Reader comments
'Love advocates' plan 'kiss-in' at Main Street Plaza
150 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
Pam | 2:41 p.m. July 12, 2009
This particular location is open to guests...and I have in fact been there and
have seen public displays of affection..no security person intervened..the point
is that if public displays of affection are allowed for some people and not
others then there is intolerance..equal treatment is what the point is. LDS
persons need to remember that this was public property first...if you cannot
show tolerance then close the dame place off to the public. That way you will
have the control that you so desire..if you keep it open then learn tolerance
and equal treatment..stop targeting people who do not believe the same as you
this is the real world.
What? | 3:11 p.m. July 12, 2009
Since there is not way to really know that this particular area is in fact
private property as there is no fence..seems to me that the security officer
drew way more attention to the whole thing by telling them to leave..it is
better to ignore something that you find uncomfortable. By drawing so much
attention just gives it more of a push. Lesson learned if you want the sanctity
of your precious private property fence it off..post the rules for
guests...problem solved.
Comments continue below
casting stones | 3:15 p.m. July 12, 2009
It is assumed that some posters on here are LDS..one poster actually mentioned
the child molesters in the Catholic church...care full there as child molesters
are not just there. They are LDS, Christian, Babtist and etc. I know this to
be factual...perverts hide behind all kinds of masks..seems to me that if you
cannot be tolerant and show compassion in a public venue then you should close
it off so you can screen those visitors to suit your rules.
America the sad | 3:36 p.m. July 12, 2009
In Canada, private property rights, in relation to private / public spaces,
cannot trump our charter of rights and freedomes.
America's consititution is as useful as toilet paper.
America, land of the bigots.
America's consititution is as useful as toilet paper.
America, land of the bigots.
hlkneedler | 3:47 p.m. July 12, 2009
You Utah bigots are hideous.
love is love | 3:48 p.m. July 12, 2009
While I understand that it's private property, I highly doubt they would
have asked a straight couple to leave for kissing on the cheek.
Intolerance is not what God would want, so I always find it laughable when any religious group uses their beliefs to hate.
Intolerance is not what God would want, so I always find it laughable when any religious group uses their beliefs to hate.
The Great Zarquon | 4:03 p.m. July 12, 2009
Remember Mary Magdelene? She was a prostitute, but Jesus didn't care, he
just saw that she was a human being and therefore deserving of the same kind of
respect that he showed to everyone. Gays are just like Mary Magdelene: human,
and deserving of the same kind of respect you would give one of your fellow
church members.
Remember the golden rule, as well: treat others as you would have them treat you.
Remember the golden rule, as well: treat others as you would have them treat you.
Anonymous | 4:18 p.m. July 12, 2009
The city should seize back the easement, problem solved. Then tell everyone to
get on with their life.
Daniel | 4:19 p.m. July 12, 2009
I am a native, born and raised Utahn...and I am truly ashamed of nearly everyone
in my state. Gay or straight or bi, black, white, hispanic...none of it matters.
God wants you to treat everyone like he/she is your brother/sister. I'm
disappointed in the LDS members who can't even practice what they are
taught, and most of them have been on missions. How can you expect people to
take you seriously when you're the largest group of hypocrites amassed in
one state?
The LDS church teaches against homosexuality as a sin, but what they don't teach you is to hate ANYONE. Just because someone has a different life than you, doesn't make you better or make you any more/less important. When Mormons stop hating people, you will open new doors and make more progress to a happier union with all members of the community, not just the people who have the same faith.
The LDS church teaches against homosexuality as a sin, but what they don't teach you is to hate ANYONE. Just because someone has a different life than you, doesn't make you better or make you any more/less important. When Mormons stop hating people, you will open new doors and make more progress to a happier union with all members of the community, not just the people who have the same faith.
Jason | 4:30 p.m. July 12, 2009
Wait...so Mormon bigots donate money to pass a hate law in California and then
get upset when someone shows up in their backyard to smooch? This outdated
religion is on the wrong side of history. Your religion is already filled with
closeted homosexuals - I know because I've slept with them - so what's
the problem?
Name | 5:00 p.m. July 12, 2009
To all of those saying what the LDS church did should be tolerated because the
incident occurred on private property, you are mistaken about discrimination. It
doesn't matter if the area is private property or not, if you make an area
accessible to the public then you cannot discriminate against those that visit
it.
Would you feel the same if the Mormon Church had arrested a black couple for trespassing? Of course not. The LDS can either operate a public space and make it available to everyone or they can close the street down. No such bigotry should be accepted in our society, even when it comes from an institution like a church.
Would you feel the same if the Mormon Church had arrested a black couple for trespassing? Of course not. The LDS can either operate a public space and make it available to everyone or they can close the street down. No such bigotry should be accepted in our society, even when it comes from an institution like a church.
Andrew | 5:01 p.m. July 12, 2009
Many of the commenters seem to be claiming that the plaza is private property
and therefore subject to whatever rules the Mormons see fit to decree. Would
this apply if the Mormons decided that black people shouldn't be on the
square? Or if they decided that anybody in a wheelchair was an offense to God?
No...there would be an ensuing legal battle. Regardless of what your religious
beliefs are, don't try to suggest that they are legally entitled to what
they did.
heppo | 5:09 p.m. July 12, 2009
Yeah, it's private property, so the church has the right to tell them to
get off, and they should leave politely. This is just like what happened with
the Negroes decades ago. They all decided to hold sit ins in places where they
weren't wanted, and refused to get out, and now look at em'. They get
to go everywhere! I took the fam to dinner and a negro couple was sitting right
by us, like they was normal people? First the negroes, then the gays...
what's next?
I don't understand what's happening to this country
I don't understand what's happening to this country
misunderstanding | 5:31 p.m. July 12, 2009
If its obviously private property that does not permit pedestrian traffic, it is
indeed trespassing. However, if its commonly and openly used by the public
without incident, its discriminatory to select certain people to hit with a
trespassing charge--especially if it isn't clearly marked.
Nevertheless, i can see these men as having thought they were being singled out for their orientation in the absence of private property markers. I dont blame them for getting upset, but when trespassing is concerned, its always wise to be polite and apologetic. You never know what kind of people you are dealing with until after the fact. When the affection-related social norms straight people take for granted are broadened to a more egalitarian perspective, misunderstandings like this are bound to become an artifact of the past. I just wish our civilization would hurry along and grow up already.
As for the kiss-in, people will always find a way to gather in order to increase awareness when issues collide. Inform more people about who cares about what, and people will think critically about it for themselves.
Nevertheless, i can see these men as having thought they were being singled out for their orientation in the absence of private property markers. I dont blame them for getting upset, but when trespassing is concerned, its always wise to be polite and apologetic. You never know what kind of people you are dealing with until after the fact. When the affection-related social norms straight people take for granted are broadened to a more egalitarian perspective, misunderstandings like this are bound to become an artifact of the past. I just wish our civilization would hurry along and grow up already.
As for the kiss-in, people will always find a way to gather in order to increase awareness when issues collide. Inform more people about who cares about what, and people will think critically about it for themselves.
Phil | 5:48 p.m. July 12, 2009
Ha Ha...this is classic pay back for all the times I've had to deal with
door to door Mormons. You can come to my house but we can't come to yours?
compassion | 5:59 p.m. July 12, 2009
Everyone just use common sense and reason, try to understand where the other is
coming from and come up with a result that both can agree with.
There is a difference between tasteful displays of affection and blatently pushing the line to offend others. That line is very clear. Same-sex couples should be allowed to express themselves in a decent fashion, and the LDS church should very much tolerate that. However, behaviour that the church would not condone on its property between couples of different sexes should not be allowed.
Both sides know where the line is. Just spend a little time pondering potential outcomes and you'll see this can be a non-issue.
There is a difference between tasteful displays of affection and blatently pushing the line to offend others. That line is very clear. Same-sex couples should be allowed to express themselves in a decent fashion, and the LDS church should very much tolerate that. However, behaviour that the church would not condone on its property between couples of different sexes should not be allowed.
Both sides know where the line is. Just spend a little time pondering potential outcomes and you'll see this can be a non-issue.
buck nuggets | 6:13 p.m. July 12, 2009
Have people considered that perhaps this wasn't a deliberate provocation?
Perhaps the couple were just infused with some kind of orgasmic religious experience (being so close to the temple) and they lost control. You have to admit that there's something undeniably masculine & virile about it. Hell, makes me want to kiss another man just thinking about it.
Perhaps the couple were just infused with some kind of orgasmic religious experience (being so close to the temple) and they lost control. You have to admit that there's something undeniably masculine & virile about it. Hell, makes me want to kiss another man just thinking about it.
Emshowg | 6:32 p.m. July 12, 2009
This wasn't private property until the city sold the public walkway to you
guys a few years ago. Which they should have never done.
The easement for mandatory allowance of public usage on said now "private property" allowed the public to continue to use it. If you wish to control the public's actions on your property you had better clearly post what you wish to allow and not allow on said property. These men should not have been charged with trespassing since there was no warning to them that they were breaking your rules. If the it states that public usage is allowed unless people break your permitted conduct, then you should be required to post what conduct that is that you do and do not permit.
The easement for mandatory allowance of public usage on said now "private property" allowed the public to continue to use it. If you wish to control the public's actions on your property you had better clearly post what you wish to allow and not allow on said property. These men should not have been charged with trespassing since there was no warning to them that they were breaking your rules. If the it states that public usage is allowed unless people break your permitted conduct, then you should be required to post what conduct that is that you do and do not permit.
yeah | 7:41 p.m. July 12, 2009
If the LDS want private property respected so much (to the point of removing gay
couples for kissing on a previously public area) then why are two twenty-year
solicitors encouraged to show up unannounced on my front porch at any hour of
any day?
And when will headquarters stop calling our home to get inactive family members' unpublished phone numbers (which are unpublished for a reason)?
The last is a lot more frustrating- if the inactives wanted the you to know their info, they'd tell you when they go to church.
And when will headquarters stop calling our home to get inactive family members' unpublished phone numbers (which are unpublished for a reason)?
The last is a lot more frustrating- if the inactives wanted the you to know their info, they'd tell you when they go to church.
Honest | 7:43 p.m. July 12, 2009
These comments only prove how deluded the LDS slaves are. They're too
busy hating and waving their flags to realize their hypocrisy.
Reality | 7:43 p.m. July 12, 2009
Wow, I wonder if this kind of behavior happened 6000 years ago when the world
was "created". lol
To: Emshowg | 10:41 p.m. July 12, 2009
"These men should not have been charged with trespassing since there was no
warning to them that they were breaking your rules."
Um, the warning to them that they were breaking the rules would have been the security guard coming up to them and asking them politely to leave. They were cited for trespassing when they became verbally abusive and loudly refused to leave after being asked to do so.
Um, the warning to them that they were breaking the rules would have been the security guard coming up to them and asking them politely to leave. They were cited for trespassing when they became verbally abusive and loudly refused to leave after being asked to do so.
Consider the big picture | 7:10 a.m. July 13, 2009
Some comments suggest that the "gays" should keep their noses out of
the LDS church and its interests, staying away from its "private"
property. The LDS church had no qualms about disrupting the lives of gay and
lesbian Californians by actively campaigning for Proposition 8. It's a
beautiful thing to see the LDS church (and some of its members) exposed as a
minority organization fighting against the rights of minorities. A "private
space" that should be protected more than a square or park is the union
between two loving adults.
Anonymous | 9:35 a.m. July 13, 2009
I am active LDS and I support this kiss-in. There was no reason for LDS security
guards to say anything to these men. This was a bad mistake and it is an
embarassment to me.
To Anonymous | 4:18 | 10:52 a.m. July 13, 2009
Maybe the city should seize your private property while they are at it.
To Name | 5:00 | 10:54 a.m. July 13, 2009
Is your front lawn accessible? I think I would like to come hang out with a few
of my friends. Maybe camp out for a few days.
To Anonymous | 9:35 | 10:59 a.m. July 13, 2009
That's nice. Your not the only LDS person who is confused by the gay
rights movement.
Beth | 11:11 a.m. July 13, 2009
Despite the fact that there weren't signs posted warning of private
property they were warned, when they were asked to leave by the security
officer. After they were warned and refused to leave then law enforcement
intervened. And don't tell me that the offending couple didn't know,
they were walking HOME. They live in Salt Lake!
A few years ago I was at the plaza, sitting on the edge of the reflection pool with some friends in front of the temple. Two gay men walked in front of us and when they saw us one man proceeded to glare at us while grabbing his companion's butt. Were they deliberately trying to offend me? Absolutely! Was I offended? Not really, mostly I just thought that they were ridiculous.
Was the current incident a statement (perhaps impromptu) or just a brief, innocent, spontaneous kiss? Probably not. But does it even matter? No, because they were on private property and when they were informed about the property rules/regulations they chose to ignore them.
Private property is a constitutional right. Kissing on any private property is not. This instance was an assault on freedom of religion, not gay rights.
A few years ago I was at the plaza, sitting on the edge of the reflection pool with some friends in front of the temple. Two gay men walked in front of us and when they saw us one man proceeded to glare at us while grabbing his companion's butt. Were they deliberately trying to offend me? Absolutely! Was I offended? Not really, mostly I just thought that they were ridiculous.
Was the current incident a statement (perhaps impromptu) or just a brief, innocent, spontaneous kiss? Probably not. But does it even matter? No, because they were on private property and when they were informed about the property rules/regulations they chose to ignore them.
Private property is a constitutional right. Kissing on any private property is not. This instance was an assault on freedom of religion, not gay rights.
Wow what a stupid plan | 12:36 p.m. July 13, 2009
Tolerence | 4:08 p.m. July 11, 2009
AMEN! You said it!
GET A ROOM!!!!!! The same would have taken place if it were a hetero couple. Stop playing the victim, it's really pathetic.
AMEN! You said it!
GET A ROOM!!!!!! The same would have taken place if it were a hetero couple. Stop playing the victim, it's really pathetic.
Jake | 4:52 p.m. July 13, 2009
Some thoughts to consider:
1. It is impossible to tell what the intentions of the two men were.
2. The church purchased that land from the city and has the right to regulate behavior as it sees fit.
3. Property owners are under no legal obligation to post all prohibited behaviors on their property in order to enforce them.
4. Some people are offended by displays of affection between homosexuals, no matter its sincerity.
5. Some people are offended by Mormons, no matter their sincerity.
While I'm repeatedly annoyed by both parties to this argument, I recognize that the church is in the right here. Only an idiot would believe the kiss-in is meant to spread love. It's intended to repeat the provocation on a larger scale and with as much publicity as possible. They don't want to see you lip-locked, and you don't want to hear their sermons. The difference is, you're on their property and you've chosen to be there.
1. It is impossible to tell what the intentions of the two men were.
2. The church purchased that land from the city and has the right to regulate behavior as it sees fit.
3. Property owners are under no legal obligation to post all prohibited behaviors on their property in order to enforce them.
4. Some people are offended by displays of affection between homosexuals, no matter its sincerity.
5. Some people are offended by Mormons, no matter their sincerity.
While I'm repeatedly annoyed by both parties to this argument, I recognize that the church is in the right here. Only an idiot would believe the kiss-in is meant to spread love. It's intended to repeat the provocation on a larger scale and with as much publicity as possible. They don't want to see you lip-locked, and you don't want to hear their sermons. The difference is, you're on their property and you've chosen to be there.
to heppo | 5:05 p.m. July 13, 2009
Wow, could you possibly come off as a bigger racist? Is that the
'tolerance' you were taught? "Negros"? Really? Are you stuck
in some 1960's world?
You are perfect representation to the rest of the world on how bigoted Mormons can be.
You are perfect representation to the rest of the world on how bigoted Mormons can be.
WWJD | 5:53 p.m. July 13, 2009
If Jesus had been asked to leave the property of another, I am sure he would
politely do as they asked.
I hope the security guards keep up the good work. When I visit Temple Square I don't want to be offended by any homosexual acts.
I hope the security guards keep up the good work. When I visit Temple Square I don't want to be offended by any homosexual acts.
New Mexico | 9:37 p.m. July 13, 2009
On a recent visit to the Plaza area, my very heterosexual LDS son and his wife
sat down and shared a couple of kisses---- and guess what???? Security came and
kindly asked that they refrain from doing that or leave the property. So there
you go--- it isn't just all about harrassing homosexuals! They are fair
across the board.
To Beth at 11:11 | 6:39 a.m. July 14, 2009
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is what the US Constitution has to say
about "private property":
'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'
Sorry, Beth, but that doesn't exactly cover the Mormons from detaining and zip-tying two young men, despite what you want to think.
Imagine a privately owned and operated restaurant asking two people to leave because they are Asian. Private property, right? The restaurant should be entitled, right? Sorry, doesn't work that way, and for good reason. The Mormon's "guidelines" don't supersede law, even in Utah.
'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'
Sorry, Beth, but that doesn't exactly cover the Mormons from detaining and zip-tying two young men, despite what you want to think.
Imagine a privately owned and operated restaurant asking two people to leave because they are Asian. Private property, right? The restaurant should be entitled, right? Sorry, doesn't work that way, and for good reason. The Mormon's "guidelines" don't supersede law, even in Utah.
Bill | 10:16 a.m. July 14, 2009
Private property is private property. I have the right to determine what
happens on my property. No troops can force their way onto my property or make
a encampment on my property unless I give them that right and then they have to
pay for that right with compensation I DEEM is right. The same goes for anyone
who comes on my property.
As for missionaries coming to the door at all hours of the night, how incorrect is this. They knock on doors generally between the hours of 10am to approximately 8pm. They don't do it all day long as they do have to eat and teach, therefore the likely hood of them coming to anyones door at all hours is an incorrect statement. Secondly, a member of the church is a member until they are removed from its roles. We are the only Church that has a thorough record of all members of it. It is true some get lost and leave no forwarding address and it comes back to the parents or family to possibly assist. You are not forced to give this information. Read Christ's own feelings on sheep that become lost.
As for missionaries coming to the door at all hours of the night, how incorrect is this. They knock on doors generally between the hours of 10am to approximately 8pm. They don't do it all day long as they do have to eat and teach, therefore the likely hood of them coming to anyones door at all hours is an incorrect statement. Secondly, a member of the church is a member until they are removed from its roles. We are the only Church that has a thorough record of all members of it. It is true some get lost and leave no forwarding address and it comes back to the parents or family to possibly assist. You are not forced to give this information. Read Christ's own feelings on sheep that become lost.
Trust Us | 10:35 a.m. July 14, 2009
"It'll be a little bit of Paris" uhhh huh, right.
Stupid Is As Stupid Does | 1:52 p.m. July 14, 2009
Just how classless and blind is the homosexual community?
Apparently quite a bit.
PRIVATE property is PRIVATE property! You DON'T get to act how you want, whenever you want and say whatever you want in however you want to express it on somebody's PRIVATE property.
I mean just how stupid can you guys be??????
If you choose to have a massive display of affection on the LDS church's private property you can expect to ONLY be made out to be massive idiots. It is not the LDS church who will look absolutely moronic in the eyes of the public but the gay community.
The harder you push for "gay equality" the more you tick off the majority of your fellow Americans.
Apparently quite a bit.
PRIVATE property is PRIVATE property! You DON'T get to act how you want, whenever you want and say whatever you want in however you want to express it on somebody's PRIVATE property.
I mean just how stupid can you guys be??????
If you choose to have a massive display of affection on the LDS church's private property you can expect to ONLY be made out to be massive idiots. It is not the LDS church who will look absolutely moronic in the eyes of the public but the gay community.
The harder you push for "gay equality" the more you tick off the majority of your fellow Americans.
Ute Fan | 2:10 p.m. July 14, 2009
The lack of tolerance is from the homosexuals, not the Church. Believe it or
not, I have the right to not agree with you. Gasp! Can that be possible?
The two guys were asked to leave. They should leave. Deeda should get a real job.
Do what you want on your time on your property. You can't force me to approve, tolerate or pay for it.
The two guys were asked to leave. They should leave. Deeda should get a real job.
Do what you want on your time on your property. You can't force me to approve, tolerate or pay for it.
=) | 4:37 p.m. July 14, 2009
The problem that I have with this, is that the church representative claimed
they would ask anyone kissing in the plaza to leave. That is sooo unbelievably
a lie. These men probably should have left when they were asked because at that
point they did break the rules. However, I don't believe the LDS church
would ask all people kissing to leave. Just like I don't believe the LDS
church leaders, the leaders of the largest voting body in the state, when they
claim the church to be politcally neutral and encourage members to "vote
their conscience." These men were asked to leave because they were both
men.
ask yourselves ... | 4:43 p.m. July 14, 2009
Why don't we see stories about the Mormons going to gathering places for
Gays? Does it happen?
Why aren't the Mormons publishing the names and location of individual supporters of Gay lifestyles?
Do the Mormons claim the members are perfect in following it's teachings?
Did these 2 young men not realize they were on temple square in SLC? How can ANYone in SLC possibly not know the Mormons position on basic issues?
Did the Security Guards say "Gays are not allowed to kiss here?"
Has anyone ever noticed the standards the Mormons expect of their own members at other properties (BYU campus', meetinghouses, etc)?
How did this situation move from "please leave" to "you're under arrest?"
If Gays hate the Mormons so much why where they there? If my wife and I were on property that I knew didn't like my lifestyle, I wouldn't feel like kissing.
If Mormons are so old fashioned, why is it one of the fastest growing religions in the world?
Just take a few minutes and ask yourself a few of these questions. Do a little research...
Why aren't the Mormons publishing the names and location of individual supporters of Gay lifestyles?
Do the Mormons claim the members are perfect in following it's teachings?
Did these 2 young men not realize they were on temple square in SLC? How can ANYone in SLC possibly not know the Mormons position on basic issues?
Did the Security Guards say "Gays are not allowed to kiss here?"
Has anyone ever noticed the standards the Mormons expect of their own members at other properties (BYU campus', meetinghouses, etc)?
How did this situation move from "please leave" to "you're under arrest?"
If Gays hate the Mormons so much why where they there? If my wife and I were on property that I knew didn't like my lifestyle, I wouldn't feel like kissing.
If Mormons are so old fashioned, why is it one of the fastest growing religions in the world?
Just take a few minutes and ask yourself a few of these questions. Do a little research...
anti mormons | 9:59 a.m. July 15, 2009
The gays ought to realize we've dealt with the antimormons for years.
Protests around temple square are almost normal. Except the anti mormons are a
lot more dedicated. I see the same ones year after year.
Anonymous | 1:26 p.m. July 16, 2009
Give me a public display of affection, even among gays, than a public display of
bigotry!
Anonymous | 2:07 p.m. July 16, 2009
@Property
KEEP your missionaries off gay's and lesbian's private property.
Keep your HATE MONEY off our Constitutional Rights.
KEEP your missionaries off gay's and lesbian's private property.
Keep your HATE MONEY off our Constitutional Rights.
Anonymous | 3:05 p.m. July 16, 2009
Utah earning it's title as the HATE state one goon squad at a time.
And then you wonder why your businesses and tourism is being boycotted?
And then you wonder why your businesses and tourism is being boycotted?
Anonymous | 3:40 p.m. July 16, 2009
@ask yourself
Mormonism is NOT the fastest growing religion.
You aren't even a BLIP on the radar compared to Buddhism and Islam and Catholicism globally.
Try to get some facts...not published by the Quorum of Twelve....seriously.
Mormonism is NOT the fastest growing religion.
You aren't even a BLIP on the radar compared to Buddhism and Islam and Catholicism globally.
Try to get some facts...not published by the Quorum of Twelve....seriously.
The Bottom Line is... | 4:09 p.m. July 16, 2009
It's private property...the owners of the property can do as they wish when
it comes to prosecuting tresspassors. From the news coverage it sounds like this
was more than just a peck or a short kiss. Had a heterosexual couple been making
out I know they too would have been ask to cease and disist or suffer the same
outcome as this homosexual couple did. Like I said at the first of this post
though its totally up to the land owner and they can pick and chose what they
want to do in situations like this.
Re: Anonymous | 3:40 | 4:15 p.m. July 16, 2009
In that case, maybe the gays should have their kiss-in in Mecca...
Just another way.... | 4:21 p.m. July 16, 2009
for the gay's to get some attention, and demonstrate their intolerance and
pure hatred for mormons.
Nothing new.
Nothing new.
Justice | 5:54 p.m. July 16, 2009
"Just another way for the gay's to get some attention, and demonstrate
their intolerance and pure hatred for mormons."
I'm not gay and I am Mormon. However, this fiasco of kicking the two men off the property was so avoidable it's not even funny. The church deserves to be in the news getting bad press on this one.
I'm not gay and I am Mormon. However, this fiasco of kicking the two men off the property was so avoidable it's not even funny. The church deserves to be in the news getting bad press on this one.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
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.
- Vegas, Poinsettia bowls or bust 2:01 a.m.
- Wildcats face tough defense 1:59 a.m.
- Aggies look to Idaho for an example 1:58 a.m.
- Aggies host Southern Utah 1:53 a.m.
- Cougars turn back Wildcats' 1:44 a.m.
- Cougar women lose at home 1:41 a.m.
- Sloan's two point guard lineup 1:39 a.m.
- BYU football: 5 keys to victory 1:36 a.m.
- RSL's Movsisyan departs 1:36 a.m.
- Glover gives Utes last-second upset 1:27 a.m.
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
264 - Protests against Phoenix LDS temple211
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin133
- Boys basketball rankings128
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin112
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies109
- Letters: Trump card for believers93
- Rivalry Week is highly profane84
- Utah, BYU are top choices for bowls75
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
"You are the very epitome of self-indulgence liberal crassness. You care...
I thought it was a great parade. Isn't it the only one in Salt Lake County?...
is struggling in some aspects of his game. We saw what he did last year early...
Having explored caves as a youth and spent 31 yrs working occasionally...
How do the Utes continue to do this? They are bad enough to lose to lousy...
A little help here. Harmon says Utah should be on a 3-0 win streak. I assume...
disgruntled parents need to stay off the blogs...
Honk if you intercepted Max Hall.
however it pertinent to look at their schedule and then look at ours. Because...
and there are no ute fans, only bandwagon fans, nice try though
Advertisements
Thanks for being such a laugh riot. You give the rest of us something to point to whenever someone says one of us is the most backward state in the country.