Freedom of Religion, Speech, and Chikin

There has been much discussion of this, hasn’t there? Please don’t automatically see it as support for people who are against gays. It really did turn into a freedom of speech issue when mayors and other local authorities of certain cities decided to misuse their positions and refuse a business permit to Chik-fil-A’s. If you flip it and say any company that supports gays in a public statement could then be subject to having a business permit denied or revoked, does that help to see the freedom of speech issue? I think this has hurt the gay rights movement, in my opinion. Mr. Cathy was speaking in an interview to a Baptist press. This should never have been blown out of such proportion.

Amen to the last two comments.

[Admin note: If this is going to have any chance of being a thoughtful, solution-focused discussion (as is our mission here), please be very careful not to take it into areas that aren’t justified by the actual situation.]

Also:

We lose our freedom of worship when someone, somewhere allows gay people to marry one another.I know that Elder Oaks, a former state supreme court justice, said as much.

Agree or disagree with Elder Oaks’ reasoning, the above statement is not an accurate summary of what he said. That, I believe, needs to be stressed.

I personally despise the reasoning behind the man’s statement – but it came from a Baptist perspective, so I’m not surprised. I’m sad that Mormons would embrace this as a freedom of religion issue (since it’s not), but I’m not surprised. Frankly, I don’t think most of my fellow congregants have thought deeply enough about the issues (freedom of religion and freedom of speech) to have a truly informed opinion one way or the other – and that pains me, even as it doesn’t surprise me, since it’s true of most people on both sides of the issue, unfortunately.

Most people (again, on both sides of the issue) draw their conclusions from only thinking seriously about one side – or from very shallow consideration of the other side, just enough to make them feel like they understand the other side.

To me, this is much more about freedom of speech than it is about freedom of religion. Nobody is trying to stop him from attending a church of his choosing, while some people are trying to take inappropriate action against him based on what he said. Boycotting his business is one thing – and I’m fine with that; denying a business license is another thing completely – and I’m not fine with that. This hasn’t come close to a freedom of religion issue.

It’s cool. I just like to be as precise and accurate as possible, generally, and especially when dealing with sensitive, emotional issues like this.

Thanks for posting the links. They help add context.

We lose our freedom of worship when someone, somewhere allows gay people to marry one another.I know that Elder Oaks, a former state supreme court justice, said as much.

Agree or disagree with Elder Oaks’ reasoning, the above statement is not an accurate summary of what he said. That, I believe, needs to be stressed.

Ray, I went back and read two addresses of E Oaks in recent years:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/oaks-religious-freedom

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-religious-freedom-Chapman-University

On further reflection, my statement was definitely a glib restatement of popular LDS interpretation of E Oaks paragraph on the “Yogyakarta Principles” from the BYU/I talk. In short, it wasn’t very precise. 😳

Sorry!

i wouldn’t apologize. Oaks used the Yogyakarta Principles to instill fear in an implied slippery slope fallacy that if we allow the civil right to become so, then we will force our religion to have to recognize gay marriage as well. So yes, in the first talk, he did say what you implied.

In the second talk, Oaks deliberately ignored the establishment clause, saying that it only applied to establishing a state church, then focused all of his energies on how we need to be able to defend religion’s ability to say whatever it pleases in the public square. He states unequivocally that the LDS church has always been for marriage being defined as one man and one woman, something patently and absolutely not true.

If I am a unitarian or episcopal believer, gay, and desire to be married to my same-sex partner, then proposition 8 establishes a religious definition of marriage that is not in harmony with the unitarian or episcopal definition, more mercifully recognizing that committed gay couples are infinitely more in harmony with god’s will than uncommitted sexual relationships. This is clearly establishment of a favored religion over another, and Elder Oaks should know better.

Hence, by linking the establishment of marriage as a civil right to the Yogyakarta Principles, which he KNOWS would not be accepted in constitutional law, he is simply making a gratuitous, fear-based argument. By dismissing the establishment clause, he is unbalanced in his perspective, advocating for one side of a very polemical argument.

If Elder Oaks wants to advocate for a specific religious definition as a polemical argument, he certainly can; but in so doing through one-side polemics, he loses the credibility that is appropriate for a judge or an apostle, because he is no longer serving the whole truth. As well, I defend the right of Mr Cathy to say anything he wants about the institution of marriage as he sees it. He can in our society donate anything he wants. I have the right to not buy his chicken sandwiches in response. In the end, though, it’s all polemics, and serves to do nothing.

I liked the sentiment F_C laid out with ‘we’re all in this together’. or as the late Rodney King said, “Why can’t we just get along?”

But on the other hand, the hoop-la actually makes me not want the chicken. Maybe I”ll go to a burger joint because they have bible verses on the bottom of their cups; will I get John 3:16 or Proverbs 3:5?

Lol 😆

Thank you, that’s quite a sense of humor there. 🙂 it made my day. When it comes to publicity like this I choose to stay away from it altogether. Especially since things of this nature tend to be marketing ploys to generate business.

It worked though. With so many friends from so many cultures in so many nations(such is why I love America). I find it helpful to work as a team instead of bicker and divide. I don’t find that civilized at all.