Quantcast

Comments about ‘Support of LDS Church and others sought for more Utah restaurant liquor licenses’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 10 2010 6:00 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
baseballmamma
Alpine, UT

im not sure why the church should have a say in this matter. they can advise their members but advise the state? that should not be happening.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

The mormon church is not a 'stakeholder'. They run interference at best. If the church wants a liquor license, fine, but otherwise it's time to separate church from state.

Orem Parent
Orem, UT

Just say no to ALL liquor licenses.

Honest Abe
Salt Lake City, UT

I currently live in Massachusetts where in this tight economy voters just elected to keep the sales tax where it is (instead of dropping it to 3%) but they did vote to drop tax on liquors. Sad.

In my voting district a city official was recently found guilty of taking bribes from an under cover police agent in return for granting liquor licences. Scary.

Utah has something that is great. I do not want to make room for additional liquor licences. We have enough problems in society already.

dave
Park City, UT

There is no separation of church and state in Utah. Thank goodness for the federal government..

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

How many people will die for each new liquor license granted?

Cedarite
Cedar City, UT

They are talking about restaurant licenses. If none are available, restaurant chains will pass Utah by, fine dining establishments won't start up and we'll just get chicken finger emporiums, toddler oriented pizza parlors and fast food for all future restaurant openings in Utah. Allowing more restaurant licenses is a win-win. People don't go to these places to get loaded- they go to have a drink with their dinner, or they go to eat and have a non alcoholic drink. Non drinkers get the benefit of more restaurant variety and a wider choice of chains. Otherwise, be happy with Clown Time Kiddie Burgers and Sticky Chicken Fingers

snowman
Provo, UT

baseballmamma: The church doesn't have a say. The governorment officials who are lds (and most of them are) have the say.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

If national chains do not want to start up where there are no liquor licenses, local enterpreneurs can start businesses that do not serve alchohol.
Utah should realize that it is not going to get hard-core drinkers as tourists, and seek to attrack more tourists who like Utah for what it is, instead of trying to attrack tourists who really want to go to Reno.
Also, why is it ok for groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving to be a stake holder in this discussion, but if it is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints people go balistic? The fact of the matter is that you need to be willing to discuss and dialogue with the main institutions in the community in formulating public policy.
It is an inherent misunderstanding of the 1st admendment to exclude religios groups from public policy discussion. The seperation of Church and state is a lie that was foisted upon us by a former KKK member, and had previously been one of the sworn goals of the KKK.
I would remind the nay sayers that legally Utah could ban all sale and use of alchohol.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

In fact, since the right of states to regulate the use of alchohol is in an admendment more recent than the 1st (specifically the one that overturned federal prohibition) Utah could, and this is not that I am suggesting it but just stating what can be done, Utah could ban the use of alchohol by anyone in any situation, including as sacramental wine.
I think such a ban would be unwise, and I would argue it would violate the 11th article of faith, since it would limit people's rights to worship.
However since the constitution as it is currently written gives states absolute authority to regulate alchohol use, and since later admendments trump earlier ones, such a law could not be found to violate the 1st Admendment, because the right to include alchohol in ones worship has been overturned by the right of the government to regulate all use of alchohol, which is now in the hands of the state.
The best way to regulate alchohol is another story, but involving all interested parties in the discussion is the only appropriate approach.

coachcarter
Cedar City, UT

Cedarite, you are a genius. You hit the nail right on its head. Whether we like it or not, the sale of beer and other alcohol are a huge part of what money the state earns on tourism. If we have no tourists, there is less money in this state.

When people go to a dining establishment, you must order something to help with your alcohol, which helps your body absorb the alcohol, and the waitress/waiter is in control as far as how much you can have.

GB
Silver Spring, MD

Religions absolutely should have a place at the table in shaping public policy, just like other organizations do. No reason to treat them worse than other organizations. The Establishment Clause in the First amendment should not be interpreted to mean that any organization has to keep its mouth shut when it comes to matters that it feels strongly about. And I agree with snowman (what a great phrase to type!), that when it comes down to it, all these organizations are really doing is voicing their opinions. The elected leaders are the only ones making the decisions, and they are free to accept or ignore the views of organizations.

Bebyebe
UUU, UT

The great theocratic state of Utah.

Did they go ask the Catholics what they thought?

Sank You, Doctor
Salt Lake City, UT

Oh course the LDS church wants more liquor licenses. Their new malls will have some fine dining establishments and they will need the licenses since there are no more right now.

Totally predictable.

Wally Ballou
Cedar City, UT

Nanny nanny nanny state. If Utah would reject socialism and embrace the free market this wouldn't be an issue.

SLC gal
Salt Lake City, UT

The current situation on liquor laws is that it's hurting jobs across the board. National chains refuse to come here. National conventions refuse to come here. Just becuase the liquor is served doesn't mean you have to drink it. If you're so against booze, vote with your wallet, and don't buy it!!! In the meantime we are given free agency, so let those who choose to buy it do so!!!

Brother Chuck Schroeder
A Tropical Paradise USA, FL

Utah drinkers are NOT given free agency?. Nor the people that serve them?.

If it's true and the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a stakeholder in liquor legislation in Utah, along with Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Utah Restaurant Association, plus other groups with an interest in how the state controls the sale of alcohol, because the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission currently has eight applicants for the dozen full-service restaurant licenses available, out of the 557 allowed under the quota system, is not a reason to toss a "hissy-fit" over this, because nine applicants for the five available restaurant licenses limited to beer and wine service, out of the 311 allowed and ya'll are worried that could lead to overconsumption, and in a restaurant is the best place to sell alcohol because you have to buy food to get a drink, you'll kill your over taxed economy in Utah, and that won't create jobs with tips, just because you have some Republican Mike Lee in your hip pocket now, fulling knowing That's not the American way, is just wrong, in my view.

ADN
Weiser, ID

One death of a loved one would change everyone's mind in this matter. Think of the positive consequences.

dave
Park City, UT

ADN | 12:28 p.m. Nov. 11, 2010

There are many positive consequences. You just don't hear about them because it does not sell newspapers. Wine has been and is a positive in my life. I know I am not alone.

Freedom of Speech
Orem, UT

I agree with GB's post at 6:35 am. In our system of government every organization of free people have a place at the table including religions and churches.

The establishment clause should not be interpreted to infringe or limit the rights of individuals and organizations including freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. These rights are as equally, if not more, important as separation of church and state.

No organization or individual including churches and religious people should have to shut up when the state decides public policy that impacts them as much as it does anyone else. If an organization or individual doesn't have a say in our laws or our policies then they do not have to obey them.

Since this isn't a religious discussion I will talk about the danger of alcohol. Studies have been done that show alcohol is more deadly than drugs such as marijuana yet one is legal and the other is not. If alcohol which kills so many people is legal than it follows that drugs which are less deadly should be as well.

So the choice should be to make alcohol illegal or legalize less dangerous drugs

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments