Ok so what you are saying is that organizations can discriminate and you don't have a problem with that.
The Church has a right to set up established rules for membership in its society. It is not a government nor a country. It does not support withholding any legal rights from homosexuals at all, the only caveat being that it opposes extended marriage to that group. However, the opposition on that issue is performed through civic and legal channels.
This is no different than the Catholic Church denying priest status to women.
I believe you also see the LDS church as providing a moral compass for people and you think Gaz's attitude is not a reflection of the Church's position
I have no doubt that the leaders of the LDS Church would condemn Gaz's comments here.
I see a problem with that. I see the LDS Church as being largely responsible for Gaz's attitude of open honesty with his rejection of homosexuals who speak out in favor of acceptance of their lifestyle, as the screen writer did.
Please find my official LDS statements or even comments by LDS leaders espousing Gaz's approach. Did you read any of the link I posted so you could get and overview of what the LDS Church really says about this?
For this particular issue homosexuality, I don't see the Church being a moral compass which is grounded in good ethics.
I understand that and I understand the world view you hold would lead you to this conclusion.
If a person is born a particular way, and they aren't harming others, I don't see it as ethically right to discriminate against them on the basis of how they were born, such that ultimately it is likely to cause them to suffer.
Many think this is a BIG IF. The verdict is out on this.
I think the phrase "love the sinner hate the sin" is hollow.
I don't care. This is a fundamental Christian principle and people actually can and are able to accomplish it. You reject Christian ethics and commands so of course you would reach this conclusion. Do you think the teachings to love your enemies, do good to those who are abusive towards you and turn the other cheek equally hollow?
"Love" is a fickle emotion,
No it is not. Love also runs a large range of emotion.
"respect" is what is important when it come to good ethics
Who set up this rule?
The Church teaches homosexuality is a sin,
The Chuch teaches lots of things are sin. It certainly does not disrespect everyone for every act of sin.
that in turn teaches disrespect towards the right of anyone who defends homosexuality as that screen writer did which Gaz objected to, and it teaches disrespect for a fundamental aspect of an individual.
One really can respect much about a person without respecting every thing the person does.
Of course if one thinks that homosexuality is simply a choice and harmful to society, then the argument which rests on it being inate, doesn't apply.
Of course this changes it somewhat.
But since homosexuality is found in nature and animals don't make choices based on reasoning and since homosexuals themselves say they are born that way and since there is little to be gained by being homosexual and generally hardship I don't think the argument that it is a choice, a self indulgent one at that, is justified.
You may be correct. I lean that way too. You may not be. This issue is far from resolved.
So in my opinion rather than being critical of Gaz I think you should consider that the Church is responsible and the church is ultimately all those people who support it, yourself being one
Hardly. The Church is not responsible for Gaz's hate.
