Episodes

Rainbow Mormon: 009: Fairness For All?

The LDS Church has recently expressed a lack of support for the Equality Act of 2019 that is currently being looked at in congress. Today I take a look at the Mormon newsroom statement abut the Equality Act and share some of my thoughts and concerns with the Church’s stance.

Play

5 thoughts on “Rainbow Mormon: 009: Fairness For All?

  1. 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.

  2. NZ Prime minister should twist the church’s arm into donating to the LGBT equality agenda.

    • It is inappropriate for anyone to twist other people’s arms. The entire LGBT situation involves too much coercion from both sides.

  3. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*