Mormon Discussion’s podcast production is certainly not connected to The Mormon Church aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It also is most assuredly not approved or endorsed by Intellectual Reserve, Inc or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Any of the awesome content or the solid opinions expressed, implied or included in Mormon Discussion Inc’s awesome podcast lineup and production are solely those of Mormon Discussion Inc. and/or its program hosts and not those of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Mormon Discussion Inc is a 501(c)(3) and is in the arena of journalistic work and is part of a free press. A free press is fundamental to a democratic society. It seeks out and circulates news, information, ideas, comment and opinion and holds those in authority to account. The press provides the platform for a multiplicity of voices to be heard. At national, regional and local level, it is the public’s watchdog, activist and guardian as well as educator, entertainer and contemporary chronicler. Under the “fair use” defense, however, another author may make limited use of the original author’s work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism.
The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner’s exclusive rights.
Subject to some general limitations discussed later in this article, the following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses:
- Criticism and commentary: for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment. A book reviewer would be permitted to quote passages from a book in a newspaper column, for example, as part of an examination of the book.
- News reporting: such as summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report. A journalist would be permitted to quote from a political speech’s text without the politician’s permission.
- Research and scholarship: perhaps quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations. An art historian would be able to use an image of a painting in an academic article that analyzes the painting.
- Nonprofit educational uses: for example, when teachers photocopy limited portions of written works for classroom use. An English teacher would be permitted to copy a few pages of a book to show to the class as part of a lesson plan.
- Parody: that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way. A comedian could quote from a movie star’s speech in order to make fun of that star.
Reversing the Nov 2015 policy hasn’t done a damned thing positive. The Church will continue to bully, threaten and excommunicate LGBT members for Jesus, for Not Obeying Leaders who spit in Christ’s face daily. Christ’s FAIRisees?
The Church has always taught that we can’t be fence-sitters nor can we serve two masters and that we must all “choose” to follow Christ only, to be saved. Yet all the Corporation of Christ has ever done is the opposite of both of these teachings as if Christ gave them a free pass (Matt 7: 20-24).
The Church teaches against “smorgasbording the gospel” yet the Leaders smorgasbord the gospel worse than anyone ever has. If they can’t find enough crap in the buffet for us, they mix up a new batch to force feed us from Their ever changing “Gospel.” Gospel literally means Good News, not lying, bullying, abusing, threatening “for Christ.” WTH?
The Church Leaders teach against Christ’s teachings even more than Korihor did. They have much, much worse actions than Korihor. So, why do They insist on “Christ” in their name when They have nothing to do with Christ and They despise his teachings? The Leaders are all about the FAIRisees’ Church of the Prophet.
NZ Prime minister should twist the church’s arm into donating to the LGBT equality agenda.
The NZ Prime minister is now Ex Mormon (woke).
It is inappropriate for anyone to twist other people’s arms. The entire LGBT situation involves too much coercion from both sides.
One flaw with the Equality Act is the inclusion of gender identity. The Act states the following (Sec.1101(a)(2)): GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.
It uses the term to define the term, but does not define what the gender-related appearance, mannerisms, or other characteristics even are. It can easily be interpreted to reinforce traditional gender stereotypes. Is that what we want, to reinforce stereotypes of appearance, mannerisms, or other characteristics? Is this just reducing gender to appearance, mannerisms, or other characteristics? The problem is that gender identity cannot be objectively defined. So, if a man claims to be a woman, or presents himself as a woman, then he has all the same legal protections as a woman in any of the categories mentioned in the Act (e.g. accommodations, facilities, education, funding, employment). It is not a logical stretch to see this actually being used to eliminate any gender distinctions, rights, privileges, or protections at all. It would make meaningless any distinctions in accommodations, facilities, employment, education, and funding. It could be used as a legal basis to deny any defense of sex or gender distinctions. If a person can claim any gender without objective criteria then legally there would be no gender. The compassion that many people feel in protecting transgendered people from abusive discrimination leads to an act such as the Equality Act which could technically be abused by requiring any person who presents as a gender to be protected as that gender. This needs to be thought through.