Posted on 11/10/2009 10:02:51 PM PST by Steelfish
Salt Lake OKs Gay Rights Ordinances Mormon church — which opposes same-sex marriage — backs laws
SALT LAKE CITY - With a historic endorsement from the Mormon church, the Salt Lake City Council unanimously passed a pair of ordinances making it illegal to discriminate against gays.
Tuesday's action was the first time the Utah-based church — which has been steadfast in its opposition to gay marriage — has publicly supported gay rights legislation.
"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage," Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintssaid.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Once they've given up principle, there is no stopping place for them.
Who knows: his AIDS might not be that far along.
You might also check the Epistle of Jude (to the Hebrews), v. 5-6 ff.
____________________________________________________
Why dont you put the words of those Bible verses in the thread ???
if Mormons disallow polygamy
______________________________________________
They havent...
D&C 132 has never been rescinded...
That 1890 manifesto was just to appease the US government...
The mormons benefitted from the manifesto two several ways...
1. The US was threatening to confiscate their land and belongings but backed off...
2. The polygamists including the future mormon “prophets” were able to go underground, into the closet...
3. The US government stopped arresting the malepolygamists..
4. Utah became a state...
Meanwhile D&C 132 is still an important doctrine of the mormon religion...
Joey Smith called it “the new and everlasting covenant”... It is also called..”celestial marriage” “spirit wives” “biblical marriage” and monogamy is called prostitution by the mormons...
Joey Smith and his friends wrote Doctrines and Covenants 132 to frighten Joey’s wife, Emma into agreeing with Joey’s many one night stands...Joey was a full time philanderer...
It was one of Joey’s home made “thus sez the mormon lord” tales...and it included Joey’s right to at least 10 virgins, and Emma’s certain demise if she objected...
Since then other mormon prophets have added and embellished their “right” to have sex with as many women as they cpould get their hands on..the younger and the prettier the better...
Joey was bedding the unwilling girls by usng lines like “the mormon god will kill him if she didnt” and “angels with flaming swords” and “her whole family will get to go to the mormon afterlife if she had sex with Joey” If need be he had one of his friends pretend to “marry” him to the “honored” girl...
Joey was also “adopting” pretty young girls or hiring them as maids and taking them to live with the Smiths and then bedding them in Emma’s own house...Emma would walk in on them...
however in every state Joey lived in bigamy was against the law...thats why when Joey was asked about his many wives, he said people were lying, that he only had one...he was kinda truthful in that ...the rest were just one night stands...plus some already married to other men...
Brigham Young fixed the US bigamy law problem by looking for another place to live...when he found one in Utah territory, (not yet the US) he moved everyone there...
Emma didnt go...she went elsewhere and lived a long life...
Polygamy is so built into the mormon religion that the mormmon jesus was a polygamist...and his father had many wives...plus mary, the mormon mother of the mormon jesus...and that the mormon jesus will bring polygamy out of the closet when he returns...
Polygamy is necesary for mormon godhood...and mormon godhood is necessary for a male to go to the mormon afterlife where he will enjoy sexually his many female sex slave wives forever...and the females will be constantly pregnant with new babies...
Ah, there's historical irony in your wording: Lds in the 19th century called polygamy "THE principle" as a sort of covert code & quick reference. So, then, too, they wound up formally committing to heavily cut back on "the principle" in 1890...by 1910...they had shut down their south-of-the-border polygamy-producing "factory" of solemnizing plural unions...and that's why the fLDS finally pulled away from them in the 1940s & 1950s...because they felt there was no "stopping point" to the Lds having given up "the principle"...
Excellent observation.
Then again, if Mormons disallow polygamy, but allow homosexuality, then are serious bestiality lovers allowable,..so long as they have public commitment? ...so confused as to their real commitment.
Good pt
I’m shocked! I had no idea that Catholics would support stuff like firing somebody for being gay, or denying them raises and promotions for being gay and stuff like that.
If you can’t support people’s legitimate rights being defended when the person happens to be gay, then you really are a homophobe. The church is showing they are against gay marriage, not gay people.
It’s a question of conscience and context. A Catholic pharmacist should not be forced to dispense morning-after abortion pills nor should a Catholic landlord be forced to rent to lesbians or to a father and daughter in an incestuous relationship. You cannot serve God and Mammon. You cannot serve two masters. You cannot provide aid, assistance, and comfort to promote an evil. The Catholic Catechism defines homosexual conduct as an “intrinsically disordered evil”
“nor should a Catholic landlord be forced to rent to lesbians”
Being a lesbian is not legitimate grounds to not rent to them, just as being black would not be legitimate grounds. You are trying to justify bigotry.
If a Catholic landlord is going to obsess over what sex acts go on in the units he rents he’ll need to check what kind of things the straight people who want to rent from him do. I think such a landlord would have a hard time making a profit once you eliminate all the adulterers, fornicators, and gays from the list. Then you have all those people who use birth control or get abortions, or who do any number of immoral things. Renting somebody a place to live doesn’t make you an accesory to whatever acts they choose to participate in while they are their. They alone are responsible for their choices.
Christ had no reservations about sitting down at the same table and breaking bread with publicans. He didn’t worry about perhaps validating them by doing so. He saw an opportunity to reach out to people who needed his message and he took it. Perhaps Catholic landlords should adopt a similar mindset.
What is much more important is that you want to outlaw it.
1. So to make your point you are forced to equate discrimination based on race and skin color with freedom of religious conscience not to rent to avowed homosexuals. This is a supreme non sequitur.
2. Surely you cannot be referencing scripture to validate the sin of homosexuality.
In Matthew 9:9-13 “For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” ....why? because he wanted them to repent and change their sinful ways. The homosexuals you refer to have no wish to repent, indeed they celebrate their status. And landlords, are supposed to knowingly offer aid and comfort to advance this union like an incestuous relationship?
3. Adulterers, fornicators? Why deprive the landlord attempting to faithfully follow his religious conscience to not allow renting to his married friend if he plans to stay a week at the apartment with his girlfriend?
“you are forced to equate discrimination based on race and skin color with freedom of religious conscience not to rent to avowed homosexuals. This is a supreme non sequitur.”
What I said is that both skin color and sexual orientation are not legitimate grounds to deny someone. A white supremacist could just as easily try to cloak his bigotry as being a matter of conscience to not rent to blacks.
“Surely you cannot be referencing scripture to validate the sin of homosexuality”
Of course not, I’m saying that it would be more Christ like to not shun them but take advantage of opportunities to share the gospel with them. I really doubt you are going to win anybody over to Christ by telling them to take a hike, you don’t want their kind around.
“The homosexuals you refer to have no wish to repent, indeed they celebrate their status.”
And that is the very essence of prejudice. You pre-judge them without knowing anything about them as a person. Is the power of Christ so weak that the heart of a gay can’t be touched by it? Are there not already gays who have left the gay lifestyle and strive to follow Christ? There are, and they didn’t get to that point by being treated like dirt.
“And landlords, are supposed to knowingly offer aid and comfort to advance this union like an incestuous relationship?”
I don’t think a landlord has any business knowing who sleeps with whom, and renting somebody a place to live doesn’t make a landlord responsible for what they decide to do in that apartment. Certainly if they are aware of anything CRIMINAL like incest they should alert the authorities.
“Why deprive the landlord attempting to faithfully follow his religious conscience to not allow renting to his married friend if he plans to stay a week at the apartment with his girlfriend?”
I’m pretty sure that if some guy wants to cheat on his wife, he won’t do it by renting an apartment from his good Catholic buddy and letting him in on what is happening. You are just trying to avoid the fact that most of the people a landlord is going to rent to are going to be guilty of adultry, fornication, using birth control, abortion, and/or homosexuality. Singling out gays and not the others is again, evidence of bigotry.
1. So now you equate a “white supremacist” with someone attempting to conscientiously follow his Catholic Catechism (which refers to homosexual conduct as an “intrinsically disordered evil”) as an act of “bigotry”.
2. Of course, the Church doesn’t instruct us to “shun” homosexuals. We must for sure never forget either the parable of the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son. The humanity of the homosexual, like anyone else, must be treated with dignity.
3. No one is prejudging the human capacity to repent. We are all sinners. But should not our public conduct not be a source for scandal. If a Catholic pharmacist should not be compelled to dispense a morning-after pill to knowingly facilitate an abortion, it follows logic that a landlord ought not be compelled to forcibly allow his apartment (his business) to be used to rent to homosexuals any more that he be compelled to rent it to prostitutes?
4. Eating, dining, commiserating, helping the needs of homosexuals, prostitutes, and even murderers, are all spiritual works of mercy. So instructs the Sermon On The Mount, we call the Beatitudes.
No one here is for one single moment talking about “treating them as dirt.” Quite the contrary.
5. But context matters. If you eat and dine with gays as part of a homosexual orgy, this is no way to “touch their heart” anymore than providing them with welcome mat of a bed and mattress to celebrate their homosexual lifestyle and forego the imperatives of religious conscience.
But apparently you don’t seem to recognize this distinction. Using labels like “racism” or “bigotry” obscures serious analysis of the role of religious belief and practice in the public square and instead conceals a preordained disposition to kumbaya sin and damnation.
“So now you equate a “white supremacist” with someone attempting to conscientiously follow his Catholic Catechism”
Stop playing these silly games. What I said was very clear, if you want to claim the right to refuse to rent an apartment to someone because they are gay and you are Catholic, THAT ACT is the same as a KKK memmber refusing to rent to a black because of their conscience. Don’t try to expand it beyond that. Everybody feels their own prejudices are justified and right.
And if you are going to twist logic to try and justify it by assigning some kind of participant role to a landlord for what people choose to do in their own dwelling, then a Catholic hotel owner is guilty every time something immoral is done in one of the rooms he rents out, and a Catholic banker is helping them when he helps a gay person get a mortgage, and a Catholic car salesman or transit driver is helping them by giving them a way to get to gay bars, and a Catholic restaurant owner or grocery store owner is guilty every time a person does something immoral while their body is fuelled by the food they helped provide. Where does it stop? If you keep going along those lines you can get to the point where a Catholic is assisting gays just by letting them live.
It also a huge double standard to get all bent out of shape over someone being gay and not give the same treatment to people who engage in fornication, adultery etc.
Do you support bigotry against Christians being legal?
1. Oh how nice! In making a moral and religious argument, you want to disassociate and extract motive and intent from “THAT ACT” How silly can that be? Even when an individual kills, we examine intent and motive- don’t we? Like in case of self defense. The intent of the KKK is racism pure and simple. The intent of the Catholic landlord is fidelity to his faith.
2. This gets really interesting when you think a Catholic taxi cab driver should not provide a ride to homosexuals. Not every act is complicit in the act of homosexuality. The restaurant owner or grocery store owner is not aiding, abetting, or promoting the act of homosexuality. But if that same owner rents an apartment he owns to further prostitution, incest, or homosexuality, then we have a different situation. Don’t we? While not all acts constitute “aiding and abetting” some do. Perhaps Mormons don’t see this distinction, Catholics do.
“The intent of the KKK is racism pure and simple. The intent of the Catholic landlord is fidelity to his faith.”
The KKK member would say it was a matter of fidelity to their faith too, and in both cases it is bigotry pure and simple.
“But if that same owner rents an apartment he owns to further prostitution, incest, or homosexuality, then we have a different situation. Don’t we?”
The only way a landlord’s motive could be to further homosexuality would be if he actively promoted using his rental units for such reasons or gave gays a discount or something like that. I wouldn’t expect that from a Catholic trying to live their faith, nor does the city ordinance require anybody to do anything like that.
The landlord who receives and accepts an application to rent from somebody who has good references etc. is not aiding and abetting any of the legal activities that take place in the rental unit after the lease is signed. Just as the banker, grocer, and restaurant owner are blameless.
If you can’t see it, I can only assume you don’t want to see it, in which case there isn’t much more point discussing it.
You are trying to justify bigotry.
____________________________________________
how do you feel about the mormons justifying their bigotry against blacks for 150 years ???
It also a huge double standard to get all bent out of shape over someone being gay and not give the same treatment to people who engage in fornication, adultery etc.
______________________________________________
yeah like those philanderting adulterers and fornicators Joey Smith and Brigham Young...
Did I miss your post about them ???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.