LGBT groups, LDS Church close to final religious liberty/nondiscrimination bill

[Newsjock]

Source: Salt Lake Tribune

Full original headline, too long for Title field:
‘I think we’re going to make history together’: LGBT groups, LDS Church close to final religious liberty/nondiscrimination bill

The long-awaited marriage of religious liberties and prohibitions against housing and employment discrimination may come as early as Tuesday — with gay-rights advocates heralding the arrangement and conservative organizations uneasy with the outcome.

"I think we're going to make history together. It's going to be good," said Troy Williams, executive director of the LGBT-advocacy group Equality Utah. "This is unprecedented [in] history, to have the LGBT community and the LDS community coming together. It's pretty amazing."

The bill would prohibit discrimination employment and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It also would have narrow — too narrow for some — protections on the exercise of religion and religious expression in housing and employment.

On the second day of the legislative session, the LDS Church took the remarkable step of expressing its support for a state law prohibiting discrimination, provided it be balanced with protections for people of faith.

Read more: http://www.sltrib.com/news/2241325-155/i-think-were-going-to-make

[customerserviceguy]

1. I have a Mormon friend who is rather upset by this

I told him, maybe they see a pathway to the eventual legalization of plural marriage through this. It did make him pause and think a bit about it.

[Humanist_Activist]

7. I have to ask, why is this person your friend?

Seriously, it would be like being friends with a member of the KKK, or a segregationist or something, I simply couldn't do it.

[Android3.14]

8. Gee, would you respond the same if the friend were Muslim or Catholic?

Such a view of the "other" is disheartening.

[Humanist_Activist]

10. If they were upset about the government extending basic anti-discrimination protections to LGBT...

people, fuck yes. I try not to associate with bigots.

[customerserviceguy]

9. I guess I don't discriminate based on religion

We were in the same neighborhood about twelve years ago, and even though I've moved to the East Coast, and he's moved somewhere else within Washington State, we've kept up on our phone conversations. Out in WA, I would guess that 3-5% of the people are Mormon, you're very likely to encounter them at school, work, or in your neighborhood. They're not bad people, just somewhat brainwashed. I could say that about a lot of people of various everyday faith traditions.

Most of us have family and friends that we associate with who do not agree 100% with us. How are those people going to learn anything from our point of view, if we do not engage in conversation with them?

[Humanist_Activist]

11. I live in Missouri, the proportion of Mormons is higher, indeed, my best friend is a lesbian...

who was raised Mormon, and to put it bluntly, that religion put her through hell. Being somewhat brainwashed is an understatement, she actually came to me crying about her "spirit children" never being born, because she's not with a guy and not planning on having kids. Apparently its a Mormon belief that our children's souls already exist, and waiting to be born, and its our responsibility(usually the woman's) to make sure they are born. She felt so guilty, it was fucking ridiculous, and I told her so.

[customerserviceguy]

13. That's what religions do

They motivate people through guilt. Yes, the breeding guilt that the LDS church promotes through all of its adherents, gay and straight, is particularly harmful, but it's no less irrational than any other form of "Thou must (or thou must not) that any religion promotes.

Your friend is lucky to have you as a friend; even though she espoused fidelity to Mormon views about procreation, she benefitted from having you help her deal with the idea that it is irrational to be nothing but a breeding machine. I think my friend had a chance at a similar change of heart about his church's acceptance of gay people by finding a hook that I thought had an opportunity to cause him to feel less hostile about the LDS church's moving in what I consider a progressive direction.

Religious people really are in need of fellowship with the non-religious. It's an act of mercy to befriend rather than shun them, and that fits in well with my humanist principles.

[Mister Ed]

2. Especially remarkable after the LDS church spent so heavily to promote Prop 8...

...in California in 2008.

[SoapBox]

3. Or better known at the time and hopefully never to be forgotten...

Prop. Hate

[msongs]

4. human rights are NOT negotiable at any time for any religious crackpots. this is not good news nt

[blkmusclmachine]

5. +1

[Humanist_Activist]

6. What possible protections do people of faith need? There is no right to discriminate in...

public accommodations, housing and employment. The fact that such negotiations are taking place, or that they think religious freedom needs protection from anti-discrimination laws just demonstrates how downright evil such beliefs are.

We aren't even talking marriage here, but being able to NOT be fired from a job, kicked out onto the streets, or kicked out of a fucking restaurant because of your sexuality or gender expression. You would think this would be the bare minimum, the fucking ground floor, of basic civility and civil rights. But no, because "religion" is involved, exemptions have to be made, unjust, unnecessary, and ultimately awful exemptions.

[Jim Lane]

12. There are legitimate questions of line-drawing.

The LDS Church, like the Catholic Church, excludes women from positions in the clergy. That's a restriction on employment, but it's a recognized exception under current EEO law, and I think it's a legitimate one. If they believe that God is a bigot, they should have the right to structure their church accordingly. The same would go for excluding LGBT people from clerical positions.

What about teaching Sunday School? That's not as central to the church's mission, but I'm inclined to say that the LDS Church should be allowed to insist that all Sunday School teachers be cisgender and straight, so as not to be undermining the church's religious teachings (which include teaching bigotry, but that is a protected First Amendment activity).

What about the janitor who helps maintain the church buildings? Now we're getting far enough away from the church's religious function that I don't see a legitimate reason to allow discrimination there, but I can see a colorable argument that the church could make that it wants all its employees to be as close as possible to its idea about how people should live.

The baker or the florist who doesn't want to supply a same-sex wedding? Neither a bakery nor a florist shop is a religious institution so I have no sympathy, but of course some people do.

I'm guessing that the ongoing negotiations are along these lines. Probably the LGBT groups are willing to concede an exemption for clergy but after that things get murky.

[vanamonde]

14. They fired all the janitors

Church members "voluntarily" clean the crappers now. It's "faith promoting"

[Humanist_Activist]

15. Those are long recognized exemptions and not unique to religion, any non-public organization...

is exempt from public accommodation, and in many cases, EEOC laws and regulations, in regards to race, religion, national origin and color. Extending this to include LGBT people wouldn't change this. So what is there to negotiate?

[Jim Lane]

17. Some state anti-discrimination laws are broader than federal law.

I don't know exactly what's being considered in Utah. (As two of the replies show, I didn't even know about LDS janitorial practices. Substitute a secretary who works for a Church-owned enterprise. They must have some paid employees who aren't clergy.)

Would the proposed Utah law reach private country clubs, for example, and compel them to admit LGBT people? What if the club is owned by Mormons? What if it's owned by the LDS Church? (I think the Church has a lot of business-type holdings that have no direct connection to religion.)

I start with the premise that the LDS Church has, and ought to have, the legal right to engage in many practices that I personally find unjust. That's the price we pay for living in a pluralistic society. If you grant that premise, then it's pretty much guaranteed that trying to codify the details of an anti-discrimination policy will get into some gray areas.

[marshall]

16. They don't have a paid clergy

and the janitorial work is done on a rotating voluntary basis by the members.