(08-17-2016 03:20 AM)KUGR Wrote: (08-16-2016 05:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Ah, I see that you're a subscriber to the popular "You're discriminating against my right to discriminate!" or "People should be tolerant of my intolerance!" argument.
That's just the point, Frank. Just because YOU say it is discrimination and it's not what YOU believe doesn't make that so. BYU feels the activity falls in the category of morally objectionable. It's where they draw the line in the sand. Once you allow others to re-draw that line where does it end? It's only a matter of time before someone challenges the courts on something like incest as long as it is between "consenting adults". Deviants are always upping the ante. You know it and I know it. And someone will be calling BYU bigots for that at some point when they say that is morally objectionable. You can love the sinner without loving the sin. Trying to tell BYU what they must believe is a sin is where the discrimination occurs.
Two points:
(1) Federal anti-discrimination laws state that sexual orientation is a protected class. It's not my opinion that there is discrimination here. The law states it.
(2) No one is trying to tell BYU what they must believe is a sin. BYU has a constitutionally protected right to believe what they want to believe. However, just because you have a constitutionally protected right to believe what you want to believe doesn't mean that you have a constitutionally protected right from consequences from holding that viewpoint. Your First Amendment rights protect you from the government restricting your speech or practice of religion, but the government doesn't protect you from the consequences of that speech or practice of religion. Your employer can certainly fire you for having homophobic (or racist or sexist) viewpoints (and in fact, it would happen at my own company, which is in the Global Fortune 100) even though you have a right to have those viewpoints or even sincerely believe there's a moral basis to such viewpoints. You are NOT protected from those consequences. Likewise, the Big 12 has their own policies that object to homophobia and they are perfectly free to choose or not choose BYU on that basis.
Too many people are confusing the right to free speech or the establishment of religion with believing that you have a right to be free from social consequences from exercising that right. That's completely wrong. The government can't put you into jail for exercising that right. However, broader society can impose whatever negative consequences on what they find to be objectionable speech or viewpoints that they please.
Quote: (08-16-2016 05:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: The comparison to racial discrimination is NOT a stretch. It's actually exactly on point: separate but equal conditions are unconstitutional.
Once again, that is NOT equal. It's not anymore equal than married and unmarried people at BYU. The law says either are ok. BYU has a moral standard which differentiates.
No. It's quite different than, say, the rules regarding sexual activity as applied to married versus unmarried people. If BYU simply stated everyone must practice chastity regardless of sexual orientation, then no one would have an issue. Where BYU gets scrutiny is having rules where heterosexuals are allowed to display other types of intimacy whereas homosexuals are not allowed to do the same.
Now, the law states that's acceptable within the context of BYU under the establishment clause. I'm not disputing that fact. (Of course, if the University of Texas and other public institutions did the same, they would be in violation of federal equal protection laws.) However, the fact that a religion believes that an act is based on a moral standard is irrelevant and doesn't make it immune from criticism or social consequences (as there are lots of terrible actions throughout history that were justified by religious moral imperatives).
Quote: (08-16-2016 05:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Now, BYU certainly has a right to discriminate based on its religious belief. However, you cannot turn around and then state that the Big 12 is suddenly engaging in religious discrimination if it doesn't take in BYU.
Frank, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth now. You are on the discrimination bandwagon. Either both are discrimination or neither are discrimination. You've backed yourself into that corner. If BYU is discriminating because they morally believe homosexuality is a sin then the Big 12 is SURELY discriminating if they bar BYU because they don't agree with BYU's religious beliefs. If BYU doesn't have a right to decide what is right or wrong then the Big 12 can't be given that right either.
Not quite sure what you mean by talking out of both sides of my mouth. Just because a group believes something is a sin or has some type of moral basis doesn't suddenly give it immunity. Slaveowners used the Bible to provide a moral basis for justify slavery (and if you take the Bible literally as many fundamentalists insist upon, the Old Testament in particular is VERY comfortable with the notion of slavery). Religious moral beliefs were used as the justifications for witch burnings in this country. The Mormon Church didn't allow for black ministers until 1978 based on its moral beliefs. Heck, in the most extreme example, ISIS fighters sincerely believe that they have a moral basis under the Koran to engage in terrorism.
There are lots and lots and lots religious groups throughout history that sincerely believed that what they were doing was morally correct based on their religion, yet we can now see that it was reprehensible behavior. Once again, people have the right to believe what they want to believe. However, when the exercise of that belief then results in a harm to another person (whether it's discrimination or physical harm), then that certainly doesn't provide that person immunity from criticism and social consequences (and, in the cases of criminal activity based on moral platitudes, legal consequences). The fact that one group believes that a viewpoint is morally justified doesn't mean that the rest of the word has to accept it, particularly if harm is being done to others in the process.
Quote: (08-16-2016 05:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: if the argument from the defenders of the honor code is that BYU doesn't punish anyway for a violation
Frank, it's because there are different levels of violation. Drinking coffee is not the same as doing LSD.
Sure, I understand that there are different levels of violation. However, being a coffee drinker doesn't make you part of a protected class. Doing LSD doesn't make you part of a protected class. Engaging in premarital sex doesn't make you part of a protected class. There is nothing prohibited in the BYU honor code that makes you part of a protected class... except for the paragraph that prohibits homosexual activity. That is why there's an issue here.
Therefore, if there is one paragraph in the BYU honor code that is discriminating against a protected class and BYU truly doesn't actually enforce it, then why the heck is that paragraph still in there? What is the value in keeping it? The school can still teach that homosexuality is a sin (just as Baylor and Notre Dame do) without having discriminatory *treatment* of its students in its honor code (which is what Baylor and Notre Dame have been able to avoid). Believing a viewpoint in and of itself is one thing, but harming someone else based on that belief is where the general public has a problem.
As a practical matter, it seems that BYU is getting all of the downside of being accused of being discriminatory (whether you personally believe it or not) when it's not actually putting it into practice. That's actually the worst of both worlds for BYU. They seem to be dying on the vine (at least from a conference realignment perspective) on principle when they're not enforcing that principle in practice. That doesn't make sense to me.
/
DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
