by Brig Bagley
30 January 2015
Mr. Oaks and Mr. Christofferson took the time to respond to critics concerning their recent news press statement on Tuesday. Claiming fairness and moderate positions, they rejected statements that they considered "blanket" or "extreme".
A NY Times writer stated that the church was looking for legal permission to discriminate against gays. Oaks said that it was wrong to be so extreme and not consider the other side of the argument. Oaks claims that this could mean forcing a person to do something that conflicts with their conscience. The example given was that of a widow renting a room in her house should be able to use personal beliefs as reasoning to deny housing.
An irony with the article concerning their reactions is their claim that there are "no absolutes" in this conflict: the LDS church advertises its "absolute truths" when it goes out to convert others. And although it's saying that the laws need to be fair with religions and LGBT people, how is it fair to use personal beliefs to negatively affect the everyday life of another?
Claiming that there would be rare exceptions where LGBT people would need to go elsewhere for services and housing, the LDS leaders think religious freedom legislation would be a fair protection.
The LDS leaders make it clear that because of their personally held beliefs, rights and opportunities for some should be compromised. Freedom of religion--to them--means projecting your beliefs and expectation onto others--legally. It's their 'right' to do so in any situation.
Read more here: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=1070&sid=33288212
No comments:
Post a Comment