws unconstitutional