So a friend just posted this link http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=33605041 and asked for feedback.

Mine follows. Was I too harsh?

Since you asked...I completely support individuals right to practice their religion and that any state limitations on an individuals religious freedom should be avoided. However, when an individual enters into the public sphere they need to be committed to performing the duties of their position. What is quickly becoming the analogous example is that of a bakery. So we will use that. If you bake as a hobby, you have the right to refuse service to anyone you like. When you enter the public sphere, you need to treat everyone equally. If you are a bakery that does not make cakes, then it is easy...you don't make cakes. Not for gay weddings, not for straight weddings, not for interracial weddings, or cross cultural weddings. You just don't make cakes. But if you do make wedding cakes then you need to make them for everyone.

You know the difference between a pregnant woman and a light bulb? You can unscrew a light bulb. For years I have heard individuals not support abortion on the grounds that you don't get a do over because you don't like the outcome (pregnancy). They make the claim that you made the choice when you decided to have sex. Well, when you entered into an occupation you agreed to provide that good or service to all equally. Your religion may not like, agree or support the idea of liars, thieves, adulterers and other sinners but the checkout person at the local Walmart has to treat them as equals.

I am unaware of any single instance where the government has told an individual what they must think or believe, or for that matter how they must act with regards to their firmly held religious believes. What they have done is to implement consequences for acting on certain beliefs that society finds repugnant.

You are free to believe that women are the property of their husbands to do with as they like. You are free to proclaim this belief at your home, in your church, or even in the media. You are free to treat your wife as property according to your belief, and she is free to acquiesce. However, if you try to sell her on ebay you are in violation of the law and will be punished accordingly if found guilty. Like the pregnant women above, you can choose your belief and your action but you don't get to choose the consequences.

Please don't misunderstand, if the government tried to coerce a church into acting against its beliefs I would fully support legislation to prevent that from occurring, but that isn't the case. Remember that. Irrespective of the civil rights laws, the church was perfectly within the law while it discriminated against blacks until 1978. I just don't think current proponents of this religious freedom movement can point to a single instance of that type of impact. What they can point to are cases like the one in this article. So lets explore that for a moment.

We have an individual that either does not like gays, disagrees with their lifestyle, or doesn't want to fulfill an assigned task. Take your pick. Because some of us may agree with his stance on this issue we are quick to label it as religious intolerance and demand laws to protect individuals like him from the repercussions of his stance. But what if this was a slightly different situation.

What if a family member were involved in an accident and was bleeding to death. The responding paramedic refused to perform a blood transfusion because they are a Jehovah's Witness and it is against their religion. Your family member dies as a result. Still ok with the religious defense freedom then? What if you go to a grocery store where there is only one check out person working, but they are Jewish so they refuse to sell you the pork products in the cart because they know that it is aiding you in living a sinful life, and refusing to check you out is their protected religious right. Are you ok with the embarrassment of the scene and the inconvenience? How about if a friend of yours is traveling late at night in a small town, its cold and snowy. They pull into the only hotel for miles and requests a room, but is refused because the owner is a member of the Church of the First Born and refuses to serve a N***** because of his deeply held religious beliefs. Still ok with a law that would institutionalize an individuals right discriminate under the guise of "religious freedom? I'm not.

Now, should the department have attempted to accommodate this officer? Perhaps. I don't know the history of the situation and the article doesn't expand on it. Could they have accommodated? I don't know. If it was a possibility and the department chose not to accommodate, then that is pretty sad. But I can understand as well why they would choose not to.

We've been taught that life is about agency. That we are free to choose, but that we are not free to choose the consequences. It amazes me how quick many of us are to want to limit the agency of our brothers and sisters all while attempting to wrap ourselves in the cloak of righteousness. Yet, when we take actions that others disagree with we seek to indemnify ourselves from the results of our actions. Webster would call that hypocrisy.

Apologies for the book. You did ask.

Love this. Couldn't agree more. I need to be talked down on this issue as well. It's so egocentric when ANYONE thinks they should start getting allowances for their particular religious beliefs in the public sphere. What you do for one, you must then do for all, and that's a pretty slippery slope to start down.

Police officers aren't supposed to just uphold the law. They are supposed to help bring a community together.

If it was a hetero pride parade he likely wouldn't have thought twice...

The officer did not go to his boss and say, "I didn't realize nor was it disclosed in the job desciption that I would be required to [x] as a member of this elite squad. As [x] is prohibited by or would be expected to bring censure from my religious leaders and community, I would like to resign from the elite squad and resume normal duties serving the entire community in a manner consistent with both departmental policy and my religious beliefs."

The officer is claiming that the department is trying to inhibit his religious freedoms, but it sounds more like the officer is trying to redefine the job description of the elite squad.

I would add that this is not a private-sector position, but a public one, operating under the auspices of the US Constitution, in a position sworn to defend that very document which erects a wall of separation between church and state.

He adds insult to injury when he claims to "love" the LGBT community; at minimum, he knows not whereof he speaks.

I'm with you, tig.

I wonder how this would have been handled if this this officer had been moslem?

This officer is just wrong. And I'm sorry his religion puts him up to be the public face of self-righteous bigotry.

A police force is an arm of the executive branch of the government. I appreciate the baker analogy, but a police officer is not like that. His boss was the police chief--a political, community leader, role. The police chief stated that the department was going to participate in the parade as a statement of unity within the community. This is not protecting people or doing police work. This is a political decsion involving all of the leaders of city government.

Once the decision is made that the police force will support a parade, whether Days of Forty-seven or Pride, individual officers do not get to decide whether they personally support that particular political expression of the police force. A police force operates under a chain-of-command structure, like the military. The police force need not accommodate the individual likes and dislikes of individual officers of its force.

Can you imagine a chain-of-command structure that MUST accommodate whomever wants to disobey orders? It's not without precedent, but it's very narrowly defined, and I don't think "I don't like gays," rises to the level of conscientious objector. A police chief is not out-of-line taking the position that a police officer will follow orders.

"In June of 2014, the Salt Lake City Motor Squad Unit was asked to participate in the Utah Pride Parade in Salt Lake City, which included performing choreographed maneuvers on motorcycles.

Moutsos, a member of the unit, was told to participate. But because of his personal beliefs, he said he felt uncomfortable doing so."

An officer's job is to serve and protect. I definitely take issue with the compelled participation of a government entity in any kind of organized demonstration. I have to side with the officer on this one. What was asked is beyond the scope of the job requirements of a police officer.

For your analogy of cakes. Here in Denver there was a Christian baker that was told by a judge that he could not refuse to make wedding cakes for gay weddings. Now there is a lawsuit against another baker who would not write anti-gay slogans on a bible shaped cake.

Do you truly believe that just because your business is in the public sphere you must do whatever anyone else wants or not do anything at all? When does a business owner receive the right to make decisions about how to run his own business?

The baker makes cakes to celebrate weddings. ALL weddings.

He doesn't make cakes to CRITICIZE weddings. It's not a service he offers.

When you open your business in the USA, you open your business to all. It is illegal to discriminate. If you can't handle creating a cake for someone with a different color skin, a different religion, a different sexual orientation, then don't go into business in this country.

Did you read the OP at all? How long after we start saying that businesses can discriminate based on their "closely held beliefs" do we start having separate counters in cafe's, "Whites" only coffee shops or "baptist only" grocery stores. We're getting close to it now with specific "christian" values are being forced on the employees of Hobby Lobby.

As for the Baker who refuses to write anti-gay slogans on a bible shaped cake, she made the cake, frosted it and offered to provide the frosting required to let the purchaser to write whatever horrible message they wanted... I have a feeling that same baker also has an internal policy to not write other offensive message on her cakes, i.e. the same treatment for all customers.

I agree. Riding in a parade is NOT a police officers duty. They couls have easily assigned him a different task.

Also I strongly believe businesses have a right to not participate in events that go against their personal beliefs regardless of what those beliefs are. As a Christian I would not go to a let's say satanic meeting hall, that rents it out for events, and insist they let me use their bldg to have a Christian event. That logic is silly. All businesses have the right to refuse service. This is still America, the land of the free. Why does the gay community even want to force people who disagree with their lifestyle be a participant? Makes no sence to me.

What are they to do then? Must every business from now on post a sign stating who they are discriminating against? They wanted to buy a cake from a baker that advertised that they made cakes, then they refused to do the equal service, that's where you run into problems.

Riding in a parade is part of a police officers duty. I don't know how they determine who does it when, but if a police department is going to ride in one city sponsered parade then it had better be OK with doing it in another. It is part of his job, especially if he was OK doing it in another one. Saying I'm not going to do it because I don't support gays sets a terrible precedence in a police officer, what other functions of his job are you going to allow him to refuse?

I think it depends on what the duties of the Salt Lake City Motor Squad Unit were when the officer joined. Was it a duty to perform acrobatic stunts for parades, or was this a special request? If the latter, then I think he may have grounds for declining, but if it is an assigned duty, then I don't think he can be allowed to decide not to perform that duty in specific events. Can a homicide detective refuse to investigate a murder if the victim is of the "wrong" race, sex, or religion? If it is an official function of this squad, then he shouldn't have volunteered for the squad if he cannot perform the functions of his job for all citizens of SLC.

No. A police officer's job is not just to "serve and protect." You're just saying that because it sounds nice. An officer's job is to do what he's told to do. And, yes, his higher ups may have political motivations--like community relations--that impact on the greater job of law enforcement. It is not for officers to individually determine what those polices are. That's why they're called "officers." They're expected to obey orders.

If there is law forbidding discrimination, that does not make such a law moral or ethical. We would perhaps all like to legislate our own personal ethics, but there is great danger in doing so.

However, can you imagine a bakery that routinely discriminates? It's hard to run a business on refusing customers, or offending people. In the end it's about money, and money does not discriminate.

Nowhere in the law enforcement oath does it say that a police officer will obey orders or do what he's told to do. The oath says that an officer will uphold the constitution. The government should not be actively involved in any kind of demonstration. The government's role should be to protect the right of the people to demonstrate. Would you feel the same if the police had been active participants in a kkk rally or parade?

"The oath says that an officer will uphold the constitution."

Great! Perfect, even better than following orders... How 'bout the part of the constitution that states that the government will not establish any religion or promote any one above another... Like this officer, as a representative of the state, was doing when he said his religion was more important than his duty?

And yes, if I believe in equality, and the KKK rally isn't doing anything illegal and has a city sponsored parade, just like this one, then he should do his job there too.

Just because we don't like someone else, for whatever reason doesn't mean that we can discriminate against them.

The 1st amendment is exactly what I am alluding to. By actively participating in the parade the police, a government agency, have taken a political stance on an issue.

I am all for gay rights. I disagree with a government agency that is supposed to maintain objectivity aligning with one side of an argument.

He's the one who objected to doing his job based on his religious views (against the 1st amendment).

Doing their job does not compromise their objectivity, his not doing his job based on his religious views does.

Now, if you're going argue that the police should provide no protection or services to any parade ever, then maybe you have something, but since this is a city function, I have a feeling that it's right up their alley.

You are missing the issue. The issue is not that the police did not provide protection or services to the parade. That is the duty of the police and they did it. This officer specifically said he would be willing to do just that.

In this instance the officer was expected to actively ride in the parade "which included performing choreographed maneuvers on motorcycles". That is beyond the duty of a police officer and should not have occurred. That is an overreach by the police management that agreed to it.

Except in this case it IS part of their duty

http://www.policemotorunits.com/salt-lake-city--ut-police-department.html
"Not only does the squad help with crowd control for parades, they perform precision formation riding drills in the parade."

http://slcpd.com/inside-the-department/special-operations-division/
"The squad is mostly known for its precision riding during the 24th of July parade, which is attended by thousands of community members".

Why does a public agency get to decide which citizens it will serve?

The 24th of July is a celebration of the founding of the state, not a political demonstration.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=21925462
"The group is asked to participate in more than 300 special events per year on top of the hundreds of traffic incidents officers respond to during their regular course of duty."

Are all 300 events a celebration of the founding of the state?

Furthermore, the Days of '47 committee refused the request of a Mormon pro-gay equality group to put a float in the last parade - does that suddenly make the Days of '47 parade political?

I don't know how many of the 300 invites they accept, but you are probably correct in thinking that some of these are political. I think it is a mistake if the unit is participating in anything political. This may be the event that garners enough publicity to change the policy.

And I think that the Days of 47 denying a permit certainly does turn it into a political event and I am not in favor of that either. I'm unsure of what role the police would play in issuing parade permits though. In Utah I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they may have some influence that they probably should not have.

You bet the unit should be participating in political events. Policing depends on a good relationship between the police and the community. I would think community good will is the sole purpose of a synchronized motorcycle cop unit. It's the cop version of the blue angels. The police want to build trust with the LGBT community, and the vast number of youth who support them, so they ride in the Pride parade. If there were a huge Cinco de Mayo parade in Salt Lake, they'd probably ride in that too, and any officer refusing would get fired.

So your position is that if the President of the United States (of any political party) comes to town, then the local police should not participate in providing security? Should they be providing security for the Governor or the Mayor? If a terrorist group makes a threat against a local group because of political reasons should the police ignore that threat because it is political? If somebody were forcibly preventing you from voting, would you want LE to intervene to stop it? Is it really your position that LE agencies need to avoid anything that might be considered political?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 10:06PM by nonamekid.

Providing security is not the same thing as actively participating in the content of a parade. Police being active participants in political events leads to a conflict of interest debate if there is ever enforcement action that needs to be taken with that group. It creates a special relationship that can seriously call into question their ability to be objective. That's why cops don't work for tips.

Again the issue here was not providing parade security. He was told that he would be part of the parade, like a float; an attraction for the event. He specifically stated that he would be willing to work security.

No, the real issue is do you allow public servants to decide which members of the public they are going to serve, or are they expected to serve all members equally. This officer is quite willing to perform his show riding for the Mormon parade which excludes gays, but unwilling to do so for the gay parade. This is not treating all members of the public equally.

dsp399 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 1st amendment is exactly what I am alluding
> to. By actively participating in the parade the
> police, a government agency, have taken a
> political stance on an issue.
>
> I am all for gay rights. I disagree with a
> government agency that is supposed to maintain
> objectivity aligning with one side of an argument.

You make an excellent point, the result of which would be that the squad only perform their skills at government-sponsored events, such as county or state fairs, or even special police events. Nothing wrong with that, were it the policy of the squad. It seems to be the most sensible approach to avoid an appearance of bias.

I don't necessarily see participation in a pride parade as alignment with one side, when there was also a broad range of other events joined.

I choose to view the comparison of the LGBT community to the KKK as a knee-jerk reaction to make a point, and feel writing any further on it would fail, if just mentioning it is insufficient.

If promoting non-discrimination against any group typically discriminated against is the captain's goal, it seems the first step of raising awareness has certainly succeeded. The officer may well have unwittingly made great sacrifice to that end.

That supposition may presume that the captain is acting independently of any higher authority; I don't know to whom he answers, or how/why parade participation became SOP. Even though his position may not, or should not, have political ends, it's difficult to imagine he operates in a political vacuum.

To adopt a stance of strict adherence to the Constitution is admirable, as it is arguably the most highly evolved governing tool yet designed. I'll cede the point that your view has the more objective goal in support of our freedoms, and sadly, even if not entirely the most realistic one.

So in the context of this debate, if the officer has willingly participated in past agency sanctioned events of a political nature but fought this specific event, he is certainly at fault and the criticism is just.

If this is an isolated incident, I feel that the agency is in the wrong.

Either way I believe it be bad policy to have government agents actively participating in political demonstrations.

I am a business owner. I do business with ALL clients, gay, straight, any religion or non-religion, whatever. To do otherwise is to take money out of my own pocket, just plain stupid!

And just an aside - the BUDWEISER Clydesdale horses were NOT allowed to be in the Days of 47 Parade a while back. Someone might see these horses and immediately become a raging alcoholic.

I too am in the Denver area and I remember the incident with the baker refusing to make the cake for the gay couple.

And of course, EVERY time I pass by Coors field, I have to immediately stop the car and purchase and drink a case of beer because I saw that Coors sign.
The CULT screams MORON!!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 10:37PM by verilyverily.

The guy asked to trade shifts or handle traffic control. It's not like he intentionally called out in protest. We're so quick to call someone a racist or a bigot these days it's maddening!

I'm not privy to his on the job record prior to this day.. My guess is that he probably had a pretty good record up until he expressed being uncomfortable with the preformance. I would much rather see another officer take over if he doesn't have the right frame of mind to handle a 1200 pound bike that close to a crowd.

It's not that he didn't think he could handle the bike, he refused to do this service specifically for religious reasons, which is a very bad precedence to set, even for parade security.

Also, if he can't keep his frame of mind for a parade, what's going to happen if comes across a scene where a gay person is being beaten? Will he keep his frame of mind then?

He should do his job for anyone, as required.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 11:05PM by Finally Free!.

Ok fine. What was the problem with letting him trade shifts if someone else was willing? He gave options. We all have had that feeling while at work.

I have a known pedophile as a client at work. Myself being a victim of abuse as a child I cannot stand being around him, so I have a co worker take over while he is in the office and I take care of all other duties.

I can and do help this man over the phone without any problem. I'm always professional in the way I treat him. I handle his concerns quickly and efficiently.

I'm just saying we should take a step back and realize that the guy shouldn't be judged so harshly.