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.
I had no idea that LGBT rights were suppressed to the extent as described in this podcast. Such rights are enumerated in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Likewise, I also think that it is wrong to LGBT people to force bakers and photographers to do business with them. Perhaps it is time for bakers, such as the one in Gresham, Oregon, to make a stand against being sued $135000 for refusing to do business with a gay marriage. https://www.kptv.com/news/gresham-bakers-who-refused-to-make-a-cake-for-same/article_84ba5ddb-b543-5537-9436-56ff1a815b50.html. I honestly hope that you support the rights of people who do not wish to voluntarily do business with LGBT in the same way that I support the right of LGBT to associate with one another.
First well done podcast.
I wish there was more references throughout the podcast as to the date and year when all this took place. I missed it at the beginning and never heard it again afterwards.
The reason the baker was fined was because they discriminated their service. Granted this gay couple had a very specific agenda, but it was done in the spirit of promoting their rights.
I think the message got across already, that baker probably already lost their business. No one should oppress or force anyone, but let’s take a chapter from the Civil Rights movement where blacks were discriminated because of the color of their skin. Something needed to be done to take care of the situation, hence the protest.
How can LGBT protest and ask for their right to be served?
Unfortunately rights are not passed without sweat, blood, & tears. Let’s just respect the due process until there’s a better way of accomplishing things.