Reader comments
Courts limit our right to just say no
37 comments | Read story
you've hit gold | 6:10 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Doug--Once again, you've hit gold. Loved your list of the possible
we'll see in the future.
Couldn't help adding a few.
Will Sports Illustrated be required to include some very large, overweight willing-to-bear-all women for their Swimsuit Calendar??
Will Prosche and Lexus dealers be forced to also include new Fords and Chevys on their lots??
Will Nordstroms and Dillards have to provide items priced the same as WalMart??
Will the BCS be required to accept any team for a bowl game berth, even lesbian teams??
Couldn't help adding a few.
Will Sports Illustrated be required to include some very large, overweight willing-to-bear-all women for their Swimsuit Calendar??
Will Prosche and Lexus dealers be forced to also include new Fords and Chevys on their lots??
Will Nordstroms and Dillards have to provide items priced the same as WalMart??
Will the BCS be required to accept any team for a bowl game berth, even lesbian teams??
bartonjabber | 6:39 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
We've gone too far in our society and a lot of the reason? We have failed
to elect and track the judges of our country. We were warned. We did not and
do not listen.
Comments continue below
re: strange territory | 7:05 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
This doesn't make sense:
1) A gay couple claims they have the right to marry
2) A Christian pastor claims he has the right to choose to NOT marry the couple because of his religious beliefs.
The first example can sue and win. The second example will lose. Why does one class of people have a right and the other doesn't?
Why couldn't the gay couple just go to another pastor and get married rather than suing the first one?
1) A gay couple claims they have the right to marry
2) A Christian pastor claims he has the right to choose to NOT marry the couple because of his religious beliefs.
The first example can sue and win. The second example will lose. Why does one class of people have a right and the other doesn't?
Why couldn't the gay couple just go to another pastor and get married rather than suing the first one?
froinlaven | 7:17 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Why is it that an article about tort reform concentrations exclusively on
homosexuals?
Do straight people not file just as many frivolous lawsuits? Trying to imply that "the gays" somehow have a corner on that market is irresponsible, Doug.
The court system needs work, but not because of homosexuals.
Do straight people not file just as many frivolous lawsuits? Trying to imply that "the gays" somehow have a corner on that market is irresponsible, Doug.
The court system needs work, but not because of homosexuals.
themanwiththeplan | 7:24 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
I think a business should be able to discriminate on any basis--even race!
Think about what would happen if a restaurant decided not to serve African-Americans. Public pressure and protests would force them to change their rules or go out of business. That's how you change the behavior of businesses, not by court rulings.
Think about what would happen if a restaurant decided not to serve African-Americans. Public pressure and protests would force them to change their rules or go out of business. That's how you change the behavior of businesses, not by court rulings.
uncannygunman | 7:31 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Based on the cases presented, shouldn't the headline read
"LEGISLATURES limit our right . . ."? The first two cases (and
probably the third as well) result in the enforcement of laws passed by the
local legislature.
Is it only Christian beliefs? | 7:39 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
I noticed on cases #1 and #3, it was those professing Christian beliefs and
values that were found guilty by the courts.
What if a Jew or Buddhist or Atheist refused to accept these certain clients or perform these certain procedures because they had personal feelings or values to the contrary?? Who has greater rights, a Buddhist or someone who is gay? An atheist or a lesbian??
What if a Jew or Buddhist or Atheist refused to accept these certain clients or perform these certain procedures because they had personal feelings or values to the contrary?? Who has greater rights, a Buddhist or someone who is gay? An atheist or a lesbian??
The constitution... | 7:45 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
...as it was writen prohibits the governemnt from interfering with the free
practice of religion. If a doctor, pastor or businessman refuses service on the
basis of their religious belief the courts should have no say in the matter.
Questions and answers | 7:56 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Doug asks alot of questions, and the simple answer is if in any "human
rights" question the plaintiff is a member of an aggreived minority and the
defendant is white Christian and male, then no discrimination will be
allowed.
But it will never go the other way; Muslim mosques will not be required to perform gay marriages, for example.
Kinda like hate crime laws: They were never intended to protect the rights and property of straight white Christian males.
Got it now?
But it will never go the other way; Muslim mosques will not be required to perform gay marriages, for example.
Kinda like hate crime laws: They were never intended to protect the rights and property of straight white Christian males.
Got it now?
Dave | 7:57 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Our 'free' country continues to become less 'free', all in
the name of fairness.
lost in DC | 8:02 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Doug seems to pointing out that the misjudges who issued the opinions he cites
have forgotten the part of the first amendment to the constitution banning
government from prohibiting the free expression of religion. Oh well, it's
PC for the misjudges to do what they have done, and we know that political
correctness trumps the constitution every time.
Natural Law Prevails | 8:18 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
The judges who have ruled in these cases do not understand the law. The
Constitution establishes law in the United States; it is the supreme law of the
land. It is based on natural law, for which the Declaration of Independence set
a precedent. The Declaration of Independence is organic law; it is clear that
these documents base all law on natural law, which is God's law. If a judge
rules inconsistently with God's law, he or she is violating the supreme law
of the land. These judges need to go back to law school and study Blackstone and
a few others to learn their law. So the answer to the question by some is, yes,
it is based on Christian beliefs and values. That was how we established the law
of THIS LAND. If you live in this land, you are subject to that law. Is that
discrimination? Absolutely. Anything immoral or amoral is a violation of natural
law and therefore not legal. It is that simple.
Booker | 9:40 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Interesting column. Pope John Paul II pointed out late in his life that civil
rights issues will be a great tool for Satan in the future. He was right on.
Take the photos | 9:49 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
If I were that photographer, I would have taken the job, charged a high rate,
and made photos that would be on the level of a 10 year old. I would then sue if
they gay couple refused to pay.
come on children | 10:15 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Why are these examples the only ones ever trotted out by those who support
discrimination and bigotry? Are there really so few examples of gays trying to
get equal treatment? As far as frivolous lawsuits are concerned, how about the
guy who sued because his pants were lost and wanted millions of dollars.
I'm sorry, 10's of thousands of ridiculous suits are filed each year.
Robinson uses these suits by gays as if they are the only ones in the country
trying to seek redress for perceived wrongs. Such bias, such bigotry. . .
Robinson would do well to listen to the measured words offered by the LDS
leaders concerning this matter.
Chance Williams | 11:01 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Since it's the Deseret News, I won't get sued for quoting scripture
will I?
Alma 10:27 And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges.
--------------
Add to this "Ethics of our Law-makers/Legislators"
Alma 10:27 And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges.
--------------
Add to this "Ethics of our Law-makers/Legislators"
Interesting point | 11:12 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
on "frivolous lawsuits." Did the guy with the million dollar pants win
and set a precedent? I think you know the answer. Nice misdirection, though. The
eHarmony case boggles the mind. These examples are scary because frivolous and
unjust WON. He didn't even use the case of the Mass. people trying to have
the public school system let them opt out their children from homosexual
"diversity" education. You know, the kind of case that the California
people said was just a "scare tactic?"
scary scary gays | 11:32 a.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Many "frivolous" lawsuits win. So what? That is the way America
works. The eHarmony case is an excellent example of blatant discrimination and
is NOT a frivolous lawsuit. Why should a company offer the PUBLIC a service and
then deny accommodating a segment of the public because of... Actually, I am
unaware of a reason why eHarmony originally denied gays the use of their
services. It must not have been a very deep reason (unlike the undying bigotry
of many groups) because they quickly offered gays the same services they offer
straights. This is the way it should be. If religions want to discriminate and
be biased that is their right. But time after time the courts have ruled that
it is WRONG for businesses to discriminate and treat different groups of people
unfairly.
RedShirt | 12:24 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
To "scary scary gays | 11:32 a.m." what is worse to discriminate based
on sexual orientation or religion?
If you look at the cases that were presented, sexual orientation trumps religion. Religion is directly addressed in the Constitution as "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." In otherwords, the state cannot have laws that limit somebody's freedoms. By ruling against the people that had religious grounds you in effect limit their rights.
The people who sued could find the same service elsewhere. The lesbian who had the fertility Dr refuse to treat here was not denied fertility treatment, she went and had 3 kids. The Dr. made a business decision, for good or bad, it was his choice.
Freedom isn't about being able to do whatever you want, but is about having choices and being able to choose the consequences of those choices.
If you look at the cases that were presented, sexual orientation trumps religion. Religion is directly addressed in the Constitution as "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." In otherwords, the state cannot have laws that limit somebody's freedoms. By ruling against the people that had religious grounds you in effect limit their rights.
The people who sued could find the same service elsewhere. The lesbian who had the fertility Dr refuse to treat here was not denied fertility treatment, she went and had 3 kids. The Dr. made a business decision, for good or bad, it was his choice.
Freedom isn't about being able to do whatever you want, but is about having choices and being able to choose the consequences of those choices.
Humm | 12:45 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Why is it that a belief that a person is born gay is more important than a
belief in God?
I am adamant in my belief that a person chooses to be gay and is not born gay. I am also adamant in my belief in God and my commitment to obeying His commandments.
I acknowledge that many people have a complete opposite opinion to me on both counts and I respect their right to believe as they choose.
But, why should I be forced to provide a service that I unequivocally believe is a violation of God's laws?
I find the rulings on these three examples to be completely disrepectful of a God-fearing person's right to uphold his/her religious beliefs. To me this is as intolerable as the acts that caused our Founding Fathers to sign the Declaration of Independence.
I am adamant in my belief that a person chooses to be gay and is not born gay. I am also adamant in my belief in God and my commitment to obeying His commandments.
I acknowledge that many people have a complete opposite opinion to me on both counts and I respect their right to believe as they choose.
But, why should I be forced to provide a service that I unequivocally believe is a violation of God's laws?
I find the rulings on these three examples to be completely disrepectful of a God-fearing person's right to uphold his/her religious beliefs. To me this is as intolerable as the acts that caused our Founding Fathers to sign the Declaration of Independence.
Reason | 12:52 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Doug Robinson: Good column. This is what we get when activist judges abuse
their high position in order to enforce their own views of what is politically
correct. Consequently, more and more politically correct
�victims� gleefully use the courts as
a convenient way to intimidate, punish, and silence those who disagree with
them. The prevailing standards of morality are lowered and freedom is lost.
All three rulings are a sad commentary on our modern era.
Legal Concerns | 1:36 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
I agree with uncannygunman. Generally, these sorts of cases are not the result
of "activist" judges, but of citizens and legislators who have passed
laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Looking at the
anti-discrimination laws in these states, it is unsurprising that these results
occurred. The basis of these laws comes from the racist practices found in some
states until the 1960s. At that time it was considered normal to prevent
african-americans from eating in a restaurant or sleeping in a hotel. Today
those protections have been enlarged to include a large number of other
minorities, from those who are disabled to homosexuals. Whether this is good or
bad is a mixed question based on a person's own moral beliefs. My point is
that the judges in these cases were only upholding laws that clearly prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation. We shouldn't blame the judges
as corrupt or immoral for doing their job. Rather, if we disagree, we should
seek to change the law.
the truth | 2:42 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
And So, the attacks against anyone PRACTICING or EXERCISING christianity
PUBLICALLY continues.
When you take freedom from one, you take away freedom from all.
ARE Christians not allowed to PUBLICLY practice/exercise their religion?
Doesn't the first admendment say so?, or does it not have any meaning any more?
When you take freedom from one, you take away freedom from all.
ARE Christians not allowed to PUBLICLY practice/exercise their religion?
Doesn't the first admendment say so?, or does it not have any meaning any more?
Sliding Society | 3:15 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Hey scary scary gays--The company is PRIVATE. It's a business offering a
service to a segment of the population it wants to fill a need for and make a
profit. It's not a government agency. A PRIVATE business should be able
to serve the markets it wants. And interesting point, this isn't
frivolous. Some guy losing his pants has nothing to do with morals or freedoms.
It's not even on the same planet as forcing those who believe in
traditional marriage to perform gay marrianges or who don't believe in
abortion to perform services against their beliefs. We are talking about
freedom of choice.
numberless | 3:19 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
"Why should a company offer the PUBLIC a service and then deny
accommodating a segment of the public because of..."
It's not a PUBLIC service. It's a private business offering a service to people who are willing to pay for it. Just because you do business with the population does not make you "public." Ever seen the sign, "We reserve the right to refuse service..." Can I sue McDonald's for not offering me a New York stake? I want that service from them! I deserve it!
"public" = "government" and/or "paid for by tax dollars." That's the biggest problem with this country, everyone thinks they're entitled to whatever they want from who and where they want it. A private business CAN refuse service to someone based on race... and they can try and survive the public backlash from doing so too.
It's not a PUBLIC service. It's a private business offering a service to people who are willing to pay for it. Just because you do business with the population does not make you "public." Ever seen the sign, "We reserve the right to refuse service..." Can I sue McDonald's for not offering me a New York stake? I want that service from them! I deserve it!
"public" = "government" and/or "paid for by tax dollars." That's the biggest problem with this country, everyone thinks they're entitled to whatever they want from who and where they want it. A private business CAN refuse service to someone based on race... and they can try and survive the public backlash from doing so too.
Dan | 3:23 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
This is a sad day indeed for America. Now courts are telling the public, in
essence, that everyone MUST cater to the wants and whims of basically anyone -
or face serious sanctions. What has become of our freedoms? Since when can the
courts tell anyone that their private business must cater to anyone and
everyone?
These sorts of things are supposed to be limited to government entities supported by taxpayers (some of whom are gay, midgets, trolls, whoremongers or what-have-you). But to require the same thing of private businesses? Absolutely outrageous!!
It is time the judicial system in this country gets reined in. Time and time again, activist judges have overstepped their bounds, defying the will of the people, ignoring long-established statutes and traditions, and interpreting the Constitution as they please. Now they have gone a step further - completely trampling the Constitution under their tyrannical feet!!
It has got to stop. These judges have no right to be de-facto kings, which is how they are behaving. The government of the United States is "of the people, by the people, for the people."
These sorts of things are supposed to be limited to government entities supported by taxpayers (some of whom are gay, midgets, trolls, whoremongers or what-have-you). But to require the same thing of private businesses? Absolutely outrageous!!
It is time the judicial system in this country gets reined in. Time and time again, activist judges have overstepped their bounds, defying the will of the people, ignoring long-established statutes and traditions, and interpreting the Constitution as they please. Now they have gone a step further - completely trampling the Constitution under their tyrannical feet!!
It has got to stop. These judges have no right to be de-facto kings, which is how they are behaving. The government of the United States is "of the people, by the people, for the people."
Reason | 12:52 p.m. | 3:28 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Amen!!!
Tomtrilobite | 5:05 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Mr. Robinson errs in treating this solely as a "religious conscience"
issue. The reason the plaintiffs prevailed in each of the three cases he cites
is because the issue was rightly seen as a "civil rights" issue. On
that basis, the decisions reached in New Mexico (where I reside), in New Jersey,
and California, were entirely correct. The Legislature in those three states
rightly established "sexual orientation" as a suspect classification
for purposes of deciding whether certain kinds of commercial speech and actions
are acceptable. Fortunately, the days when black people can be turned away from
the lunch counter because they supposedly have the "mark of Cain" are
well behind us, and good riddence. Similar kinds of discrimination (i.e.,
hatred) against gay people should also not be tolerated. If people desire to
continue their hatred of gays in their homes and in their churches, fine. But
let's keep it out of the marketplace.
No turning back? | 6:35 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
Doug Robinson, since when is there no turning back? There was "turning
back" from the evil USSR regime. This isn't even that bad. All we
need to do is vote certain politicians (yes judges are politicians too[by
choice]) out of office.
Dan Bradford | 11:08 p.m. Nov. 25, 2008
All legislation or judicial decision that forces one person to associate with
another person is an abridgement of the 1st Ammendment that says, "Congress
shall make no law respecting... the right of people to peaceably assemble...
." This has also been interpreted by the Supreme Court as the right of
assocuiation. If we have the right to associate we have the converse right to
not associate. Forcing businesses or individuals to provide service to
(associate with) those with whom they choose no not to associate is an
abridgement.
Forcing all restaurants to enforce smoking bans is an example. Why not let restaurants choose whether or not to allow smoking and then customers can exercise their freedom of association by deciding whether or not to patronize that restaurant.
Leonard E. Read wrote a book titled "Anything That's Peaceful". The premise is that govenment should not prohibit anything that is peaceful, even if we don't like it or agree with it. That is truly being tolerant.
Having our freedom sometimes means disagreeing with how others exercise their freedom. Do we really want to limit the freedom of other just because we may disagree with what they peaceably do with it?
Forcing all restaurants to enforce smoking bans is an example. Why not let restaurants choose whether or not to allow smoking and then customers can exercise their freedom of association by deciding whether or not to patronize that restaurant.
Leonard E. Read wrote a book titled "Anything That's Peaceful". The premise is that govenment should not prohibit anything that is peaceful, even if we don't like it or agree with it. That is truly being tolerant.
Having our freedom sometimes means disagreeing with how others exercise their freedom. Do we really want to limit the freedom of other just because we may disagree with what they peaceably do with it?
Kevin | 7:25 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008
"In the U.S., the majority decides what morality is," so says Doug
Robinson.
In my opinion, in the U.S., the mob does not rule. We elect our government, which in turn appoints the judiciary.
Be outraged, if you must, when the majority opinion gets shot down. But if you think that is a breach of our system of governance, think again.
In my opinion, in the U.S., the mob does not rule. We elect our government, which in turn appoints the judiciary.
Be outraged, if you must, when the majority opinion gets shot down. But if you think that is a breach of our system of governance, think again.
Wishful Thinking | 9:20 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008
At some point I would like to see monogamous heterosexuals placed on the list of
affected minorities. There are obviously some huge perks. If I was ever
offended by a gruff waiter/waitress I could sue the restaurant for intolerance.
If I was ever given a diagnoses by my doctor that I did not like I could sue for
defamamtion. Photographers, Schools, Libraries, Churches, the list is endless.
Where do I sign up??
Alan Cunningham | 1:36 p.m. Nov. 26, 2008
Robinson, stay out of legal affairs. You are not a trained lawyer nor or you an
open-minded journalist. Leave it alone already, you're bigoted comments
are not welcome.
Alan Cunningham | 3:25 p.m. Nov. 26, 2008
Doug Robinson: Utah's self appointed expert on all things right and wrong;
good and bad. I thought that title belonged to Gayle Ruzicka. We now have a
male counterpart. How wonderful.
Anonymous | 5:47 p.m. Nov. 26, 2008
I agree with the first comment and urge people to resist the prejudiced dialogue
of ill-advised and angry journalists like Doug Robinson.
You make me laugh | 4:48 p.m. Nov. 28, 2008
LDS should have the right to practice their religion.
Gays should have the right to live their life with the same rules that the LDS get to have.
The problem is...LDS don't want things "equal". They want just a little something more that the "gays" can't have.
Stop whining about it. keep your religion to yourself and Gay's will go away and leave you alone.
But...I'll bet you can't do that because "GOD" told us not to... That's where you all go wrong. It doesn't have to be "equal" if GOD said so, so you use that as your reason to persicute those that don't believe as you do!!!!
Lastly...I'll be surprised if this makes it past your LDS sensor...
Gays should have the right to live their life with the same rules that the LDS get to have.
The problem is...LDS don't want things "equal". They want just a little something more that the "gays" can't have.
Stop whining about it. keep your religion to yourself and Gay's will go away and leave you alone.
But...I'll bet you can't do that because "GOD" told us not to... That's where you all go wrong. It doesn't have to be "equal" if GOD said so, so you use that as your reason to persicute those that don't believe as you do!!!!
Lastly...I'll be surprised if this makes it past your LDS sensor...
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- BYU prof chosen for state board 6:55 p.m.
- Developer looking to buy RSL share 6:36 p.m.
- FLDS man sentenced to 10 years 6:20 p.m.
- Charter helps kids discover talents 6:17 p.m.
- Herbert talks land issues in D.C. 6:15 p.m.
- Good Samaritans help make arrest 6:05 p.m.
- Get a little culture: Probiotics 5:45 p.m.
- What exactly are probiotics? 5:45 p.m.
- Emeril's success? 'Great people' 5:45 p.m.
- Limeade Pie is a quick, easy dessert 5:42 p.m.
- Utah group finds homes for orphans
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges
- Y. tight ends talented tandem
- Jazz blow big lead, hang on
- Utes get extra motivation
- Senators want food tax restored
- Hair-pulling raises more questions
- BYU soccer incident still popular
- Lobo land like home for BYU lineman
- U. hopes to keep clicking
- House passes health care bill
259 - TCU showdown has big implications187
- Lobo suspended184
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys155
- Senators want food tax restored146
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd119
- No 'backlash' for pioneers, gays analogy104
- RSL rallies to advance103
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections97
Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar restaurants nationwide will honor...
Meghan McCain, the daughter of former presidential candidate John...
Advertisement
Latest comments
Richard Wilson and Austin Holt are both nationally ranked TE's out of HS. I...
I know one thing for sure and that is a UTE in not a chicken (SWOOP). UTAH...
Thanks fellas - You might have literally saved that officer. Being retired LE...
Having TCU go win a BCS game will mean far more for the conference as a...
The ordinances would make it illegal to fire or evict someone BECAUSE OF...
Thank you so very much for having the initiative to correct the illiteracy I...
The action was also based on POST discipline and a history that is...
There have been laws on the books since the mid-1960s establishing rules for...
To the 10:48 commentator, Forced conversions have been much more common...
Weak and Whinny!!!
Advertisements
As Americans, we are entitled to equal protection under the law. Equal protection under law means that you can't wholesale discriminate against a particular group of Americans. Robinson is trying to push that boundary into a strange new territory where anyone not like him can be marginalized.
Fight the temptation to be like Robinson - embrace the fact that all Americans deserve to be treated without prejudice.