Are we sliding away from a pluralist society into one dominated by conservative Christian views, many of which are to the right of the LDS church’s views? It continues to look like it from where I’m sitting.
I remember a conversation I had with a much more conservative Church member friend about a decade ago. She brought up the cake baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. We were on opposite sides of that argument. Her view was that by baking the cake, the baker’s individual rights as a bigot [1] were being violated. Having to participate in a society with different people was a threat to their belief system. My view at that time was that because gay marriage was legal, and being gay was not criminalized, then there was no fair basis to refuse service because of someone’s sexual orientation. There is a potential discussion to be had about “artistic expression,” but that feels like a backdoor to bigotry, one that wasn’t really the motivating factor in my friend’s argument. Her real aim would have been to relegate homosexuals to second class status so that people who disliked them could avoid them.
But, let’s also be clear that bigots have rights, too. You can’t force people to “get it.” You couldn’t force white southerners to treat their black neighbors as equal. You could enforce the law, but you couldn’t make them like it. Remember that Ruby Bridges (who is only 70 years old) couldn’t access her desegregated school until the National Guard came in. And in case you forgot, anti-black racism was also justified on the basis of religion: the conservative fear of miscegenation (black people marrying white people). This view was held in the deep South and at BYU and was the basis for the anti-BYU sports boycotts of the 1970s. [2] The very softened version of this idea [3] that people of different races probably should not marry each other still existed in youth teaching materials as recently as 2010. It may still be there somewhere, but I’m not going to go looking. Religion is not the basis for bigotry, but it is used rhetorically to justify bigotry. You can be [insert religion] and not be bigoted. Nobody’s going to kick you out for being too tolerant. You can also be bigoted against someone based on their religion, whether you are religious or not. Your bigoted feelings and speech are legal and protected.
Here are some examples of historically bigoted views that were justified as protected on the basis of religion:
- Anti-semitism
- Slavery and racism
- Hindu caste system
- Islamic legal traditions that put non-Muslims in second class status legally
- Sexism and gender roles
So why do bigots have rights? Because they are citizens. Their views don’t have to be moral or right or even fair. Rights are based in law, not based on virtue. Bigots’ rights include the right to say and believe whatever the choose. Likewise, people who don’t like their views are free to refuse to buy their goods and services and are free to criticize their views on social media. They are not free to refuse to hire someone for a job because of their views, so long as that person is willing to do the job. Where everyone’s rights end are where they are using those rights to curtail the rights of others. And that’s where we are, once again, discussing whether the existence of people believers don’t like is a threat to believers.
Religious institutions in the United States are protected from having to follow laws that apply differently in the public sphere. For example, a church can refuse to hire women because it believes that women should not have paid employment. In theory, a church could refuse to hire someone who is disabled because it teaches that disability is the result of sin or a sign of God’s disfavor. When those protections are extended outside of the private religious institution to allow individuals who hold those views to apply them in the public sphere, this is where we run into problems, where we restrict some individuals (based on potentially immutable characteristics like sex, sexual orientation, or race) and give privilege to others (based on their assertion of “religious belief,” which as we see can be used as a bad faith justification or in good faith, but can create a second class status to disfavored groups). It’s one reason that a BYU graduate who tells his secular employer he won’t work for a woman or have a meeting with a woman is not protected. He is putting his personal views above the rights of the other person to have equal access to opportunity. Well, let’s see where we end up in a few years given the trajectory.
I’ve previously blogged about this expansionist view of religious freedom, and the origins of the country that had two options. In places like the Massachusetts Bay Colony, specific protestant groups were given legal precedent over others. In Rhode Island, pluralism was the basis for the law, allowing for free practice of religion. Both systems were founded by Christians and based, to their view, in their Christian beliefs. The pluralist system became the basis for how rights were established in the United States. Lately, that’s been getting a lot of pushback from emboldened religious conservatives, many of whom are to the right of the LDS church.
For religious conservatives, there are three potential approaches to expanding protections for their views when those views are not the societal norm:
Engagement. Under this approach, religious groups participate in a pluralistic society while advocating for the values they espouse. This is, on the whole, consistent with the LDS church’s approach. Even their Prop 8 efforts were an attempt (pre-Obergefell) to engage in policy-making by restricting the use of the term “marriage” to heterosexual couples. Supporting fairness in housing for gay couples in SLC is an example of the LDS church encouraging pluralism rather than religious dominion.
Withdrawal. This approach includes things like creating religious enclaves (e.g. the Amish) or homeschooling to avoid moral compromise that comes with a pluralistic society. The Massachusetts Bay Colony experiment was based on this version of “religious freedom.” They weren’t trying to create freedom for people they disagreed with. That was what Rhode Island did in reaction to Massachusetts’ intolerant society.
Dominion. This is the approach favored by those behind Project 2025 and the current administration (while I doubt Trump agrees with all of these views, he is fine to enable them in a bargain with his base). This approach is to reshape the public sphere to reflect religious (rather than secular or pluralist) norms, including in areas like education, commerce, and government.
In my view, engagement is the only appropriate stance for a religion to take. At heart, I’m a pluralist. I grew up as a member of an extreme minority (Mormons were very rare and misunderstood where I lived). I strongly believe in the separation of church and state, more strongly than I believe in any religious dogma. Religion exists as a moral framework, and its arguments must be made to individuals on moral grounds in the marketplace of ideas; individuals will believe what they find convincing. As soon as you compel moral behavior, or a specific religious worldview, you stop making persuasive arguments for morality. You don’t have to have good arguments for things you force others to do. It’s why the opposite of leadership is compulsion.
Even E. Oaks, that liberal bastion of plurality, said that if your job was to sign marriage certificates, you had to also sign the gay marriage certificates. That’s why I am stating that the LDS church is to the left of today’s Project 2025 dominionist agenda. It’s not that they’ve never been dominionist. Brigham Young was a theocratic dictator, but we’ve come a long way, baby. The church in 2023 supported the Respect for Marriage Act while still refusing to participate in gay marriage; this was a pluralist approach. The current religious right would like to take this much much further.
So, is there an attack on pluralism? In my view, yes.
- Religious liberty is being used to justify exclusion of citizens from equal access to the public sphere, including commerce.
- SCOTUS decisions reflect one religious moral framework, one that I don’t share which is why it’s more obvious to me, including ruling in favor of “parental rights” to object to books that include LGBTQ characters but overruling “parental rights” to medical treatment for minor children experiencing gender dysphoria. Calling it “parental rights” points to the lie because only one set of parental decisions is accepted, the one that accords with a conservative religious viewpoint.
- Giving special privileges to conservative Christian views that conflict with other religious views (e.g. Judaism teaches that the life of the mother must be protected over the life of the fetus when in conflict).
But those who disagree with me, let’s assume in good faith, would argue that individuals should be able to follow their own conscience in a pluralistic society and prevent their children from exposure to ideas they find threatening to their religious views. Only reading books with no LGBTQ characters is the latest salvo against pluralism. Does a religious belief system require stuffing all queer people back in the closet? Who’s next? Expansionism goes both ways. Religious dominionists may love the idea of making public education akin to homeschooling in terms of parents’ ability to prevent exposure to the existence of LGBTQ people, but it may not end there. Why not eliminate any books that feature women working or that feature someone who doesn’t believe in God? Why not eliminate books that show non-white people interacting with white people? What about books that include non-believers or non-Christians? Or books that state that slavery was bad? If you think that’s hyperbole, take a closer look at Project 2025 and Praeger U‘s so-called educational videos. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.[4]
- Do you have friends who support religious dominion in politics?
- Do you think we are at risk of losing our pluralistic legal structure in the US?
- Where do you see the LDS church in this tension?
Discuss.
[1] For the purposes of this post, I will use the term “bigot” to specify those who are against others’ rights to participate equally in society, including access to the public sphere, public goods, etc. It would be unfair to call these individuals’ beliefs “Christian” as there are non-Christians who share these views (e.g. some Muslims, orthodox Jews), and there are many Christians who do not share these views. I realize that the term is inflammatory to bigots, despite their dominance in the current judiciary.
[2] In case you forgot, the Church was not on the right side in the civil rights discussion, just as they were not in the right when it came to women’s equality. They are not there yet on LGBTQ rights either, but they are at least slightly less wrong than their Project 2025 conservative peers.
[3] Brigham Young literally advocated murdering them, so yeah, this is a softened version.
[4] It might take a few decades for the current SCOTUS to die off. After all, you’re not getting free vacations on private jets if you retire.
Wheat & Tares 
Have you read the Supreme Court’s opinion in Mahmoud v. Taylor? It’s actually a very pluralistic ruling based on a specific set of facts. It’s not at all like you describe in the blog post. At a minimum, I recommend reading SCOTUSBlog’s recent summary of it: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/07/when-inclusion-becomes-compulsion-mahmoud-v-taylor-pluralism-and-public-education/
As SCOTUSBlog (hardly a right-wing, conservative source) says in its last two paragraphs:
“For advocates working at the intersection of religious liberty and public education, this case is both a warning and a roadmap. The warning is clear: Ignoring procedural pluralism – by eliminating opt-outs and dismissing religious objections as mere bigotry – risks violating constitutional protections. But the roadmap is more hopeful. If school districts want to honor inclusion without coercion, they must offer parents meaningful ways to participate and dissent. Opt-out policies, clear notice, and open dialogue with families aren’t threats to diversity – they’re how pluralism works in practice.
“The lesson of this case isn’t that LGBTQ+ stories should be removed from schools. It’s that inclusion must be paired with choice. When public schools act as both educators and moral guides, they carry a responsibility to make space for conscience, not just as a matter of fairness, but as a matter of constitutional law. In a pluralistic democracy, protecting diversity means more than celebrating many voices – it means leaving room for meaningful dissent. The Supreme Court has now made that much clear.”
This was a case where Montgomery County Schools were not just providing education. The teaching materials and teacher guidance were also pushing specific moral judgements. And the school claimed that it was unable to offer opt-outs, even though it had previously done so successfully (suggesting that they could, but they did not want to). It also wasn’t just right-wing conservative Christians that objected, but a coalition that included Evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Muslims, among others. All of that combined into the narrow ruling that the Court issued (not the expansive ruling you described).
The basis for refusing the cake was that making a special cake celebrating a gay wedding is an artistic endeavor which can not be compelled. The bakery offered to sell them any ready made cake in the store. I agree with the Supreme Court that artistic expression can not be compelled. It isn’t like refusing to sell someone a pair of shoes.
“I will use the term “bigot” to specify those who are against others’ rights to participate equally in society, including access to the public sphere, public goods, etc.”
Does every person and opinion deserve equal participation in society? What exactly does that mean? Can a community actually support such thinking where equal public accommodation must be made for every individual belief and practice? This is a great and important paradox. The more a community celebrates individuality and individual preferences, the less community you have. And is equality proportional? If not then we are truly saying that a community must oblige the wishes of a single member. I don’t see how a community can support that without crumbling under the weight of a thousand competing “wishes”.
I’m a strong advocate for the 1st Amendment. To me, the core plank of “free speech” is that disagreement is fully allowed and acceptable. So it is fascinating is to observe how advocates for Pluralism oppose “free speech”. What exactly is the meaning of “Pluralism” if it demands conformity of opinion and rejects criticism?
I grew up with idealistic school teachers affirming the important of the 1st Amendment. The Skokie Case (the right of Nazi’s to parade) was highlighted with the perspective that “I may not agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it.” Do we still believe this? If we don’t then what freedom do we actually have in America? For who decides what is permissible speech and what is not?
As for bakers and candlestick makers, what merit is there in demanding a craftsman do what another person wants them to do? Is that not bullying? Should we attack “bigotry” by “bullying” others to do what we want? Does that strengthen or weaken society?
I despise Project 2025, but artistic expression is a valuable form of speech and a textbook example of freedom of conscience. It seems to me that protecting free speech is more likely to decrease harmful forms of discrimination over the long term. Granting government the right to force artistic expression in forms and manners it or the political majority has deemed appropriate is a bridge too far for me.
As a child, I thought the decision in the The Skokie Case appalling. No Nazi don’t get to go into neighborhoods with holocaust survivors and celebrate their families extermination. Nazi’s can go parade in their own neighborhood and advocate for death camps, if their speech is so important. But apparently cruelty is a cherished human right.. And the right sort of people deliberately tormenting the marginalized is a foundational pillar of civilized society.
When those in power are attacking diversity, then pluralism is legally meaningless.
I share OP’s concern about movement towards intolerance. To me, it seems that Latter-day Saints, as a minority, should generally insist on tolerance and pluralism in the public sphere.
I recall reading that D&C 121 says power should not be based on control or compulsion or dominion, but instead on patience, persuasion, kindness, and so forth. I like that idea.
I appreciate OP’s thought that one might be on the right side of an argument for the wrong reason. For example, one could support the cake decorator because of fear of a slide that would force a Jewish videographer to produce an anti-Semitic video (a “right” reason?) — or one could support the cake decorator because of personal hatred for people not following one”s own preferences (a “wrong” reason?).
I appreciate Observer’s insight from the SCOTUS blog on the Maryland school case. I suppose some people support the decision for right reasons, and some for wrong reasons. Having lived in Montgomery County, I understand the disdain and even contempt many teachers have for the concerns of parents, and Observer”s insight makes the decision feel better.
Regarding book bannings, I hope no one ever bans The Count of Monte Christo. Most people read an abridged version, but I read the unabridged version in high school — the unabridged version has details (and character development) that don’t appear in abridged versions, and certainly never make it into stage or film productions — in the unabridged version, M. Danglars’ daughter is presented as in a lesbian relationship with her teacher. I would never want to see The Count of Monte Christo on a banned books list because (1) the character is treated as a normal human, and (2) no prurient details are provided.
As a matter of individual choice, I like the middle of the road, so to speak, for many public square matters — as our society’s Overton window moves, I am generally okay moving with it. I am very saddened by those among us who feel a need to vilify anyone who doesn’t agree with them on any particular issue. Generally, I hope the people with whom we share the public square can be seen as neighbors rather than as enemies.
The only artistic expression I see under attack is happening at museums and the Kennedy center.
When a person enters the commercial public sphere they encounter regulations. Privately, for money, I can decorate cakes where my artistic expression takes me. But if I open a public for profit business, then I have to serve the public. My mass produced cakes with standardized decorations I make commercially for weddings must be available to the public. I can’t, as a public business, deny making a cake for a Mormon cultural hall reception, because I only make wedding cakes for Christians. Privately, I can bake away for Christians only or star bellied sneethes.
And hiding behind “artistic expression” does not protect art. It allows the dominant group to dictate what art is.
New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin said his city “will be a majority African-American city because this was what God wants it to be”. Was he condemned for this racist remark? NO. Was he pressured by protesters to resign? NO. Did he betray the trust of the citizens of his “Chocolate City” by taking bribes? YES.
Observer, stop posting reasonable and well-informed commentary with recommendations for original sources. It distracts from the rhetorical points OP is attempting to score.
Observer: the author of the article you posted is, at least in my opinion, a conservative activist. Yes, she’s Muslim rather than Christian, but as I mentioned in the OP, they seem to take the same anti-LGBTQ stances in the culture wars. The case really revolves around two questions that are worthy of public debate: 1) are the materials actually objectionable or is hyperbole being fueled by bigotry, and 2) what are the limits of parental opt-outs and parental controls in public school? Can parents who dislike LGBTQ people object to a gay teacher? Does that teacher then get fired? Is a wedding photo on the teacher’s desk a “celebration” of gay marriage or is objecting to the photo bigotry in a pluralistic society?
Additionally, what IS the religious objection? There seems to be a lot of fear-mongering that the mere presence of books featuring gay characters is a “celebration” of a so-called lifestyle some object to. Well, what do they want gay people to do? We all know the answer. They want them to stop existing, or if they have to exist, they need to be so miserable and wretched that no gay or trans child would ever want to BE them. The religious objection is bogus. Again, that’s my opinion. I have yet to see a solution from the conservatives that truly allows being gay or trans to be an acceptable thing, even though these people aren’t choosing to be gay or trans.
And to clarify, I do think it’s fair to (by comparison) state that religious people don’t really “choose” their religious beliefs either. Some religious beliefs are extremely bigoted (e.g. that black people and white people shouldn’t mix at all). The questions raised in these scenarios are just part of a pluralistic society. In general, parental opt-outs turn their kids into pariahs, which is a social consequence. You can be a bigot. You can be a zealot. It might make you unpopular, but it’s your right.
Nice discussion. A few quick points.
1 – The cake designer case is such a strange case to get so much attention. But let’s look at it from a different perspective. What if a Nazi went into a Jewish cake designer’s shop and asked for a cake with Adolph Hitler’s face on it? It seems right that the Jewish designer can say, “Nope, not doing that.” Or a MAGA goes into a shop wanting a cake with Trump and Putin smiling at each other, we want the cake designer to be able to say, “Nope, not on your life.” But seriously, WHAT’S THE HARM (this is a key question in any civil case). Just go find another cake designer that will put your beliefs or politics on the cake. The harm amounts to 30 minutes and a gallon of gas. There are more important legal and social issues to argue about than having to drive across town to find a different cake designer.
2 – Parental opt-outs should be available but limited. When I was a kid, the only class any parent wanted to maybe have a kid opt out of was sex ed. Now you might have a MAGA parent who objects to half the curriculum (history, science, health class, and probably literature). There are private schools of all varieties these days, as well as home school options, for parents who object to the whole idea of public education. We shouldn’t allow conservative parents who act out their kooky political ideas about reality by objecting to dozens of books and topics to undermine the whole public education enterprise for the rest of us.
Dave B
I wouldn’t get a cake from that place cuz I don’t want my wedding guests poisoned. That’s even if I don’t have a car and it’s the only bakery in town.
Nobody is forcing a vegetarian restaurant to serve meat. Or a Thai to serve tex-mex.
There’s a family story about my 20 yo mother in a Parisian restaurant in um, 1952. She kept sending her steak back to be cooked. Finally the chef stormed out carrying a fish, and kept slamming it against the table yelling he wasn’t ruining the meat. And my startled mom kept saying the steak needed to be cooked. The artistic vision of the master chef lost out and somebody cooked it to her specification.
The issue is can the government protect marginalized groups from discrimination in public accommodations and employment. After all, they can go sit at another lunch counter.
Interesting that you give “Islamic legal traditions that put non-Muslims in second class status legally” as an example of legally-enforced bigotry, but not “Jewish legal traditions that put non-Jews in second class status legally.” Anti-Semitism, but not Islamophobia. You, Hawkgrrrl, are a bigot.
We’re living in an age where we’ve enjoyed more religious freedom than we’ve ever had in the US and many other countries in the developed world. The cries of white Christian nationalist evangelicals (and many white Mormon nationalists) about losing their religious freedom because gays ask for a cake or because scientific truth is taught at school are all, and I mean all, pathetic and weak. Where religious freedom is being impinged upon is by right-wing Christian nationalist crusades against Muslim freedoms. The court system has been infested with right-wing loons and incompetents who refuse to acknowledge a spade as a spade.
Zla’od, first point is that Hawk couldn’t name every form of religious persecution of others, yeah she left off that Jews are persecuting and even trying genocide of Moslems. She also left off some of the religious genocide in India and Africa. Second, there is more of a problem with Moslems persecuting …. Well, everyone except male Moslems, because there are more countries with Moslem led governments than there are countries with Jewish led governments and more countries where there is a majority that could take over. So, it is a bigger problem. Personally, as a woman I would much rather live in Israel under their discrimination against Christians than live in Afghanistan under their religious persecution of women. There is simply more to be afraid of.
“The lesson of this case isn’t that LGBTQ+ stories should be removed from schools. It’s that inclusion must be paired with choice”
Thank you, Observer, for revealing the staggering incompetence of the courts and their cowardice in the face of radical white Christian nationalist bigotry. Just replace LGBTQ+ with black, Asian, Jewish, etc. and then see how that sounds.
gebanks, “The basis for refusing the cake was that making a special cake celebrating a gay wedding is an artistic endeavor”
And try appealing to artistic endeavor to defend refusal of business to interracial couples and see how that sounds. You think that the cake makers aren’t driven by bigotry in refusing to create a cake for a same-sex couple?
Brad – if you read the Supreme Court opinion in question, you’d see that the answer to your question makes no difference in determining the outcome.
I’m curious, why are Christians singled out for opposing LGBTQ when Islam is even more severe about the issue? In the case about parental choice in Maryland it was Muslims joining with Catholics and other Christians to oppose mandatory LGBTQ instruction.
And yes, America is wonderful about religious liberty and the freedom of conscience. May it always be this way. The freedom to offend others and to be offended is wonderful. So the next time you feel offended, smile and recognize that as an American you are free to be offended and to offend others with your words and beliefs.
Better yet, stop taking offense that people think differently than you. A person who doesn’t want to bake you a cake or take your photos is not hurting you! And more importantly, recognize that you benefit from the same freedom. To be free means no person can demand you give your time, talents and effort to their cause. Imagine if it were otherwise – a writer could be hired and forced to write political ads for causes he/she disliked.
Lastly, the history of the Supreme Court debating this issue is long and worth reviewing. There are principles / tests that have been developed to guide these decisions and I recommend reviewing them – AI is really good at explaining legal arguments!
If you think that homophobia has nothing to do with this, then I have a bridge to sell you. No bigotry, no case. That is the basis of the case. The denial of service because of homophobia. Mental gymnastics and corrupt figures in the court led to the unjust outcome. The case was always a no brainer. If no court in their wildest imagination would justify a business denying any service whatsoever because of a client’s skin color, there shouldn’t be a second thought as to the legitimacy of the denial of any service whatsoever simply on the basis of a client’s sexual orientation.
“Better yet, stop taking offense that people think differently than you”
Speak for yourself. Your comments suggest you are deeply offended by liberals in what they say and do. So much that you regularly create a strawman of them and beat that to death. Plus here you defend the offended: Christian bigots offended by the mere existence of LGBTQs. You think liberals get offense. Just take a look at the conservative world. A whole culture built on offendedness and irrational rage.
A Disciple: Should Ruby Bridges’ parents have also just shrugged and said “No big deal! White people just don’t want our kids in their schools. We’ll just go somewhere else”?
“To be free means no person can demand you give your time, talents and effort to their cause” To an extent I agree, but there’s a limit. For example, if you are a high school science teacher, and you think evolution is against your religion because it undermines God’s divinity, well, I don’t think you should be teaching high school science.
“ A person who doesn’t want to bake you a cake or take your photos is not hurting you! ”
I’ve read a lot of crap on the internet but this takes the cake. Having your neighbors refuse your patronage is them not seeing you. It’s them saying we don’t like you, we don’t want you here, we wish you would leave or not exist or stop being different because it’s making me uncomfortable. It’s about more than a cake.
People might understand this level of rejection unless their privilege has shielded them from it. Whatever happened to mourning with those that mourn?
What an obnoxious, disgusting and tiresome post. You are just name-calling in an effort to protect your own self-image of being a more virtuous (“less bigoted”) person than others. It is this kind of radically gynocentric thinking that has flushed western society down the tubes.
The wedding cake baker is part of the professional world. If the professional cake baker can refuse service to a gay couple, then can a realtor refuse to show single family homes to gay couples? After all, the realtor may have a religious belief that gay couples aren’t real families and shouldn’t live in a neighborhood that the realtor believes is better suited to straight families. And so it goes. If the baker can say no, then you’ve opened the door to segregation again.
The difference, as I see it, is that LGBT want to be treated as ordinary people – fully accepted into the community and treated with respect in every business. The religious people are trying to reject their very existence. These are not the same thing. A Christian trying to wall off LGBT people from ever crossing his field of vision is infringing on the LGBT right to exist in public. A professional baker can be a Christian and still treat an LGBT couple as a professional should, and exchange money for services. Christians get to exist in public. They even send people door to door to tell you about why Christians are so great. That’s annoying, but they get to exist in public too. It’s odd that Christians think they’re the only ones being imposed upon by the existence of other people.
I know a lot of LGBT people who have been hurt and traumatized by being raised Christian. And yet we do not have LGBT people asking that their children be excused from the parts of the curriculum that talk about Christianity in history. It exists. So LGBT people have to deal with it. LGBT people exist; and Christian ought to learn to deal with it. Many have.
Odd that it’s only the culture war religious issues that makes conservatives so touchy. Do the religious people need accommodations for religious beliefs that aren’t hot topics right now? Marriott didn’t refuse to supply coffeepots in Marriott hotels because of his religious beliefs. Christians work on Sundays. People waving their Christian beliefs in our faces are cruel to the poor. If the wedding cake baker is going to refuse service to LGBT couples because of his religious beliefs, I hope he is checking for virginity in all the straight couples, because chastity before marriage is an important religious belief too. Why is it just the anti-LGBT beliefs that need religious accommodations? The baker should also ask for a religious accommodation so that he never has to bake a wedding cake for someone who isn’t a virgin.
I’m firmly in favor of pluralism. Many Christians are realizing that God is fine with the LGBT+ population.
J: “radically gynocentric”? Weird take, my dude.
קידושין serves as a משל which teaches the נמשל ‘Never Again’. Post the Final Solution no European State shall ever again dictate any other “solution” to the Jewish people. Never again a ‘Final Solution’ and Never again a ‘Two State Solution’.
Vector bearing azimuths in both T’NaCH and Talmud to make inductive logic case/rule comparison between similar judicial cases. Prophets, they serve as the shotrim of the Shoftim of the Sanhedrin Federal courtrooms. These prophetic shotrim serve as the enforcers of Sanhedrin court judicial rulings. Prophets do not exist separate or divorced from serving as shotrim police enforcers of Sanhedrin common judicial rulings. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.
דתני האיש מקדש. מה שדה מקניא בחליפין אף אשה נמי מקניא
Legal mechanisms of acquisition (kinyan), an abstract idea rather than a physical acquisition. The act of acquisition entails the husband acquiring title to the Name of the future born children which this marital union will ideally produce. Hence the symbolic “exchange” involves not the woman herself but rather the acquisition of the unborn children born into the future or O’lam Ha’bah of this marital union.
The depth of the legal and symbolic meanings behind kinyan-acquistitions in the context of marriage, basically a Man cannot love that which he does not own. The basic standard Torah definition for “Love” as a secondary Torah precedent commandment. It illustrates that marital acquisition – rejects treating the woman as property. But rather about establishing a framework for family, legacy, and spiritual continuity of the oath brit-chosen Cohen seed of the Avot.
Our Gemara now makes a study of T’NaCH kabbalah prophetic mussar sources which shall in their turn require making bearing azimuth precedent comparison similar cases. Its this wisdom of Torah scholarship which ties Talmudic common law with T’NaCH prophetic mussar common law.
Upon this chief cornerstone common law sh’itta of Torah scholarship all generations have “this” obligation from their fathers to learn. A man acquires his wife in the name of producing children and educating those future born children in the faith to righteously pursue judicial justice among our Cohen people.
The first precedent דברים כד:א: “כי יקח איש אשה”, this פרט resides within the sugya כלל of כד:א – ד. This sugya linked to the three earlier sugyot כג:כב-כד וכג:כה. וכג:כו. The subject matter of these three small sugyot vows, respect of a neighbors property and goods as does likewise the next single p’suk sugya. Our p’suk כד:א addresses כי מצא בה ערות דבר וכתב לא ספר כריתת. The דיוק made from this pasuk, just as get defined as a mitzva from the Torah so too קידושין a mitzva from the Torah. The acquisition of קידושין once profaned through a divorce cannot thereafter be acquired again. Just as a korban, once dedicated for a Shoah offering, this korban cannot later be substituted for some other korban dedication, such as an asham dedication. Once a man acquires title to the Nefesh O’lam Ha’bah soul of his wife, even God himself cannot intervene and father a child from this woman! A distinctly unique idea which the Greek God Zeus did when he fathered Hercules from a married woman.
In Greek & New Testament mythology, divine intervention often disrupts human relationships and moral boundaries. Jewish judicial common law emphasizes the sanctity of marriage and the importance of fidelity. The notion that a husband acquires the soul of his wife and that this bond protected by a Torah oath alliance, reflects the seriousness with which Jewish law treats marriage. קידושין emphasizes the importance of fidelity, commitment, and the spiritual dimensions of the marital relationship visa-vis tohor time-oriented commandments which continuously create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין.
This Torah wisdom reinforces the values of respect and responsibility within the context of family and community. The pasuk בראשית כג:יז located within the larger sugya of בראשית כג:א-כ. Sarah did not survive the horrors of the Akedah, where Yitzak swore an oath brit that if HaShem would save the chosen Cohen seed from shoah, that he dedicates the O’lam Ha’bah life of his future born seed to do Torah mitzvot as the defining cultural trait of the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot.
Avraham refers to himself as a גר תושב person of status. Interesting any גר תושב accepts, while living inside the borders of Judea, to keep the 7 mitzvot bnai noach. Why? Observance of commandments, specifically גרי תושב commandments as defined in Masechet Sanhedrin, referred thereafter as the 7 mitzvot bnai Noach, this temporary Torah obligation permits the גר תושב to sue an Israel for damages in a Jewish court of law. By contrast the Nacree/Canaani, as defined in masechet Baba Kama, did not enjoy the judicial legal protections enjoyed by the ger toshav.
Therefore our Av Mishna likewise comes to distinguish and define the rights of women in Torah common law. A ordinary woman does not possess the legal right to acquire a Man, except and unless she qualifies as a significant status, such as being a tribal chief. For example: the prophetess Devorah as a sho’ter. The concept of judicial authority existed during the time of Deborah. Both Moshe and Yehoshua established the 6 cities of refuge with their Small Sanhedrin courtrooms.
Deborah served as a judge and prophetess in Israel, leading her people during a time of oppression. The Aggadic story found in the Book of שופטים (פרק ד וה), which depicts her as a leader who inspired Barak to lead the Israelites against the Canaanite army. Prophets forever and always serve as the shot’rim of the sanhedrin common law courtrooms. This fundamental נפקא מינא both the fraudulent counterfeit books NT and Koran failed to discern.
Abraham’s acquisition of the Cave wherein he buried Sarah compares to the mitzva of קידושין, ideally both sets of acquisitions shall permanently maintain this status. The status of a married woman, higher than the status of a virgin unmarried woman. The NT virgin Mary theology perverts this Torah priority all together into a foreign alien Av tuma avoda zarah religion.
The pasuk ירמיה לב:כה contained inside the larger sugya כלל: לב:טז-כה. The comparison of Avraham as a גר תושב to the people of Canaan compares to Israel invaded by the Armies of Babylon. Avraham demanded to pay the full price for Sarah’s burial plot due to his outright distrust of the faithfulness of the nations of Canaan. Israel too, in the days of Yirmeyahu failed to rule the oath sworn lands with righteous judicial justice – no different that the cursed nations of Canaan; its judges accepted bribes and perverted law.
T’NaCH common law requires Torah scholars to shoot a bearing azimuth and find a comparable Case/Din prophetic mussar. This Torah wisdom in essence defines how to study T’NaCH Primary Sources through the skill of learning by means of comparing similar Case/Din rulings. A similar mussar Case/Din ירמיה ח:יג-יז. The דיוק learned from קידושין, divorce – and the Torah curse of g’lut. Herein this T’NaCH kabbalah frames the k’vanna of the tohor time oriented Torah commandment expressed through the דיוק-inference of the Av tohor time-oriented commandment of קידושין.
T’NaCH common law requires Torah scholars to shoot a bearing azimuth and find a comparable Case/Din prophetic mussar. This Torah wisdom in essence defines how to study T’NaCH Primary Sources through the skill of inductive logical learning, by means of comparing similar Case/Din rulings through ‘compare and contrast’ sharpened reasoning skills. A similar mussar Case/Din ירמיה ח:יג-יז. The דיוק learned from קידושין, from divorce, and the Torah curse of g’lut, these 3 Case/Din prophetic mussar add a layer of internal k’vanna to observance of ritual commandments. Herein this T’NaCH kabbalah frames the k’vanna of all tohor time-oriented Torah commandments, not limited only or specifically merely to the mitzva of קידושין.
תני האשה נקנית וניתני התם האיש קונה. מעיקא תני לישנא דאורייתא ולבסוף תני לישנא דרבנן. ומאי לישנא דרבנן דאמר לה אשה קנויה לעולם מהקדש וניתני הכא דאיש קינה משום דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא וקונה את אצמה
What does the language אשה קנויה לעולם מהקדש? This refers to the oath brit sworn between the pieces wherein HaShem cut a brit with Avram that his future born Cohen seed would number the stars in the heavens for multitude. Torah common law always learns by means of prior precedent rulings. Any attempt to read the Talmud, as if it existed as a common book of pleasurable reading, like fiction – utterly false.
The Talmud stands upon the mandate of the Torah as the working Constitution of the Republic. Upon this יסוד both the T’NaCH and Talmud stand as the Central Primary Sources which function as the basis by which the rabbis weave the culture and customs which the Cohen people wear like unto garments by which HaShem gave to Adam and Chava in the Garden. Just as the mitzva of קידושין represents a permanent status, so too and how much more so – the Torah as the Constitution of the Republic stands as a permanent status. However the perverse transformation of קידושין merely as a rabbinic commandment – set off a chain of consequences, like a rock thrown into a pond makes a ripple effect. Understanding קידושין limited only as a ritual rabbinic mitzva, this perversion changed the status of the Torah away from a Constitutional basic law document unto a religious law of ritual observances as codified in the assimilated statute law Shulkan Aruch. Torah common law bears no resemblance to assimilated statute law, any more than a bastard child born from adultery, resembles the profaned husband’s קידושין with his wife.