Mormon church softens (a little bit) on gay rights
January 28, 2015 4:42 AM Subscribe

Yesterday, the leadership of the Church of Latter-Day Saints announced support for "some legal anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people".

Though church officials emphasized that there was no change in doctrine, the move went further than other traditional faith groups have by placing religious freedom and gay equality on an equal moral footing.

posted by clawsoon (139 comments total) 12 users marked this as a favorite

> ...for the first time that they support some legal anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people, as long as the religious freedom of those who oppose gay equality is taken into account.

Their religious freedom in this matter is not at risk in this issue: As a church they will always be at liberty to discriminate on grounds of race, gender, sexuality, or any other reason; they might be subject to public opprobrium and dispute among the faithful but they will be above the law.

So asserting the church's own policies are a stake in their conduct towards laws that apply to those outside the church means they are not willing to approach the issue in good faith. No pun intended.
posted by ardgedee at 5:02 AM on January 28, 2015 [11 favorites]

When you find that kind of good will like the church has . . . it’s a golden moment, and that’s where we need to be going in America

Fuck that. Civil rights are inalienable. They are not granted because some folks claiming direct revelation from a prophet suddenly feel like blessing us converts-to-be with their "good will". This statement is far too little, far too late. Related: remember that time in 1978 where suddenly LDS decided black people were OK afterall? 1978. No doubt African-Americans found "that kind of good will" at that moment and welcomed the revelation.

I have a lot of respect for LDS and the good parts of its culture. Its stance towards civil rights isn't one of them. Neither is its acceptance of gays. Neither is their aggressive funding against gay marriage in various statewide elections.
posted by Nelson at 5:14 AM on January 28, 2015 [18 favorites]

the move went further than other traditional faith groups have by placing religious freedom and gay equality on an equal moral footing.

There are plenty of "traditional faith groups" that welcome all people into all parts of the life of their congregations, including celebrating their marriages. These "traditional faith groups" include Episcopalians, Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalitists, Reform Jews, etc. etc. etc. I believe the vast majority of the "founding fathers" were either Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregationalist (now UCC), or Unitarian, so in the US, you don't get more traditional than that.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:23 AM on January 28, 2015 [25 favorites]

Civil rights are inalienable.

Exactly. One's religious beliefs are not a free pass to denying someone else their civil rights, and I am not interested in whether the LDS leaders or anyone else decide to condescend to recognize that yeah, maybe people are entitled to equal treatment before the law. They already are, and no Johnny-come-lately revelation is required to make it so.
posted by Gelatin at 5:25 AM on January 28, 2015 [7 favorites]

by placing religious freedom and gay equality on an equal moral footing

That seems like a false and dishonest dichotomy to me, unless they are pushing for the right for bigots to refuse service to gays (in private businesses or the public sector) as a "religious" freedom.

But at the same time, I'll embrace and welcome any move towards equality, however limited and tenuous. Something doesn't have to be perfect, or even good, for it to be an improvement.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:26 AM on January 28, 2015

"We'll let you have some rights if we can discriminate against you. That's cool, right?"
posted by rtha at 5:27 AM on January 28, 2015 [9 favorites]

Is this related in some conspiratorial way to a Romney candidacy?
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:44 AM on January 28, 2015 [3 favorites]

Further evidence that the tide has turned
Tipping point reached.
posted by Flood at 6:00 AM on January 28, 2015

There's always that scene toward the end of the movie where the bad guy realizes the gig is up and pretends to see the error of his ways. See also: religion and slavery, religion and contraception, religion and interracial marriage. But unlike in the movies, the bad guy gets to go free, ever on the prowl for his next victim, leaving a path of broken people behind him.
posted by jabah at 6:15 AM on January 28, 2015 [2 favorites]

Speaking as someone who recently celebrated Epiphany, which officially marks the end of the twelve days of Christmas but originally was intended to placate people who were bothered by the switch from the Gregorian calendar, please explain why only churches which espouse newfangled late 20th century antiabortionism get to call themselves traditional.

The "Biblical view" that's younger than the happy meal.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 6:29 AM on January 28, 2015 [12 favorites]

they're trying to ensure their rights to discriminate in places they and their members hold a sizable amount of real estate/businesses/etc, like utah. this is not softening their stance towards lgbt rights. i guess i'm impressed with them for being able to sell it like that though (in a gross, need to take a shower, sort of way).

over at r/exmormon, the top few posts are some cartoons that sum up their feelings on it - 1 - 2 - 3

the new york times ran the headline, Mormon Church Wants Freedom to Discriminate which apparently upset the mormons who gave examples of headlines that got it right (and note, theblaze is on there, which is run by glenn beck, a mormon).
posted by nadawi at 6:33 AM on January 28, 2015 [4 favorites]

At the risk of offending anyone, this is like the pope saying condoms are better than AIDs.
posted by adept256 at 6:35 AM on January 28, 2015

it's not even that - it's like the headlines saying the pope supports birth control and you read the press release and realize he's talking about the rhythm method.

as the lds days themselves in the release i linked, "[headlines]are misleading readers and viewers by omitting the religious freedom element of the announcement, which is at its core."
posted by nadawi at 6:45 AM on January 28, 2015 [4 favorites]

I'd rather that churches worked more on that whole rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's thing and stayed the fuck out of politics, but I guess acknowledging that people should be allowed to be gay and still have a place to live is a start.
posted by Etrigan at 6:45 AM on January 28, 2015

it would be wonderful if that's what they were saying, but it's not. from the lds news conference The debate we speak of today is about how to affirm rights for some without taking away from the rights of others. - they are making sure the gays aren't getting too many rights because they feel like it removes their rights - it might be in a pretty package of equality, but they're just trying to shore up the rights of the religious to discriminate.
posted by nadawi at 6:51 AM on January 28, 2015 [4 favorites]

Is this related in some conspiratorial way to a Romney candidacy?

ThereIsNo~~Cabal~~ConspiracyFilter: It's not a conspiracy if it's out in the open. Even for a religion founded in a country that's known for the aggresiveness of its evangelist faiths, Mormons have a very proactive approach to recruiting and retaining members, from "baptizing" nonbelievers after they're dead to the not-really-mandatory-but-very-strongly-encouraged missionary work to participation in a reality show that insists that gay men can totally have a great heterosexual marriage without playing for the home team. They've got a lot of message discipline, notwithstanding the occasional apostate, not to mention some church members dealing with the 1978 "revelation" by simply giving black members the silent treatment. Romney winning the presidency would be good for the church in general, although it's worth noting that fewer Mormons voted for him in 2012 than did for W in 2004.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:03 AM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

reminder that the LDS treats trans people like shit.
posted by thug unicorn at 7:29 AM on January 28, 2015 [12 favorites]

There are plenty of "traditional faith groups" that welcome all people into all parts of the life of their congregations, including celebrating their marriages. These "traditional faith groups" include Episcopalians, Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalitists, Reform Jews, etc. etc. etc.

Washington Post's poor fact-checking when reporting this announcement is just more of its sloppy journalism. Just as one example, here's the Episcopal Church's opening from its website on LGBT in the Church: "In 1976, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared that 'homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church' (1976-A069)."

The LDS's baby step to merely acknowledging LBGT's legal right against discrimination without changing their actual doctrine is less than impressive for the 21st century. When their statement calls for "fairness for all", their interest lies in "protecting key religious rights" as part of the bargain. It also smacks of hypocrisy for it to refer to "the present cultural divide in our nation" when the organization's own recent campaign for California's discriminatory Proposition 8 was notorious in driving that wedge.
posted by Doktor Zed at 7:33 AM on January 28, 2015 [4 favorites]

placing religious freedom and gay equality on an equal moral footing

Yeah, well, the thing is, one of those things is what some people believe and the other is what some people are. One should easily trump the other. Putting them "on equal moral footing" is self-serving to the LDS church and massively insulting to those of us on the other side of the equation. My existence is not a moral issue.

Oh, and has their pushing of Prop 8 stripped them of their tax-exempt status yet? Can we get on that, please?
posted by Sys Rq at 7:46 AM on January 28, 2015 [4 favorites]

Can't speak from the LDS perspective here. I am familiar with the Catholic perspective on religious liberty in the face of a rapidly secularizing culture. What they're saying is essentially what the Catholic Church has said (CCC 2358): we forbid and speak out against unjust discrimination against homosexuals (e.g., housing, employment); we also tolerate the expansion of rights for homosexuals up to the point where we ourselves, as individual believers (not the church as a whole), begin to suffer for our beliefs that homosexuality (not homosexuals) is objectively disordered. See, e.g., California barring its judges from being involved in Boy Scouts: how long before California considers traditionally moral religions to be "invidious" in their teachings?
posted by resurrexit at 7:51 AM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

i was going to copy and paste all the places in the press conference where they explicitly put lgbt rights up against religious rights and call for compromise, and all the places where they only talk about the "erosion" of their religious liberties, but it was pretty much the whole thing. i urge anyone who thinks this is some sort of step forward for the lds church to read the transcript. all they are doing is trying to piggyback on the push for anti-discrimination ordinances to make sure they keep their ability to discriminate.

this is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order and i'm kinda surprised anyone has been taken with it.
posted by nadawi at 8:01 AM on January 28, 2015 [7 favorites]

this is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order and i'm kinda surprised anyone has been taken with it.

I don't know that it is insofar as it's not a change (so far as I can tell) in their teaching. Maybe it's been mis-reported on by media agencies anxious to force the LDS Church to become more progressive on this issue. Sort of like how the media reports on Pope Francis, whose interviews as a whole frequently aren't as sexy as, and often outright contradict, the soundbites for which he's become notorious.

tl;dr: blame the media twisting words to push an agenda and not the outfit doing the speaking.
posted by resurrexit at 8:08 AM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

oh i blame the church and the media. the church knew how this would be reported - they would have only spoken of the religious liberty side if that's what they were wanting to portray. this is very typical pr bullshit from them and they get no benefit of the doubt from me.
posted by nadawi at 8:14 AM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

placing religious freedom and gay equality on an equal moral footing

I would be much more interested in this if it placed religious equality and gay freedom on an equal moral footing.
posted by aaronetc at 8:38 AM on January 28, 2015 [3 favorites]

I'm trying to figure out how the free-to-discriminate-because-of-my-religion portion of things will be worked out in the realm of public accommodations. If a server thinks two women are a couple and refuses to serve them, but they're not a couple, then what? If a hotel clerk thinks a guest is gay and refuses to check them in, is the guest allowed/required to prove non-gayness if they aren't gay? What if a baker believes their religion disapproves of an Episcopalian marrying a Buddhist - can they refuse to make the cake? Does everyone get interrogated about their religious beliefs or sexual orientation so that the service provider can be assured they are not violating their own religious beliefs?
posted by rtha at 8:41 AM on January 28, 2015 [3 favorites]

From the transcript:

"We call on local, state and the federal government to serve all of their people by passing legislation ... protecting the rights of our LGBT citizens in such areas as housing, employment and public accommodation ..."

"... [A] Latter-day Saint physician who objects to performing ... artificial insemination for a lesbian couple should not be forced against his or her conscience to do so ..."

They should have equal rights! (Unless someone, like, really super doesn't feel like it.)
posted by kyrademon at 8:46 AM on January 28, 2015 [5 favorites]

They should have equal rights! (Unless someone, like, really super doesn't feel like it.)

Well...precisely. We cannot have "equal rights" here, where certain interactions between the rights asserted are zero-sum or mutually exclusive: one side demands 'you must think and act this way,' and the other says 'but our religious beliefs do not permit it.'

One side asserts a right this country was founded upon (freedom from government coercion of religion or religious belief). That side states that it is willing to accommodate a very new right--one only created (for you positivists) or recognized (for you natural law-ians) in the last generation. But this accommodation ends at the point where it infringes upon the first right (literally first in the Bill of Rights). Accommodation ends where it prevents Americans, on the basis of their religious beliefs, from continuing to live in the modern, secular world (i.e., conditioning public employment, or state-required licensure to run a school, or to practice law or medicine or business trades, upon having the right set of beliefs).

tl;dr: why do people act surprised at news that neither side is willing to accommodate the other side entirely?
posted by resurrexit at 9:39 AM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

a note : neill marriott, one of the speakers in the press conference, as well as being the young womens president and part of the lds public affairs committee, is a member of the marriott family, as in marriott hotels. after prop 8 marriott international actually distanced themselves a bit from salt lake's actions. also, interestingly, the romney family and the marriott family are so close that mitt romney was named after the marriott patriarch, j. willard marriott.
posted by nadawi at 9:47 AM on January 28, 2015

Mormons have earned no place at the table to discuss what our rights should be.

No place.

It is a disgrace that their "support" is getting the media traction that it is.

It is a trojan horse for Mormons to keep taking away our legal rights.

They need to stop lecturing us about freedom when they have worked so hard to take away ours.

They need to go away and leave us alone.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:55 AM on January 28, 2015 [8 favorites]

for those that argue for the religious exemption, how do you feel about the previous religious arguments against segregation? should we have not desegregated schools because according to some christians it was against their faith?

it boggles the mind that some who believe in a savior who explicitly told his flock to not turn away from the whores and drug addicts and criminals are trying to use that same religion to deny equal access to those they view as sinful.
posted by nadawi at 9:57 AM on January 28, 2015 [3 favorites]

> "... one side demands 'you must think and act this way' ..."

I don't actually care how they think.
posted by kyrademon at 10:01 AM on January 28, 2015 [3 favorites]

No one is being 'forced' to serve LBGTQ folks against their religion. They are welcome to not serve and resign/be fired. It will not count as fired 'for cause' and you will receive whatever unemployment benefits your state provides, as per the 1987 supreme court ruling Edwards_v._Aguillard. Given the traditional prohibition of working on the Sabbath, it is not the first time we've run into the problem of job requirements changing to demand something that is against a person's religion. And the answer has been you can be fired, but the state can't hold it against you with regards to unemployment.

You are free to make sacrifices for your religion. You are not free to demand others make those sacrifices for you.
posted by Zalzidrax at 10:05 AM on January 28, 2015 [8 favorites]

Accommodation ends where it prevents Americans, on the basis of their religious beliefs, from continuing to live in the modern, secular world (i.e., conditioning public employment, or state-required licensure to run a school, or to practice law or medicine or business trades, upon having the right set of beliefs).

There is no "freedom to live in the modern, secular world" that religion is losing. They're losing the right to impose it sure, but that's the bedrock of the very same amendment that you quote, wherein it states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You're conflating the latter with the former, but that's not the case. In the case of private enterprise, one is allowed to hold whatever beliefs they want, but they are not allowed to use it to discriminate against others. If you want to overturn the Civil Rights Act, that's your problem, but it is established law and exists to prevent far worse societal and moral problems than not being able to deny service to someone based on the color of their skin or who they love. And as for public employees: they are representatives of the state, and as such are not entitled to disregard the separation between church and state.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:08 AM on January 28, 2015 [2 favorites]

we forbid and speak out against unjust discrimination against homosexuals (e.g., housing, employment);

All discrimination is unjust. That's a mealy-mouthed way of pretending to support equality while still discriminating.

we also tolerate the expansion of rights for homosexuals up to the point where we ourselves, as individual believers (not the church as a whole), begin to suffer for our beliefs

Please do explain how my gayness makes you suffer. Go on.

how long before California considers traditionally moral religions to be "invidious" in their teachings

'Traditionally moral' means 'as long as you're straight and don't ever touch your fun parts unless you're married.'

tl;dr: why do people act surprised at news that neither side is willing to accommodate the other side entirely?

Because we have no need or desire to accommodate people who think we aren't people. There is no reason why we should accommodate their discrimination at all, and frankly they can go fuck themselves with a cactus if they think we should.

Said it before, and recently: they can join us, they can get the fuck out of the way, or they can get run over. Those are their only options in a just society.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:09 AM on January 28, 2015 [4 favorites]

Good thing that history is bunk and nobody remembers the vast sums of money they poured into supporting Prop 8 in California...
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:20 AM on January 28, 2015 [5 favorites]

These "traditional faith groups" include Episcopalians, Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalitists, Reform Jews, etc. etc. etc.

As someone who was raised UU, I don't get the impression that UUs are viewed as a "traditional faith group" by many non-UUs. I have several otherwise non-jerk friends who insist that UUs are not a "real" religion.

Sorry. Derail.
posted by brundlefly at 10:20 AM on January 28, 2015

John Adams and John Quincy Adams were UUs. That's pretty damn traditional.
posted by hydropsyche at 10:21 AM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

I wonder how many owners of lunch counters in Jim Crow country 50 years ago would have said that they had religious basis for their bigotry.
posted by hippybear at 10:36 AM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

Bigots gotta bigot. This is just a paraphrase of the same freedom-to-discriminate proposed legislation in the south and midwest:
Indiana
Michigan
Texas
And so on and so on. I'm all ready preparing for the next decades of queer civil rights activism.
posted by Dreidl at 10:36 AM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

But this accommodation ends at the point where it infringes upon the first right (literally first in the Bill of Rights)

As a formality, this is actual text from the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The traditional interpretation of this is that the gummint of the US of A may not establish an official religion, like "The Official Church of America", or favor one religion over another, like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster vs. the Church of the SubGenius. If a Pastafarian restaurateur refused to serve a person because he suspected he was a Dobbsian, that has nothing to do with laws and everything to do with prejudice. The LDS doctrine tacitly treats LBGT people as though they were all secret members of an opposing church, instead of fellow citizens. Maybe they just feel that anti-discrimination laws somehow favor the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, et al.

Strange how a religion founded by latter-day saints in the 19th century is less advanced in its ideals than a document composed by deists in the 18th on the basis of philosophy that first flourished in the 17th.
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:41 AM on January 28, 2015 [3 favorites]

Prop 8, which the LDS supported, and which passed largely with their financial backing, including a $1 million donation from a grandson of a former LDS president, meant that the marriage that I entered into in California in the first week of November 2008 was instantly legally invalid within less than a week.

"The California measure, Proposition 8, was to many Mormons a kind of firewall to be held at all costs." "'It is not our goal in this campaign to attack the homosexual lifestyle or to convince gays and lesbians that their behavior is wrong — the less we refer to homosexuality, the better,' one of the ward training documents said. 'We are pro-marriage, not anti-gay.'"

Fuck the LDS and their bullshit appeals to "equal moral footing."
posted by blucevalo at 10:43 AM on January 28, 2015 [8 favorites]

The traditional interpretation of this is that the gummint of the US of A may not establish an official religion, like "The Official Church of America", or favor one religion over another....

Oh I'm all for that weak, negative interpretation, but you have to admit it's somewhat daft to bring it up here: after the crusading secularist civil rights attorneys have gotten us to the point where appeals to religious liberty can be laughed out of the public square, or have "they can join us, they can get the fuck out of the way, or they can get run over" pass for reasoned discourse, the traditional interpretation of that clause is then cited back to a proponent of religious liberty as the reason he's being run over?
posted by resurrexit at 11:03 AM on January 28, 2015

after the crusading secularist civil rights attorneys have gotten us to the point where appeals to religious liberty can be laughed out of the public square

LOL WUT

The next several years will see, and the past several years have seen, "religious liberty" used an excuse to deny people access to a host of basic rights and services to varying degrees of success (approaching 100% when it comes to the courts).

"they can join us, they can get the fuck out of the way, or they can get run over" pass for reasoned discourse

Homophobes, racists, misogynists and their ilk not being able to impose their will on others is and always will be a positive, progressive thing. I will always take rude words condemning bigotry over nice words condoning it. "Get the fuck out of the way or get run the fuck over" may not be “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice,” but the sentiment is exactly the same.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:18 AM on January 28, 2015 [4 favorites]

See, e.g., California barring its judges from being involved in Boy Scouts: how long before California considers traditionally moral religions to be "invidious" in their teachings?

Yeah, before you know it they'll be canceling the Saturday afternoon stoning and Friday evening mass sati.

Oh, sorry, you meant Christian religions.
posted by PMdixon at 11:23 AM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

> one side demands 'you must think and act this way,' and the other says 'but our religious beliefs do not permit it.'

Do not permit what? Renting me a hotel room? Selling me a cup of coffee? Do their religious beliefs require them to work in hotels or coffee shops? If their religious beliefs are so restrictive, then they should not work jobs where they may be required to violate them as part of the job. They are entitled to religious freedom, not to a particular job or career.

But maybe I'll become a Satanist and move to Utah, and work in a job where I can exercise my religious freedom by denying services to straight people, or heterosexual couples, or Christians, or or or.
posted by rtha at 12:20 PM on January 28, 2015 [8 favorites]

This statement is flawed, and the Mormon church is out of step with the times, and with modern ethics.

That said, I have a number of Mormon friends and friends in Utah, and they're watching the politics there. There are a couple of antidiscrimination bills, mentioned in the article, that will get votes soon. My friends tell me that this statement by the church is likely to make the difference -- those laws will get passed.

Rome wasn't built in a day, it takes some time to turn around a cargo ship... and I think it's important to recognize progress as progress, even if it's incremental.
posted by gurple at 12:33 PM on January 28, 2015

or have "they can join us, they can get the fuck out of the way, or they can get run over" pass for reasoned discourse

You are making the mistake of thinking that there is a discourse to be had here.

Discrimination is wrong, period. People who discriminate don't need to be reasoned with, because reasoning with them grants an implicit acknowledgement that their positions have any merit. They don't. So, they can get the fuck out of the way.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:05 PM on January 28, 2015 [4 favorites]

John Adams and John Quincy Adams were UUs. That's pretty damn traditional.

Well, they were Unitarians, which were more traditionally Christian at the time. UU wasn't a thing until the 60s.
posted by brundlefly at 1:27 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

The Mormon Church’s Gay Rights Charade

(Also, Reddit's Exmormon community is having a field day with this.)
posted by Catblack at 1:51 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

Discrimination is wrong, period. People who discriminate don't need to be reasoned with....

This is untrue on even a moment's reflection. Are you not displaying bigoted and discriminatory views toward those who protesting the erosion of their religious liberty and conscience rights enshrined in the First Amendment? Or is it okay because you're a bigot for the left? But since there's nothing for me to say but to welcome and cower before my fabulous new overlords, I think I'll leave the rest to this guy:

[T]he left’s new absolutism on identity politics – now taken to an absurd degree – should, in my view, worry liberals more. Because it is a direct attack on basic liberal principles.
...

One tip of this spear is related to sexual orientation, of course, in which some parts of the gay left are back to what they love most of all: “eliminating freedom for their enemies”. And you can see why.

If reason has no chance against the homophobic patriarchy, and one side is always going to be far more powerful in numbers than the other, almost anything short of violence is justified in order to correct the imbalance. The “victim”, after all, is always right. Gay beats straight; but queer beats gay; and trans beats queer. No stone must be unturned in this constant struggle against unrelenting aggression and oppression. In the end, they may even run out of letters to add to LGBTQIA. And all of the “hate”, we are told, is just as brutal as it ever was. And so the struggle must not ease up with success after success, but must instead be ever-more vigiliant against hetero-hegemony. So small businesses who aren’t down with gay marriages have to be sued, rather than let be; religious liberty must be scoffed at or constrained, rather than embraced; individual homophobic sinners must be forced to resign or repent or both, and there is no mercy for those who once might have opposed, say, marriage equality but now don’t. The only “dialogue” much of the p.c. gay left wants with its sinners is a groveling apology for having a different point of view. There are few things in a free society more illiberal than that.

And the paradox of this within the gay rights movement is an astounding one. For the past twenty years, the open, free-wheeling arguments for marriage equality and military service have persuaded, yes, persuaded, Americans with remarkable speed that reform was right and necessary. Yes: the arguments. If you want to argue that no social progress can come without coercion or suppression of free speech, you have to deal with the empirical fact that old-fashioned liberalism brought gay equality to America far, far faster than identity politics leftism. It was liberalism – not leftism – that gave us this breakthrough. And when Alabama is on the verge of issuing marriage licenses to its citizens, it is the kind of breakthrough that is rightly deemed historic. But instead of absorbing that fact and being proud of it and seeking magnanimity and wondering if other social justice movements might learn from this astonishing success for liberalism and social progress, some on the gay left see only further struggle against an eternally repressive heterosexist regime, demanding more and more sensitivity for slighter and slighter transgressions and actually getting more radicalized – and feeling more victimized and aggrieved – in the process.

posted by resurrexit at 2:10 PM on January 28, 2015

surely we can keep the chait stuff in the chait thread, no? it's not bigotry against the religious unless there are forced gay marriages i haven't heard about. enshrining your rights to discriminate is not the same as recognizing equal protections under the law.
posted by nadawi at 2:17 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

Are you not displaying bigoted and discriminatory views toward those who protesting the erosion of their religious liberty and conscience rights enshrined in the First Amendment?

No. You can think whatever you want to think. You can believe whatever you want to believe.

You can't, however, discriminate against me and people like me. Telling religious people that they're not allowed to be assholes isn't discrimination, and it's appalling that you're pretending it is.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:20 PM on January 28, 2015 [9 favorites]

Are you not displaying bigoted and discriminatory views toward those who protesting the erosion of their religious liberty and conscience rights enshrined in the First Amendment?

No, because the only rights they're losing (in the rare occasion that they do) are ones that were never enshrined in the First Amendment to begin with. You are entitled to your views, but you are not entitled to force them on others, and now that you're losing that power it doesn't mean you're being persecuted.

But since there's nothing for me to say but to welcome and cower before my fabulous new overlords

Passive-aggressive homophobia: always a winner!

I think I'll leave the rest to this guy

Yeah, I'm not sure a guy who's well-known for his varying support for racism, misogyny, and transphobia is as slam-dunk a source as you think he is.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:24 PM on January 28, 2015 [4 favorites]

also you keep talking about the rights enshrined in the first amendment - from the beginning those were rights for (land owning) white men. women didn't have the freedom to pick another religion from their husband or father unless he allowed it. those certainly weren't rights extended to the native people we took this land from, as we stole their children from them and forbid them to speak in their own languages or worship as they wished. we also didn't extend these rights to slaves who we worked to keep out of christian churches (lest they correctly figure out that their enslavement was against the religion of their owners) and forbid them from worshiping in the tradition of their homeland. to even pretend like religious freedom was one of our founding tenets is a gross simplification only possible by someone historically holding the upper hand.
posted by nadawi at 2:26 PM on January 28, 2015 [2 favorites]

That Reddit ex-Mormon forum has the most, um, thorough Reddit alien banner I've ever seen.
posted by benito.strauss at 2:38 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

ha! i didn't realize they had changed it - it used to be a take on the book of abraham facsimile 1 and looked something like this.
posted by nadawi at 2:50 PM on January 28, 2015

> "Are you not displaying bigoted and discriminatory views toward those who protesting the erosion of their religious liberty and conscience rights enshrined in the First Amendment?"

You can claim all you want that your desire to forbid me to eat at your lunch counter / buy your wedding cake is a matter of "religious liberty and conscience rights", but that doesn't actually make it true.
posted by kyrademon at 2:56 PM on January 28, 2015 [6 favorites]

But since there's nothing for me to say but to welcome and cower before my fabulous new overlords

And their hot drinks–quaffing running dogs! Wake up and smell the coffee!
posted by Doktor Zed at 3:00 PM on January 28, 2015

the young mormon feminists have (hilariously) weighed in

As a last example of the immense religious persecution that religious people can face, Jeffrey R. Holland spoke of “a family’s right to worship and conduct religious activities in the home as it sees fit, and for parents to teach children according to their religious values.” It may appear that Elder Holland was using this as a generic example of religious freedom, but actually he was referring to the infamous Gay Attack of 2004, in which hundreds of teh gayz invaded a suburban Chicago home and refused to leave until the Christian family who occupied it gave up their religion and began worshipping George Takei, impeccably groomed hair, and vests.

posted by nadawi at 3:02 PM on January 28, 2015 [4 favorites]

No, because the only rights they're losing (in the rare occasion that they do) are ones that were never enshrined in the First Amendment to begin with.

I have to have a license to practice law; when the state says I can be licensed so long as I don't belong to a group that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, how does that not violate the First Amendment? The frog's water's not boiling yet, but that day is coming whether we're talking about law, medicine, and probably sooner, academic accreditation and teaching certifications.

surely we can keep the chait stuff in the chait thread, no?

Sorry, didn't know there was another post.

Yeah, I'm not sure a guy who's well-known for his varying support for racism, misogyny, and transphobia is as slam-dunk a source as you think he is.

...As the article itself concludes. I understand Sullivan's ritual impurity to true believers; however, not being inclined to ad hominem argumentation for or against my position, Pol Pot could have said that and it'd still be a good quote.
posted by resurrexit at 3:08 PM on January 28, 2015

I have to have a license to practice law; when the state says I can be licensed so long as I don't belong to a group that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, how does that not violate the First Amendment?

Same way every single other licensure requirement doesn't? Is this a trick question?
posted by PMdixon at 3:10 PM on January 28, 2015 [2 favorites]

Wow, resurrexit, you really want to be able to discriminate against us queer people, don't you?

Why is that?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:13 PM on January 28, 2015 [6 favorites]

I understand Sullivan's ritual impurity to true believers

Sully basically tried passing off the same argument you cited to defend Firefox's former CEO Brendan Eich, who donated money to Prop 8. His argument — Eich's victims, gay people, are the real aggressors — is still a stinking pile of bullshit when repackaged today.

Blaming the victims of religious extremism for their victimization stinks. It doesn't matter if it comes out of Andrew Sullivan's mouth or Pol Pot's (though it isn't surprising to see Sullivan be placed in such esteemed company by someone who agrees with him).
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:22 PM on January 28, 2015 [2 favorites]

> I have to have a license to practice law;

I hate to point this out, but you don't have a right to be a lawyer.
posted by rtha at 3:27 PM on January 28, 2015 [6 favorites]

When Mildred and Richard Loving, the interracial couple who gave their names to Loving vs. Virginia, were convicted of the felony of miscegenation by the Commonwealth of Virginia, the trial court wrote, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." During the civil rights struggles in the 1950s and 1960s, religious leaders like Bob Jones claimed that Christianity required segregation. Many opponents of allowing women to vote cited the Bible as requiring their position.

Christians in the U.S. are still free to believe that the Bible supports slavery or forbids women from public speaking or exhorts them to stone witches. But they are not free to refuse to serve people of color at their restaurants or to throw rocks at Wiccan practitioners. Yet.

Upholding a "religious right" to an exemption from antidiscrimination laws in a nation that protects a right to practice any religion effectively renders those laws meaningless, given that people have sincerely believed all sorts of discrimination are religiously justified. We've started down a slippery slope in this direction, and we need to put the brakes on, fast.
posted by DrMew at 5:28 PM on January 28, 2015 [8 favorites]

This is the same church that had a gay couple arrested for a kiss on the cheek.
posted by Catblack at 5:57 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

This Colorado baker refused to put an anti-gay message on cakes. Now she is facing a civil rights complaint:

A Denver bakery has found itself at the center of an LGBT rights controversy. But this isn’t about another bakery refusing to fulfill an order for a same-sex wedding. Instead, Azucar Bakery in Denver is the subject of a Colorado civil rights investigation for declining to decorate a cake with an anti-gay message.

posted by peeedro at 7:00 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

Thanks, Metafilter, for explaining the trojan horse that was this announcement (and the framing of the Metafilter post). My initial ill-tempered comment was based on the understanding that this LDS statement was somehow a progressive evolution, a small step in an eventual understanding that maybe gays and lesbians were equal people to. (You know, like black people, after 1978). I didn't realize the whole announcement was really just some cynical ploy to try to create a Religious Right to Discriminate. You'd think a minority religion with a history of oppression in America would at least be more shrewd than that, if not empathetic.
posted by Nelson at 7:01 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]

This Colorado baker refused to put an anti-gay message on cakes. Now she is facing a civil rights complaint

That case is, if anything, even stupider than the 2012 case. In this one, Azucar Bakery is being basically being sued by a customer who was attempting to violate the bakery's 1st Amendment rights, which is complete bullshit.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:17 AM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

If any U.S. state ever attempts to create a requirement which forbids all Catholics from practicing law, I assure you I will be among those protesting the measure, and decrying its unfairness and insanity. This queer liberal will have your back if that happens, I promise.

I'm sure you're being earnest, but that's not at all how religious liberty is being, and will continue to be, curtailed in light of the advance of the whole panoply of rights associated with sexual orientation. The laws aren't the overt, Colonial-era "No Catholickf or Papifts"--they're discriminatory as applied because only a Catholic who violates her conscience could comply with the law. The only "good" (i.e., able to participate in all areas of public life) Catholic will be a "bad" Catholic who doesn't actually believe what Catholics believe.

Rather, Catholics are and will be increasingly forced out of public life indirectly, as in California where judges can't belong to associations that select leadership on the basis of sexual orientation (the religious exemption there is not long for this world); or in Illinois or Massachusetts where you can't provide adoption or fostering services if you won't place kids with homosexual couples (no religious exemption there); where you can't get a medical license if your preceptor sees you won't refer for gender reassignment (or--not sexual-orientation issues per se--prescribe birth control or refer for abortions); where your parochial school or college can't gain accreditation if you don't fund student groups supporting homosexuality (or, conversely, if you do fund student groups who are considered to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation); etc.

In other words, only a Catholic who is willing to violate her conscience and religious beliefs may participate fully in public life. And with increasing governmental/regulatory entanglement with public life, the areas left for Catholics who refuse to violate their consciences will be very, very much--as some have sloganeered--"the fuck out of the way."

So while I agree with you a "No Catholics allowed" law would be patently unacceptable, it's in the battle against the latent, subtler discrimination--discrimination that accomplishes precisely the same end as "No Catholics allowed"--where religious-liberty proponents seek and desperately need allies among our vanquishers. At this point, we're just trying to negotiate the terms of our surrender, and if the only terms offered by the victors are, in effect, "No Catholics allowed," then I don't really know how to explain that in terms of American law and justice.
posted by resurrexit at 7:13 AM on January 29, 2015

i'm still waiting to hear how these religious liberty arguments are different from the religious liberty arguments floated around issues of desegregation.
posted by nadawi at 7:34 AM on January 29, 2015 [3 favorites]

On Dr. Mew's well-stated point re racial segregation, I guess I can offer this (from my Catholic perspective--I can't speak for everyone) entirely unpersuasive, but hopefully rational, thought: I agree with you that the embarrassing and gross misuse of scripture/religious beliefs as a tool to justify first slavery and then racial segregation in the United States (mostly by Protestants--we Southern Catholics were "nigger lovers") has really blunted the use of that tool for a proper purpose today. But abusus non tollit usum, as the kids say: it is unjust to deny Christians today the use of that tool for the reason that the scriptural/religious bases for teachings about slavery, race, human sexuality, etc., are not at all the same. Where religious liberty is at stake, a good-faith approach recognizes the scriptural/religious arguments to be considered anew based on the particular issue.
posted by resurrexit at 7:36 AM on January 29, 2015

I hate to point this out, but you don't have a right to be a lawyer.

Sorry I overlooked this, rtha. Are you stating this in a due process sense (or any sort of legal sense), or what? If so, what's your basis for that?
posted by resurrexit at 8:10 AM on January 29, 2015

it's not new though - you claim that was a misuse of the scripture, i feel just as certain those who use those scriptures to justify not renting to or serving food to or administering medicine to those deemed as sinners - and not all "sinners" but this very specific group - are grossly misusing them. it's not a proper purpose today it's an abomination.

beyond that, it doesn't even matter if it's a misuse today or back then - it was an honestly held part of peoples religion - we're not in the business of deciding if a religious belief is valid or not - but how far can it extend? if religion can't be used to keep schools segregated it can't be used to deny accommodations or services. it can't be used to evict people from their homes and fire them. it can't be used to deny them medical treatment. if we agree that people who are gay can get married, have kids, own property, etc (and it doesn't matter if you agree or not, the law of the land is changing and will continue to change - you and those like you have lost on this matter) then we have to agree to treat them as equal citizens, allowing them to shop, live, and move about the country just like everyone you don't know the sexuality of.
posted by nadawi at 8:17 AM on January 29, 2015 [3 favorites]

In other words, only a Catholic who is willing to violate her conscience and religious beliefs may participate fully in public life.

Whose Catholic conscience is in question here? A majority of U.S. Catholics favor same-sex marriage, and only a minority regard homosexual behavior as a sin, according to Pew Research surveys. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of younger Catholics have no problems with homosexuality. Dire predictions of Catholics being indirectly forced out of public life, with invisible "No Catholics allowed" signs posted everywhere, rest on the incorrect assumption that American Catholics cannot reconcile their beliefs with tolerance—when in fact they already are.
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:22 AM on January 29, 2015 [6 favorites]

> Sorry I overlooked this, rtha. Are you stating this in a due process sense (or any sort of legal sense), or what? If so, what's your basis for that?

I mean, if one has a job where the requirements are such that they violate one's religious beliefs, well, one has a right to the beliefs, but one does not have a right to that specific job.

At what point does one's religious beliefs cease to hold primacy in employment? Never?

I have a friend who got his dream job as a state park ranger. They didn't tell him when they hired him that he would be required to supervise prison work crews; when he found out, he quit. Supervising prisoners is a requirement for the job; he has moral objections to using prisoners for labor and being a participant in that. The state is entitled to set the requirements for that job; my friend is not entitled to that particular job if the requirements violate his beliefs.
posted by rtha at 8:39 AM on January 29, 2015 [6 favorites]

In other words, only a Catholic who is willing to violate her conscience and religious beliefs may participate fully in public life.

Only a protestent who repudiates the Curse of Ham can fully participate in public life either.

But since there's nothing for me to say but to welcome and cower before my fabulous new overlords

Cute.

[T]he left’s new absolutism on identity politics

He says in defense of a group of people who want to use government force to prevent any consequences, public or private, for their actions.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:48 AM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

In other words, only a Catholic who is willing to violate her conscience and religious beliefs may participate fully in public life.

I'm still not entirely sure how refusing to treat people like human beings could violate someone's "conscience" unless we are working from two very different meanings of the word.
posted by poffin boffin at 9:35 AM on January 29, 2015 [4 favorites]

> beyond that, it doesn't even matter if it's a misuse today or back then - it was an honestly held part of peoples religion - we're not in the business of deciding if a religious belief is valid or not - but how far can it extend?

The Supremes decided in Hobby Lobby that it didn't matter that the owners were factually wrong about how some kinds of birth control work; what mattered was the sincerely held belief that abortion is wrong and those kinds of birth control are abortifacients.
posted by rtha at 9:46 AM on January 29, 2015

and in my mind, they've extended it too far on the hobby lobby case and i hope that gets reversed or we move towards single payer so that stops being an issue.
posted by nadawi at 9:49 AM on January 29, 2015

resurrexit, I am sickened that you think not being allowed to be an asshole to queer people is discrimination on the same level as, say, not being allowed to see your partner in hospital. Being beaten up just for being queer. Being barred from adoption. The list goes on.

Look, you hate queers and think we aren't people. That makes you a bad person, no matter what religion you profess. Please consign yourself to history with the dinosaurs who used scripture to justify their racism--you may think they were misusing scripture, but they sure didn't. What's the difference here?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:31 AM on January 29, 2015 [5 favorites]

and in my mind, they've extended it too far on the hobby lobby case and i hope that gets reversed or we move towards single payer so that stops being an issue

We're going to see a massive stealth roll back of the jurisdiction of the regulatory state under the Roberts court. If the next pres is not a D it will be bad.
posted by PMdixon at 10:32 AM on January 29, 2015

we're just trying to negotiate the terms of our surrender

Why not just leave us alone? How about those terms?
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:48 AM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

The Supremes decided in Hobby Lobby that it didn't matter that the owners were factually wrong about how some kinds of birth control work; what mattered was the sincerely held belief that abortion is wrong and those kinds of birth control are abortifacients.

So don't work at Hobby Lobby? Isn't that what you're saying elsewhere?

Look, you hate queers and think we aren't people.^{{{citation needed}}}

Why not just leave us alone?

That's what we want! There are places where our rights intersect and conflict--let's just agree to disagree and move on. It's called living in a pluralistic society.
posted by resurrexit at 11:51 AM on January 29, 2015

the fact that you honestly believe that doesn't make it true. you don't just want to be left alone, you want the freedom to discriminate - you want to remove rights from people who are just trying to go about their lives by extending your beliefs even further into the public square. the moral crusaders used to get away with that using social pressure, knowing lgbt people who had been discriminated against didn't have enough support to cause a fuss, but fairness is catching up so now you want your bigotry codified into law. you are in the wrong and i have faith that love will win out. i am eager for a time when homophobes will only whisper these thoughts among themselves as their grasp of society gets looser and looser.
posted by nadawi at 12:07 PM on January 29, 2015 [6 favorites]

Pretty sure that when the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment gets tapped as the basis for non-discrimination against LGBT people in the US, "God told me not to like you" is not going to form any sort of legal basis for protection of formal bigotry in the marketplace.
posted by hippybear at 12:10 PM on January 29, 2015 [5 favorites]

we're just trying to negotiate the terms of our surrender

You don't get to negotiate terms when your terms include discriminating against us. Sorry.

There are places where our rights intersect and conflict--let's just agree to disagree and move on.

No. What part of "you don't get to discriminate" is unclear? You can believe whatever you want. You cannot, ever, use sexual orientation as a basis for actions.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:10 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

Look, you hate queers and think we aren't people.{{citation needed}}

If you think we don't deserve absolutely equal treatment under the law, and you clearly don't, then you don't believe we are people.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:14 PM on January 29, 2015 [3 favorites]

You can believe whatever you want. You cannot, ever, use sexual orientation as a basis for actions.

But you don't really agree with the first part. You say I shouldn't be allowed to hold certain jobs (and eventually this will encompass all jobs except maybe growing food for just my own family to eat once we're "the fuck out of the way") unless I think the right way. So you do care what I believe.

Look, just because blacks and gays and Catholics and women and etc. have been treated miserably in the past in this country does not mean that religious conservatives need to be treated miserably in the future. The cycle of "we're in power now, get the fuck out of the way" can stop.
posted by resurrexit at 12:19 PM on January 29, 2015

i am eager for a time when homophobes will only whisper these thoughts among themselves as their grasp of society gets looser and looser.

This is kind of horrible and probably the most illiberal thing I've read today. Who will ensure we whisper? The police?
posted by resurrexit at 12:21 PM on January 29, 2015

Yes, I do agree with the first part. You can believe what you want.

Once those beliefs translate into actions, you have a problem.

Forcing you to treat us like human beings, denying you the ability to discriminate, is not treating you 'miserably.' It's holding you to an absolute base standard of human decency. If that's a problem for you, you really need to re-evaluate your retrograde beliefs.

Who will ensure we whisper? The police?

Basic human decency will ensure it. The same way most racists whisper.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:23 PM on January 29, 2015 [3 favorites]

The cycle of "we're in power now, get the fuck out of the way" can stop.

Sigh. Your reframings are getting increasingly grotesque. We're far from in power, and it's actually "you don't get to step on us anymore, get the fuck out of the way."

Go re-read all your comments and substitute skin colour for sexual orientation and you will see exactly how vile your beliefs are.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:25 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

no one will ensure you whisper - you'll whisper for the same reason bigots always end up whispering, because society will encourage you to whisper. it won't take laws. also, think whatever hateful thing you need to think, just don't deny equal treatment to lgbt people based on your thoughts.
posted by nadawi at 12:25 PM on January 29, 2015 [8 favorites]

> There are places where our rights intersect and conflict--let's just agree to disagree and move on.

How can I just move on and agree to to let you discriminate against me instead of doing your job? Why am *I* the one who has to make that choice, and not you? Why not move on from a job that seems to require you to violate your religious beliefs?
posted by rtha at 12:34 PM on January 29, 2015 [5 favorites]

> You say I shouldn't be allowed to hold certain jobs (and eventually this will encompass all jobs except maybe growing food for just my own family to eat once we're "the fuck out of the way") unless I think the right way.

You can think any thing you want.

If you work in a coffee shop, would you refuse to do your job when it requires you to serve coffee even to people your religious beliefs say are bad? Why should you be allowed to do that?
posted by rtha at 12:37 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

If you work in a coffee shop, would you refuse to do your job when it requires you to serve coffee even to people your religious beliefs say are bad? Why should you be allowed to do that?

I honestly don't know who would do that or why they would do that; I certainly would not. Your example is bad.
posted by resurrexit at 12:43 PM on January 29, 2015

How can I just move on and agree to to let you discriminate against me instead of doing your job? Why am *I* the one who has to make that choice, and not you? Why not move on from a job that seems to require you to violate your religious beliefs?

How do you not see that, in a few years from now, when I want to continue to practice my job--which requires a state license--and a condition of my getting a license is not belonging to a "hate group" (and Lord knows how that will be defined at this pace in a few years), that the decision I am faced with is (1) believe differently than I do now or (2) give up my profession?
posted by resurrexit at 12:45 PM on January 29, 2015

And that is more of a problem than queer people being systematically discriminated against in housing, employment, medical care, parental rights... because why?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:47 PM on January 29, 2015

Also, you can change your beliefs. People do it every day. You can give up your profession. People do it every day.

We can't stop being who we are.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:50 PM on January 29, 2015

the decision I am faced with is (1) believe differently than I do now or (2) give up my profession?

Or you could just (1) believe whatever you want and (2) do your job anyway.
posted by brundlefly at 12:51 PM on January 29, 2015 [4 favorites]

and (3) not belong to hate groups.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:52 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

i don't know what to say to someone who thinks that catholics will be defined as a hate group in a couple of years...
posted by nadawi at 12:56 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

I'll offer 4) Keep believing as you do currently, keep your job, and learn to live in a society where you don't get to put limits on everyone who behaves in a way you disagree with.
posted by benito.strauss at 12:56 PM on January 29, 2015 [3 favorites]

Careful, now he's going to say that we don't get to put limits on his behaviour as though saying "you have to treat us fairly" is equivalent to bigotry.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:01 PM on January 29, 2015

> I honestly don't know who would do that or why they would do that; I certainly would not. Your example is bad.

Various religious freedom bills, including the one proposed for Utah (at least, a version I saw of it), explicitly includes public accommodation - like, protecting the baker who doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake. It is not a bad example.
posted by rtha at 1:02 PM on January 29, 2015

Not to mention the county clerk who doesn't want to give a marriage license to people they think shouldn't be married because of their religious beliefs. So again, if you were this clerk, why should you be allowed to choose which people to serve, when your state law says "all these people"?
posted by rtha at 1:04 PM on January 29, 2015 [5 favorites]

How do you not see that, in a few years from now, when I want to continue to practice my job--which requires a state license--and a condition of my getting a license is not belonging to a "hate group" (and Lord knows how that will be defined at this pace in a few years), that the decision I am faced with is (1) believe differently than I do now or (2) give up my profession?

I can't tell if you're being disingenuous or are just not a good lawyer, but the Civil Rights Act--the same law that doesn't allow you to discriminate by race or gender or nation of origin--also doesn't allow you to be discriminated against because of religion. Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church was a practicing lawyer until the point where he was disbarred for...misconduct. He and family and congregation members that were part of his hate group weren't disallowed from practicing law simply for being members of said hate group.

Let's re-enter the real world: Catholics make up almost 30% of federal elected officials, and are the largest single denomination of the over 90% of those officials who identify as Christian. The idea that either or both have no power, are losing rights as opposed to dominion and discrimination, have no right to live a religious life, and are a persecuted minority fighting a losing battle against "vanquishers" is paranoid fantasy that even most Catholics, or indeed pretty much every other large religion and attendant denominations (including many of the above elected officials) would dismiss.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:05 PM on January 29, 2015 [8 favorites]

In this fantastically paranoid absurdity of a scenario, you wouldn't have to "believe differently"; you'd just have to not be a cardholding, dues-paying member of a hate group -- the definition of which is perfectly well-defined and static. Avoiding your imaginary fallout could hardly be more simple.

If you'd polled people just twenty years ago asking whether the Boy Scouts were a hate group, you'd have gotten a 99% negative on that. But the California Supreme Court now says they are, and that one cannot be a California judge and be associated with groups like the Boy Scouts. My religious beliefs are now deemed hateful (see, I don't know, this thread), and it's not long before the law recognizes and codifies that popular sentiment. The leap isn't that far to make; consider, to most people on MetaFilter, what's the difference between the Boy Scouts and one's religion? They both involve dressing up in weird clothes and doing stuff out of a book on the weekend. 'They're just things you choose to do or not; what's the big deal? Just, like, change your beliefs and practices!' This isn't just some hand-wavy, right-wing fever dream.

[T]he Civil Rights Act--the same law that doesn't allow you to discriminate by race or gender or nation of origin--also doesn't allow you to be discriminated against because of religion.

But where we have an escalating conflict between sexual liberty and religious liberty, would you like to guess who wins? Just read this thread for a hint at which way the wind's blowing. And in our jurisprudence in which today's popular ideas are tomorrow's fundamental constitutional rights, you're loony to deny that orthodox religious believers are headed for the wall. That is, unless the religious liberty enshrined in our Constitution is respected, and a diverse people can agree to live apart. Which, to wrap this all up, is what the Mormons--conceding defeat and seeking terms--seem to be asking for in the OP.
posted by resurrexit at 1:56 PM on January 29, 2015

This isn't just some hand-wavy, right-wing fever dream.

Well, I hope it isn't, but that doesn't mean it's the case.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:08 PM on January 29, 2015

and a diverse people can agree to live apart.
you keep saying it's not like segregation...but...

also, i'm pretty sure the irs doesn't legally classify the boy scouts as a religion, so there's at least one important way that they differ from catholics.
posted by nadawi at 2:10 PM on January 29, 2015 [3 favorites]

My religious beliefs are now deemed hateful

Probably because they are.

Once again, you can believe whatever you want. What you cannot do is impose your religious beliefs on secular society. You keep ignoring the obvious parallel with religious justification of racism. Why is that?

I mean we all know why, it would just be nice for you to actually come out and say it.

But where we have an escalating conflict between sexual liberty and religious liberty, would you like to guess who wins?

The people saying "your right to believe what you want stops where my life begins." Which is exactly as it should be in a secular society.

'They're just things you choose to do or not; what's the big deal? Just, like, change your beliefs and practices!'

Yet again, you can keep whatever foul retrograde beliefs you want. Go ahead, fill your boots.

Actions are the problem. And you are seeking to be allowed to discriminate because of what I do in bed with another consenting adult. Beliefs don't get you a free pass on bigotry now any more than Christian white-supremacist beliefs do. Do you really not understand that there is no difference between discriminating on the basis of skin colour and discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:13 PM on January 29, 2015 [4 favorites]

Do you really not understand that there is no difference between discriminating on the basis of skin colour and discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation?

I understand the rhetorical and legal value you place on that comparison, and I think gay rights activists have done a good job convincing many people of its truth, to the point where you'll likely recoil in horror when I say that I don't agree with the comparison. So for me it's a separate issue; I understand you believe it not to be.

[I]t's not that religious beliefs are being deemed hateful: it's the discriminatory actions of organizations.

My religion says only men can be priests; men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies cannot be ordained; only one man and one woman may enter into marriage; teachers at our accredited schools and universities are expected to follow our teachings or be dismissed; institutions using our religion's name can't provide services that conflict with our religion's teachings. And on and on.

How is that not discriminatory action, and how are those not hateful according to the zeitgeist? If the actions are hateful, and the actions are directly based on beliefs, then the beliefs are hateful. The same arguments that changed Boy Scouts legally into Klansmen will magically change me into one.

[Y]ou think the trend is that the religious organization exemptions will be removed; about that we probably will have to agree to disagree, because I just don't see that ever happening.

Thanks for the background and chronology there; I sure hope you're right. I just don't see a basis for you to be right; we've seen over and over again how popular sentiment eventually becomes constitutional law, and people in this very thread explicitly will settle for nothing less than that. And why shouldn't they? Religious liberty apparently doesn't exist because of secularism or something.
posted by resurrexit at 2:50 PM on January 29, 2015

So for me it's a separate issue; I understand you believe it not to be.

By all means please explain how it's different.

Before you begin: sexual orientation isn't a choice any more than skin colour is. So if that's your argument, it doesn't hold water.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:55 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

Man I wanna live in whatever world ressurexit is posting from because apparently there I'm some kind of lavender robed emperor.
posted by PMdixon at 2:56 PM on January 29, 2015 [10 favorites]

we've seen over and over again how popular sentiment eventually becomes constitutional law, and people in this very thread explicitly will settle for nothing less than that.

Please explain to us why we should settle for anything less than 100% equality.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:59 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

My religious beliefs are now deemed hateful (see, I don't know, this thread)

No, your personal beliefs are now deemed hateful. A majority of your fellow Catholics disagree with those personal beliefs, too.

and it's not long before the law recognizes and codifies that popular sentiment.

No, it's not long before the law doesn't allow you to discriminate based on sexual orientation. That's a monumentally huge difference, and by now it's clear that you're either woefully misinformed or making these arguments in bad faith (pun not intended).

The leap isn't that far to make; consider, to most people on MetaFilter, what's the difference between the Boy Scouts and one's religion? They both involve dressing up in weird clothes and doing stuff out of a book on the weekend. 'They're just things you choose to do or not; what's the big deal? Just, like, change your beliefs and practices!'

You're not being required to change your beliefs or practices. You're just not allowed to let your beliefs and practices infringe upon the basic civil rights of others, and certainly not with the consent of the state.

This isn't just some hand-wavy, right-wing fever dream.

A hand-wavy, right-wing fever dream is exactly what it is.

But where we have an escalating conflict between sexual liberty and religious liberty, would you like to guess who wins?

The right to share one's life with another, to provide each other with economic and social benefits, to be available for one's partner in sickness and in health, and all of the other qualities bestown upon married citizens isn't "sexual liberty," and framing the discussion as "oh noes buttsex" only serves to erode the moral center of your argument. And as to who wins: by the definition of the courts, and to be honest, Jesus himself in most cases, both sides do.

Just read this thread for a hint at which way the wind's blowing.

Yes, as I mentioned above, it has been said that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. That injustice is being blown away is a good thing.

And in our jurisprudence in which today's popular ideas are tomorrow's fundamental constitutional rights, you're loony to deny that orthodox religious believers are headed for the wall.

Not at all. And again, most of your fellow worshippers disagree with you, many quite strongly. That we nor they adhere to your personal orthodoxy is your problem.

That is, unless the religious liberty enshrined in our Constitution is respected, and a diverse people can agree to live apart.

You would like us to literally be separate but equal, like America when it was truly a wonderful place of liberty and justice for all?

Which, to wrap this all up, is what the Mormons--conceding defeat and seeking terms--seem to be asking for in the OP.

They're asking to be able to discriminate infinitesimally less than they currently do. Woo-fucking-hoo.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:00 PM on January 29, 2015 [8 favorites]

getting back to the mormons - some towns are upwards of 98% mormon - if it's up the the individual to decide how he feels about teh gays - where should gay utahns live? work? shop? get medical treatment? exist? or is your solution that they should just move? keep in mind that this is a state that erects barriers so mormons don't have to look at booze when they go out to eat. the mormons aren't conceding defeat, they're planning an ambush.
posted by nadawi at 3:08 PM on January 29, 2015

And as to who wins: by the definition of the courts, and to be honest, Jesus himself in most cases, both sides do.

Oh, I know the verse you're talking about! "And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution." Thanks for helping me live the dream.

And again, most of your fellow worshippers disagree with you, many quite strongly.

I've ignored this already because what does this have to do with anything? Some gays believe religious liberty ought to be respected--as you'd rightly say, so what? And you're saying I'm discussing the topic in bad faith!
posted by resurrexit at 3:15 PM on January 29, 2015

My strongly held religious beliefs prevent me from speaking to homophobes, sorry.
posted by poffin boffin at 3:17 PM on January 29, 2015 [3 favorites]

resurrexit: Oh, I know the verse you're talking about! "And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution." Thanks for helping me live the dream.

Gays having equal rights is not you being persecuted. The world does not revolve around you.
posted by brundlefly at 3:26 PM on January 29, 2015 [11 favorites]

Oh, I know the verse you're talking about! "And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution." Thanks for helping me live the dream.

Jesus didn't say that, or in fact anything at all about homosexuality. Which is irrelevant, since the only thing that's happening is your ability to persecute is being lost. I'll celebrate that any day, as will all the people you wish to be persecuted for something that Jesus never told them.

I've ignored this already because what does this have to do with anything? Some gays believe religious liberty ought to be respected--as you'd rightly say, so what? And you're saying I'm discussing the topic in bad faith!

Ignoring the context of me pointing out your personal beliefs are not universal even amongst other Catholics is indeed bad faith. Of course, the original accusation of bad faith came from the fact that you have repeatedly stated you are being forced to essentially not be Catholic, which is factually wrong. More Catholics agree with that than agree with you.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:28 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

Still waiting to hear why homophobia is different from racism. And why we should settle for less than 100% equality.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:28 PM on January 29, 2015

because some dude wrote a shitty fanfic that says we're icky.
posted by poffin boffin at 3:32 PM on January 29, 2015 [6 favorites]

I've ignored this already because what does this have to do with anything?

It has to do with you pursuing a line of abstract reasoning that is grounded less and less in the reality of how your fellow practitioners conduct themselves, and more and more in you trying to justify maintaining old and hateful behaviors — for whatever reason that motivates you. I shan't dare call you a bigot, forfend the risk of invoking Andrew Sullivan's ire.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:33 PM on January 29, 2015 [4 favorites]

My religion says only men can be priests; men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies cannot be ordained; only one man and one woman may enter into marriage; teachers at our accredited schools and universities are expected to follow our teachings or be dismissed; institutions using our religion's name can't provide services that conflict with our religion's teachings. And on and on.

500 years ago, your religion was telling people like me that they deserved to be horribly tortured to death because they were traitors who killed Jesus and drank the blood of babies, something that your religion didn't really get around to officially decrying until the 1970s. Which, incidentally, is about the time the world started hearing about the decades that your religion's leadership and a good number of their clergy had been aiding and abetting in the sexual assault of children by those very same male-only priests with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. Which, in turn, is something that they're just now kinda-sorta maybe addressing when they feel like it.

But, hey, at least both of those show that they can grow up and change. It may be a couple hundred years too late, but that darned arc of the universe can get pretty long before it bends.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:49 PM on January 29, 2015 [4 favorites]

teachers at our accredited schools and universities are expected to follow our teachings or be dismissed

What? No. That's ridiculously false.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:28 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

had been aiding and abetting in the sexual assault of children by those very same male-only priests with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

i'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but just because it's a sensitive spot for me - those men weren't dealing with homosexual tendencies, the were dealing with pedophilic tendencies. if they were gay they would have fucked other priests, not raped kids.
posted by nadawi at 4:43 PM on January 29, 2015 [5 favorites]

My apologies, nadawi, that was poorly worded.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:06 PM on January 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

This argument that a liberal society must respect discriminatory religions is neat! I hope we soon fully embrace religions that treat women as chattel. And mutilate girl's genitals. And trade girls into marriage at age 12. These are all traditional beliefs that should be respected.
posted by Nelson at 6:41 PM on January 29, 2015 [3 favorites]

predictably i'm the most excited for human sacrifice. i know i'll face some public criticism once i start fattening up the child victims but fortunately i now know that my ancient traditional beliefs, no matter how offensive, deserve protection and respect.
posted by poffin boffin at 9:53 PM on January 29, 2015 [5 favorites]

Religious exemptions are the legal equivalent of the hole in the sheet.
posted by brundlefly at 1:02 AM on January 30, 2015

> That's what we want! There are places where our rights intersect and conflict--let's just agree to disagree and move on. It's called living in a pluralistic society.

I can't help but come back to this comment in particular, in light of what is currently happening in Alabama, where a lot of people are being prevented from "moving on" because some state officials have decided that either they don't have to listen to a Federal judge (or that their state constitution trumps the US Constitution!), or they hold a higher duty to their religious beliefs than to their jobs. That is not "agree to disagree." That is not living in a pluralistic society.
posted by rtha at 9:17 AM on February 13, 2015 [5 favorites]

and a hop skip and a jump away from there, arkansas has banned towns from passing non-discrimination ordinances and are working on insuring that the religious exemption overrules any other laws or guidelines in the state. shit is fucked up down here these days.
posted by nadawi at 10:22 AM on February 13, 2015

WTF? That's like some weird reverse sundown town shit going on right there.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:52 AM on February 13, 2015

> arkansas has banned towns from passing non-discrimination ordinances

How is that not a violation of Romer v Evans?
posted by rtha at 11:17 AM on February 13, 2015 [1 favorite]

no clue. passed the legislator with a huge margin, the governor won't veto it but also won't sign it. one town, the fabulously queer eureka springs, has already passed an anti discrimination ordinance to force the court case. there are rumors that little rock will join them. fayetteville passing an ordinance and getting it overturned on vote (and, thanks to the duggars, getting our city council stacked with tea party libertarians) is what put all this into motion so they likely won't be able to get another one passed to join the eventual challenge.
posted by nadawi at 2:07 PM on February 13, 2015

arkansas has banned towns from passing non-discrimination ordinances

How is that not a violation of Romer v Evans?

The assbags who voted for it know full well that it will be struck down, but they'll get to use it on their campaign literature forever.
posted by Etrigan at 2:28 PM on February 13, 2015

« Older Taking aspirin daily has a 1-2000 chance of... | "you’re too young, you’ll change your mind...how... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

Mormon church softens (a little bit) on gay rights
January 28, 2015 4:42 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

Mormon church softens (a little bit) on gay rights January 28, 2015 4:42 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

Mormon church softens (a little bit) on gay rights
January 28, 2015 4:42 AM Subscribe