Religious Persecution

[_Runtu]

Maybe Oaks was right: people really are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.

https://runtu.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/ ... s-beliefs/

[_sock puppet]

ha ha ha.

And best of all, Runtu's back in the house.

[_Tchild]

Maybe Oaks was right: people really are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.

https://runtu.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/ ... s-beliefs/

Good stuff, sort of like "The Onion".

[_sock puppet]

Maybe Oaks was right: people really are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.

https://runtu.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/ ... s-beliefs/

I wonder how it was that Dallin Oaks could suffer the religious indignity of providing his legal services as law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren who was instrumental in extending civil liberties in the U.S.A.

How can Oaks forgive himself for that?

[_Maksutov]

Welcome back, Runtu, we've missed you.

Excellent piece, by the way. We need to get it out there...it's downright prophetic.

[_DrW]

Good to read you again, Runtu.

More great writing.

Welcome back.

[_Runtu]

Thanks. I really don't understand why the church did this media blitz, as most news organizations figured out that the support for LGBT rights has a huge out: it's fine to discriminate as long as it's religiously motivated. And the weird way they have played the victim card is almost beyond parody.

[_Bazooka]

Let me ask a question.

Now that Oaks has declared what he declared, is that now an official position of the Church?

Based on what Oaks et al stated they wanted:

...should any Church leader currently engaged in work that is involved or supports, in any way, something which the Church is against - alcohol, tobacco, immodest dress etc Should that Church leader be now encouraged to find alternative employment else face sanction?

For instance, let's say a Church leader was employed in a managerial position for a company that had a policy not to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. He has a vacancy for which the best candidate who has applied is openly gay. Should that manager now be able to not employ the individual on the basis that it is a violation of his religious freedom to have to employ them? If the manager chooses an inferior candidate on the basis that they are the best 'straight' candidate for the job, is the employer entitled to fire that manager on the basis that he has violated the companies anti-discrimination policy, and if they did fire him on that basis would he have legal recourse against the company for firing him for exercising his right to religious freedom?

[_Maksutov]

Let me ask a question.

Now that Oaks has declared what he declared, is that now an official position of the Church?

Based on what Oaks et al stated they wanted:

...should any Church leader currently engaged in work that is involved or supports, in any way, something which the Church is against - alcohol, tobacco, immodest dress etc Should that Church leader be now encouraged to find alternative employment else face sanction?

For instance, let's say a Church leader was employed in a managerial position for a company that had a policy not to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. He has a vacancy for which the best candidate who has applied is openly gay. Should that manager now be able to not employ the individual on the basis that it is a violation of his religious freedom to have to employ them? If the manager chooses an inferior candidate on the basis that they are the best 'straight' candidate for the job, is the employer entitled to fire that manager on the basis that he has violated the companies anti-discrimination policy, and if they did fire him on that basis would he have legal recourse against the company for firing him for exercising his right to religious freedom?

Interesting question. What if a church member wants to own and operate a medicinal cannabis clinic? I doubt that the church excommunicates all the phony nutritional supplement and "natural healing" businesses that bank on pseudoscience and lack of regulations (thanks, Orrin!). Do they excommunicate doctors who prescribe medications that can be used to get high? That would be just about everybody.

Yes, these are the folks who would slam many of us for our "moral relativism" but see no problem with the temperature of caffeine used as a test for worthiness.

[_sock puppet]

Let me ask a question.

Now that Oaks has declared what he declared, is that now an official position of the Church?

Based on what Oaks et al stated they wanted:

...should any Church leader currently engaged in work that is involved or supports, in any way, something which the Church is against - alcohol, tobacco, immodest dress etc Should that Church leader be now encouraged to find alternative employment else face sanction?

For instance, let's say a Church leader was employed in a managerial position for a company that had a policy not to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. He has a vacancy for which the best candidate who has applied is openly gay. Should that manager now be able to not employ the individual on the basis that it is a violation of his religious freedom to have to employ them? If the manager chooses an inferior candidate on the basis that they are the best 'straight' candidate for the job, is the employer entitled to fire that manager on the basis that he has violated the companies anti-discrimination policy, and if they did fire him on that basis would he have legal recourse against the company for firing him for exercising his right to religious freedom?

Interesting question. What if a church member wants to own and operate a medicinal cannabis clinic? I doubt that the church excommunicates all the phony nutritional supplement and "natural healing" businesses that bank on pseudoscience and lack of regulations (thanks, Orrin!). Do they excommunicate doctors who prescribe medications that can be used to get high? That would be just about everybody.

Yes, these are the folks who would slam many of us for our "moral relativism" but see no problem with the temperature of caffeine used as a test for worthiness.

I think Oaks wanted to assure the right of everyone to be self-righteous in his or her dealings with others, with no repercussions.