Deseret News | 2 men cited in trespassing on LDS plaza

Reader comments
2 men cited in trespassing on LDS plaza

231 comments | Read story

We warned you... | 10:46 a.m. July 11, 2009

Back when the city sold this block to the church, it would be a thorn in the heart of our city. All welcome? Only Heterosexual Church Members and those who convert--all others not welcome.

John Pack Lambert | 10:46 a.m. July 11, 2009

the men were politely asked to leave, but instead of leaving they got confrontational. They knew that they were in violation of policy. The Church has the right to ban all homosexual expressions on its property. The Church has a right to enforce its rules and these men were intentionally seeking to create a scene.

John Pack Lambert | 10:55 a.m. July 11, 2009

To the 7:04 commentator,
They are also married.
Beyound that, what exactly were these two men doing? I strongly suspect it was much more intimate than anyone has admitted.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 10:58 a.m. July 11, 2009

It's going to be funny in 20 years when all this seems stupid, and you are on a street owned by a homosexual man and you turn to kiss your wife/girlfriend...lets see how you react to being told you are being inappopriate

What's the difference? | 11:00 a.m. July 11, 2009

For all of you who asked what the difference between a straight couple kissing and a homosexual couple kissing, I strongly encourage you to go to your nearest community college and enroll in a human biology or anatomy course. Then maybe you can learn about the difference about males & females and how really it's just plain gross for two dudes to kiss each other. It's not religion....it's science!

@KKGAY | 11:03 a.m. July 11, 2009

I NEVER picked Perez Hilton. He is bottom feeder and a poor excuse for a human being.

Mormon Abuser vs Gay Kissers | 11:04 a.m. July 11, 2009

It's hilarious to compare today's comments about the Mormon seminary teacher (who was arrested for having sexual relations with his student) and the comments here about the gays who kissed on the Temple grounds. Dozens of Mormons wrote in to say the kissers were "disgusting" perverts, while hundreds of Mormons wrote in to say what a "great guy" the seminary teacher was, and how we should reserve judgment because hey, nobody's perfect. Wow.

@9:59 | 11:05 a.m. July 11, 2009

No those people just harrass them on this board, or worse yet go out for an old fashion gay bashing.

John Pack Lambert | 11:08 a.m. July 11, 2009

From the two statements of those who were there it is clear that these people were acting to get attention. If the 5 to 7 minutes estimate is accurate, than none of the claims by some that they have similar situations is ture.
There is also an issue of what else they were doing besides kissing. The suggestions of the observers tend to lead to a view that this was a more intimate situation than what is implied by kissing, and there was contact elsewhere.

Utah's out of touch. | 11:09 a.m. July 11, 2009

No wonder the world views Utah as a backwoods state. Seriously, the LDS security was a bit heavy handed. It's not like it was some full-on make-out session on the Plaza. I've seen worse than what's described watching the brides and grooms posing for photos outside the temple. That's kissing WITH TONGUE.

Welcome to Utah, still 40 years behind the times.

Fredd | 11:13 a.m. July 11, 2009

They live in SLC and were walking home from the Gallivan Center. The Church agreed to a public easement for this very purpose. When the church realized they could not control behavior on a public easement they bought the property. Do you know there was a clause in the original contract that said if behavior on the public easement could not be controlled the sale was still valid? So all this was anticipated by the church. Read their blog for details. They could be lying of course, but it makes sense the way they tell it. And they were not intoxicated. And they were pushed to the ground and handcuffed by security. Its in other news reports.

You forget quickly! | 11:14 a.m. July 11, 2009

For a religion that was persecuted nearly to non-existence more than 100 years ago, the Mormons sure are quick to forget what it's like to be hated and discriminated against. Perhaps the die-hard Mormons need to go ponder and pray on the whole concept of love, tolerance and acceptance and remember what it was like when they were oppressed.

Anonymous | 11:14 a.m. July 11, 2009

Now I know how to treat the Mormon missionaries when they show up at my door repeatedly after being asked not to.

Albemar | 11:20 a.m. July 11, 2009

Very true, this store is indicative of the Gay Rights Movement. They are not going to be happy until they are treated exactly the same as every other human being. It appears that they will stand-up and challenge discrimination and prejudice at every turn. Hourly couples hug and kiss on this plaza and never is a word mentioned.

These stories continue to re-enforce the fact that Gays & Lesbians are not welcome in Utah. Why does the LDS Church and it's members continue to falsely claim love and compassion for people they show constant disdain for at every turn.

I have never and never will walk across the plaza, their square or enter their conference center. Why would anyone want to go where they are not welcome. But please don't be so disingenuous as to claim love for those they constantly discriminate against.

Anonymous | 11:34 a.m. July 11, 2009

Just when you think Utah could not possibly get any more ridiculous, something like this happens and you realize it can and will get worse.

@ Jack Lambert | 11:44 a.m. July 11, 2009

While I agree if those people who were "there" make accurate statements then yes, they were trying to get attention.

Unfortunately, people all the time on these boards claim to be eyewitnesses (on both sides of any given story) when they are more just trying to justify their position with fabricated stories. The only people who can have a fair assessment of what happened were the security guards and the two men that were cited.

While it is true that those stories are probably conflicting, it is really the only stories that can have any credibility.

Stenar | 11:55 a.m. July 11, 2009

According to the City Weekly article, the two men said at no point did they refuse to leave. They were never given that option by the church security guards, but immediately cuffed and the police were called.

Fight the power | 12:03 p.m. July 11, 2009

I seem to recall a black woman who once was asked politely to give up her seat on a bus and she refused. She broke the law by not giving up her seat in the black section of the bus to a white person. End of story?
Nope. Only by standing up against inequality will people change the world. Being a sheep as so many one here seem to think the gay couple should have been is sad. Injustice, even if technically legal, is wrong period. Hetero couples kiss all the time on temple square and are not asked to leave, Newlyweds make out quite graphically all the time.
I commend these men for standing up for their belief in equality. Even they did it to provoke, they were showing the double standards based on prejudice. They did the right thing, even if it was illegal.

DSB | 12:03 p.m. July 11, 2009

So easy for those with no standards to cry and whine about those with them. Guess what - MORMONS BELIEVE HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT MORAL!!! We live in peace with all kinds of people who engage in immoral behavior, including unmarried cohabitants, people who drink to excess, people who view pornography, people who are domineering and controlling. . . and people who are homosexuals. Why are Mormons obligated to accept what they consider immoral on their own property?

If you have a homosexual community and heterosexuality is frowned upon, I promise not to come into your community and make out with my wife.

When it comes to the church, there is no double standard - the single standard is appropriate heterosexual affection that does not go too far. If you think that's a double standard, good for you, but the private owner of a property does have the constitutional right to impose standards for his property - including double standards. You can do the same where you live, including inviting homosexual friends inside your home and asking Mormon missionaries to leave. If the Mormons won't leave upon request, I hope you call the police and have them forcibly removed.

Arizona | 12:04 p.m. July 11, 2009

Yep--just when you thought it couldn't get any more ridiculous, a couple of gay guys go onto church property to publicly display their affection and you realize that it can and will get worse--"gay activists" will see to that

Anonymous | 12:08 p.m. July 11, 2009

Dearest Deseret News Censors:

We love your lopsided view of the world and the anti-gay bigotry you promote with your editorial decisions.

Yes, your anti-gay bias is that obvious. It thoroughly discredits this paper as a legitimate source of news and it exposes its owners as hateful. irrational and dictatorial.

That shouldn't be a problem for the Deseret news and its owner.

to Utah's out of touch. | 12:23 p.m. July 11, 2009

I hope you are right. I hope we are 40 years behind the rest of a society bent on leaping headlong off a moral, spiritual, and ethical precipice. I don't think so, but I wish it were truee.

Seal it up and Close it Down! | 12:26 p.m. July 11, 2009

It is not Temple Square-it is a right-of-way--open to the public to get from one point to another in downtown SLC. It should have never been sold to the church in the first place.

What Would Jesus Do? | 12:28 p.m. July 11, 2009

He drove disrespectful sinners off Temple property with a whip. Security did the right thing.

Plaza should never have been.. | 12:30 p.m. July 11, 2009

The plaza should never have been made. No matter whether it was: given / sold or whatever a combination of deals made between the city and the church.

Buy it back SLC, bulldoze it and turn it back to Main Street. We all knew something like this was going to happen and give the church another PR disaster. It is already hitting the national press.

A “little bit of Paris indeed”.

Anonymous | 12:31 p.m. July 11, 2009

Thanks for the reminders.

I remember a vital Main Street in SLC. Once, walking Main Street, was great. Main Street was were I fell in love with what cities could offer. There was an wonderful absence of Disney like fuax themes, like malls have today.

Weather was part of the ambiance of cities. A rain or snow storm might cause you to seek shelter browsing through books at Sam Weller's books. You might be forced to find refuge in the Mayflower. In the heat, you sought relief watching a movie.

Main Street fell victim to Utah's unique culture. I've been to London, Frankfurt, Munich, Victoria, Geneva, Basel, Turin, Malan, San Francisco and many other cities. Only in Utah, could a church buy and construct a barrier, on the city's main thoroughfare.

In Strasbourg, Cologne and other cities giant Cathedrals mark the city center. These Cathedrals are many temples high. People can drink a beer, smoke and live there lives in the shadows of these Cathedrals.

In Utah, you life is under scrutiny, by the police of god if you get too near the temple. Utah will never have a little of Paris, its too provincial.

Rosa Parks Not | 12:52 p.m. July 11, 2009

"Fight the Power" is trying to make a civil rights analogy here that backfires. Rosa Parks courageously, and with aforethought, refused to comply with an immoral order on a PUBLIC bus. She was arrested and took her case to the courts and the people. She was not mistreated for sitting on a bus, but for being black. These two men carried out their "demonstration" (if that's what it was) on PRIVATE property and refused to stop or leave when politely asked by the property owners. No one has been escorted from church property simply for being gay. No relationship exists between the two scenarios. It is not moral for the gay couple to try to force their behavior on property owners--they have no standing and shouldn't have. The church (property owners in this case) makes no secret of the fact that it doesn't condone homosexual activity. In the eyes the owners (the LDS church), homosexual activity is offensive and not allowed on its property. And the gay couple involved has every right to bar representatives of the church from espousing their beliefs on the gay couple's property. A little mutual respect helps people stay calm.

To: DSB | 12:54 p.m. July 11, 2009

Guess what?!! The rest of the world thinks MORMONS ARE NOT MORAL!!!

Anonymous | 1:09 p.m. July 11, 2009

The story is breaking nationally. The response doesn't look good for the Mormon church's gestapo.

Great PR for Utah & LDS | 1:10 p.m. July 11, 2009

Having first read of this situaton in USA Today I decided to check out the local paper. WOW! Keep on sticking your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the nation and the world isn't rolling on the floor in laughter. What's next the stocks or pink stars. GREAT PR for the LDS church - way to go.

Nothing's wrong | 1:14 p.m. July 11, 2009

If you read the story again, the church really didn't do anything wrong.

I'M A PRO-GAY GAY!!!

The believe the church is wrong in pretty much MAKING members vote for prop8 in california but there's nothing wrong here.

@ Rosa Parks not | 1:38 p.m. July 11, 2009

Obviously you don't get my point. They were non-violent resisters. They were showing the world the intolerance of the LDS church. They made their point, just as Rosa Parks did. She was not about buses, she was about how society treated her people. Being gay today or black in the 60's is very similar.
By your argument, if I owned a restraunt and refused to serve a gay couple holding hands and kissing that would be alright. How is that different than blacks were treated in the 60's? Why all you homophobes just put up a sign everywhere that says "Gays aren't welcome if they touch other on my property." No difference from Rosa Parks' time period.
These men followed Gandhi's example as well. They called out intolerance and have shown it for what it is. Just because you own property doesn't give you the right to be anti-christian and treat others as than equal. We are all god's children and we are all loved equally by him. Christ would not have ordered the arrest of these men. He would have shown them compassion and service.

WWJD | 1:43 p.m. July 11, 2009

He would not pull out a whip, that's for sure. You people must read a different bible than I do if you think Christ would hate gays. You people must also not really be mormon, because even the church (according to its website) says to never indulge in any form of gay-bashing. He would love these two men and do what ever he could to help them and alleviate any frustrations they might have. He would not throw them to ground (no matter how profane they were) and arrest them- "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

Too many of you who claim to be religious need to learn some compassion and forgiveness.

Hmmm?? | 1:47 p.m. July 11, 2009

I wonder how many people on here, that are sticking up these two gay people are gay themselves and are from CA??

DSB | 1:50 p.m. July 11, 2009

Bully for them! Guess what?!! If the rest of the world does not want Mormons on their private property, they can make policies against Mormons, and if Mormons are then asked to leave, they should leave. If they don't then the private land owner should call the police and have them removed or arrested.

Thanks for not adding to the debate at hand, and for displaying your anti-Mormon hatred and bigotry.

morals | 1:55 p.m. July 11, 2009

I see some people are trying to put a negative light on this issue. Trying to show that the LDS Church is nothing but a bunch of hateful bigots.. But I disagree... The rest of the world that feels that homosexual behavior is a sin and immoral.. Will be happy someone is standing up for their religious beliefs and not caving into the gay agenda.

California reader | 1:57 p.m. July 11, 2009

1. Private property is private property. The church has the say of who is on their property and what behavior they will allow. It doesn't matter if the gay community doesn't agree with them. It is a matter of respecting private property.

2. Unlikely they innocently walked through the property. Obiously they were trying to provoke something and make the news. Unfortunately, they were successful.

Not the same | 1:57 p.m. July 11, 2009

Race can't be compared to aberrant behavior.
Utah is a great place, and I'm moving there from Colorado.

Steamboat Atheist

Anonymous | 2:07 p.m. July 11, 2009

How Christ-like of the LDS church.
Makes me want to join right away.
//sarcasm

Excused? | 2:10 p.m. July 11, 2009

I'm stymied by the sanitized wording of this article, especially the phrase... "after security personnel for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints excused them from church property."

Excused them? What does that even mean? Were they ejected, removed, quarantined, immobilized, detained,or what? Because "excused" sounds like the kind of passive aggressive double speak that comes directly from the LDS News Room talking points. Not the crisp concise vocabulary of a reporter from a supposedly independent newspaper.

SS | 2:31 p.m. July 11, 2009

It's the Church's property and they can do what they want. I know if two guys were kissing in my home, I would ask them to please do that somewhere else. Call it closed-minded if you want, but it's still my property and I make the rules.

As for calling Utah 40 years behind the times, I am so tired of that. Millions and millions and millions of people around the US and billions in the world believe that homosexuality is immoral - or, if nothing else, it makes them uncomfortable/squeamish. You may not like that fact, but it's still a fact. It's got absolutely nothing to do with Utah.

I left Utah 20 years ago and have lived in four other states and two countries. Utah is not much different than anywhere else. You will find whatever kind of people you are looking for - wherever you go.

Anonymous | 2:34 p.m. July 11, 2009

It's not like gays come to your door during dinner trying to convert you. They don't believe being gay is the chosen sexual orientation. Gays never interfere with the romances of others.

There must be a place for gays or god wouldn't have created gay people.

Skippy | 2:46 p.m. July 11, 2009

Private property is private property. If you don't follow the wishes of the property owner you will get cited for trespassing or have other actions taken against you. It is the law. It does not matter your background or status. That is not the issue here.

thats it | 3:23 p.m. July 11, 2009

I have had it up to here......next time I am voting for Prop Hate!

Eagle Forum to the Rescue | 3:24 p.m. July 11, 2009

We need a state constitutional amendment that would ban this sort of inappropriate behavior. Such public displays of gay affection should not be tolerated in Utah.

Where is Senator Chris Buttars when we need him?

Demosthenes | 3:34 p.m. July 11, 2009

It is universally wrong when a person engages in behavior that is morally offensive to the property owner (and knows it).

It would be wrong, for example, for a woman to wear a bikini to Mecca or for me to eat a steak at a Hindu shrine. It's the same here.

Anonymous | 3:34 p.m. July 11, 2009

"According to the City Weekly article, the two men said at no point did they refuse to leave. They were never given that option by the church security guards, but immediately cuffed and the police were called."

And according to one of the mens own blog (linked to in the article) they immediately started arguing instead of leaving, and remained there arguing for around 5 minutes before being handcuffed. I'm more likely to believe the blog than the City Weekly rag in this case, especially since the blog was written by one of the gay men himself.

It's sad that the irrational people have arrived here now posting all sorts of stupid anti-Mormon messages. They can go back to the tribune website where they can downvote and squelsh any opposing viewpoints for all I care. It's one thing to argue about the matter at hand, it's another to preach hate toward Mormons just because you get a small opening.

L'difference | 3:58 p.m. July 11, 2009

I don’t like seeing the European male kiss and hand-holding, and the Mideast male full-frontal hug and kiss, but that is cultural.

It makes me uncomfortable to see gay males kiss and hold hands, but we need to get used to it, and not be such ninnies about it. One day it won’t even make us blink.

Of course there is public decency for everyone, so anything beyond mild displays of affection in public should be kept illegal. (Public park displays in Italy & France — yuck.)

Question for Everyone | 4:03 p.m. July 11, 2009

What other religion erects walls and barriers to areas in the heart of a city accompanied with a list of do not's and has people they dislike forceably ejected and banned from? Pretty telling, isn't it?

Anonymous | 4:03 p.m. July 11, 2009

I can see how showing affection to someone you love is "inappropriate behavior" -- NOT!

What kind of fascist baloney does the LDS Church stand for anyway?

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.