Suppose a gay couple wishes to rent an apartment. According to Oaks and Holland and company, members of the LGBT community should not be discriminated against when it comes to housing. So considering in isolation the LDS Church's statement in support of fair housing rights for LGBT individuals, the gay couple should be able to rent the apartment.

But seldom are things so simple as to be considered in isolation and in theory only.

Now add this fact to the mix. The owner of the apartment building is a Mormon who is opposed to renting apartments to gays on religious grounds. The Mormon owner feels that gay relationships are morally wrong. And the owner's opposition is based on the teachings of the Mormon Church.

According to Oaks and Holland, the rights of the Mormon apartment owner need to be respected. And although Oaks and Holland did not address this scenario, I think they were suggesting that the owner's religious rights should trump the gay couple's fair housing rights.

This is the question that Oaks and or Holland should have been asked: What should happen when these two rights collide?

Suppose a black couple wishes to rent an apartment. According to Oaks and Holland and company, members of the black community should not be discriminated against when it comes to housing. So considering in isolation the LDS Church's statement in support of fair housing rights for black individuals, the black couple should be able to rent the apartment.

But seldom are things so simple as to be considered in isolation and in theory only.

Now add this fact to the mix. The owner of the apartment building is a Mormon who is opposed to renting apartments to blacks on religious grounds. The Mormon owner feels that black relationships are morally wrong. And the owner's opposition is based on the teachings of the Mormon Church.

According to Oaks and Holland, the rights of the Mormon apartment owner need to be respected. And although Oaks and Holland did not address this scenario, I think they were suggesting that the owner's religious rights should trump the black couple's fair housing rights.


I think that should make it clear. We had this sort of discussion in the 60's and it was decided that when it comes to public accommodations businesses, the owner's religious beliefs do not allow them to deny service based on their religious views.

Which is why TSCC wants wording in the law that specifically allows exceptions based on religious beliefs. They do not want member of the LGBT community to be given the same rights as other classes.

Missed the point.

The point is, the debate has already that finished via SCOTUS. Public accommodations businesses can not deny service based on the owner's religious views.

TSCC is trying to pass a law that is almost certain to violate the Civil Rights rulings that struck down segregation.

Exactly. It's the same argument. And this issue has already been decided. Oaks knows this particularly well. He's a former Utah Supreme Court Justice and he clerked at the U.S Supreme Court. He seems to be trying to undo what has already be done.

Interestingly, in Texas the Legislature is considering various bills to allow citizens to fire gay employees and refuse service to gay customers. (This has nothing to do with Mormons, by the way -- it's a widespread conservative movement.) Anyway, there seems to be an effort in many parts of the country to turn back the clock on civil rights. Sad.

They were asked a similar question and Oakes refused to answer the question. It was about a Bed and Breakfast owner, but the scenario is very similar.

Thank you. That's very significant information -- I didn't know Oaks was asked the question.

His refusal to answer was self-serving (or, more accurately, church-serving). By not answering, he allowed his statements to stand out there by themselves where they sound good in isolation. It's only by considering what should happen when the two rights collide that there is any real meaning behind the statements.

Oaks would not have been surprised by the question. Neither would Holland and the others been surprised. They had obviously made a conscious decision not to get into any messy scenarios where one right would have to be chosen over another.

Can anyone say "disingenuous?"

Disingenuous!

Disingenuous, self righteous, and narcissistic.