Comments about ‘Liquor suit seeks to muzzle LDS Church’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Nov. 1 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Scottsdale, AZ

Bout time.

Provo, UT

@Christy- I'm certainly not saying Utah legislation is perfect (one glance through the smog in our valleys tells me there are ways our community standards need improving) or that every place with looser liquor laws is a slum.

What I am saying: the fundamental idea of democracy is that people get to collectively choose what kind of society to be. Those who get worked up about liquor laws infringing on their "right" to do whatever they darn well please are really claiming that the wishes of the majority should be ignored and we should all have to live with lowest-common-denominator standards.

If you and most folks in Beaverton prefer liberal liquor laws, fine for you. But if you move to a place where most people disagree, don't expect to foist that policy on everybody else.

The Founders came up with a very short and very appropriate list of cases where the individual's interests should trump the majority (the Bill of Rights) and a short list of Federal powers for making universal laws. In all other cases- liquor expressly included per section 2 of the 21st amendment- states and communities should choose what to become.

Cedar Hills, UT

Christy - you make me laugh. I lived in Portland for 8 years, and although Beaverton was indeed a nice suburb of Portland, the liberal laws forcing everyone to live among the lowest legal standards of humanity certainly created a very unfavorable climate in many areas for family-oriented people.

Even though I loved Portland and really did not initially like the idea of moving to Utah, my experience has been that Utah's community standards are far, far more wholesome than those in the Portland area. But, if an unrestrained proliferation of strip clubs, pornography stores, and available liquor is your vision of ideal community standards, you should vote to make sure they remain legal and plentiful in your community.

Power should be in the people who live in the community, and my neighbors and I should not be ashamed to use our voices to influence the standards of our community. Neither should any organization, such as the church, that also resides in the community. Anyone who disagrees should have a voice as well. Engage in the debate and let the people vote.


This is right on...I do not drink alcohol, I am a Mormon, but Utah follows the laws of the United States Government...Why do Utahan's think separation from church and state does not apply to us?

Herbal Tea Partier
Taylorsville, UT

I like Utah's liquor law that prohibits the sale of alcohol on election day until after 8 p.m. That's why we have such great leaders here and representing us in Washington, D.C.

If other states would adopt the same law, we would have more decent national leaders. Half the people who vote don't know anything about politics, the Constitution, or current events. Add on being intoxicated, and we end up with a President Obama, a Nancy Pelosi, etc.

Cedar Hills, UT

@Prodicus 10:08 - I regret that I have but one Recommendation to give for your post.

savage sam
Irvine, CA

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has an obligation to make its position known on any moral issue. Consumption of alcoholic beverages is a moral issue. Therefore the Church has an obligation to make its position clear. Taking a position is not the same as taking away a person's agency.

Cottonwood Heights, UT

Strict liquor laws have done nothing to reduce the number of DUIs. That is a fallacy. The church has every right to make its opinion known as does any citizen or group in this state. It does not have the right however to act as if part of the legislature. If you wish to do that, then you must have fair representation by all the faiths here, not just the dominant one.

What is naive is the fact that some of this mentality is hurting the state. You also want to get DUIs down? Add a small surcharge to the increased alcohol sale and put more cops on the road... and that will lower other crime as well.... Then again.. the police reports seem to indicate that a lot of the DUIs are upstanding members of the church and community.

Salt Lake City, UT

'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has an obligation to make its position known on any moral issue.' - savage sam | 11:28 p.m. Nov. 1, 2011

And what EXACTLY constitutes a 'moral' issue.

That's right.

Anything the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints says is a moral issue.

Would you like an example?

What I choose to drink, when I am over 21 years of age and NOT a member of the LDS church, is not a moral issue.

Want another example?

If I am not a member of the LDS church...

why is my marriage a 'moral' issue to someone who is not in said, marriage?

Salt Lake City, UT

Privatize Utah liquor sales.

Cedar City, UT

If the LDS Church lost its right to lobby, then, by reasonable inference, other lobby groups, such as the UEA, UPEA, and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance would have to forfeit their voices in the political process. Who wants that!

Midvale, UT

Does the LDS have the right to influence legislation, The statute for separation of Church and State was made when religion began to interfere with school teachings, and in the ways people think. Such as Darwin's law of Evolution, or life in space. What happened was Churches complained, and threatened teachers for teaching it, on the other hand what we have done, and this was many years ago is, remove school prayer, and the Pledge of allegiance. When one went the other did too, can't have one without the other. Churches should only be involved with their church and their parishioner's. They should not be allowed to influence the business practices of a state, or tell people what they can or can not do, enough is on their plate. Liquor is not the business of the church, nor the state, except to monitor the license's it issues, and those that sell it adhere to the laws applied. Liquor should be sold to business's directly, outside state run. If this states lawmakers can't make decision's, without outside influence (LDS church or any church, lobbyist's), we have a problem.

I guess that can go with our current Federal government as well.

Jonathan Eddy
Payson, UT

The Church sure is making it hard for a lobbyist to earn a decent living.

Martinsburg, WV

actually your comparison of asking a vegetarian how to cook meet would be more along the lines of asking a non-drinker how to mix their drink. But asking the opinion of people about liquor laws? I guess if I don't have a license to drive I can't express an opinion on speeding laws. If your logic is followed out, only women would have a say in abortion laws (which frankly makes sense to me since only women can have babies), only doctors would have a say in medical care laws, only construction workers would have a say in building and code laws... or maybe only lawyers would have a say in any law.

Martinsburg, WV

The LDS church or any other religious organization should be banned from lobbying or imposing their beliefs on any legislator? Really. Should we ban any group from lobbying for laws that are of concern to them? How about banning gun lobbyist from being able to influence laws?

I thought that was the whole idea of lobbying in the first place.

Salt Lake City, UT

I never cease to be amazed at the anti-LDS comments on articles like this one. It makes me think I'm reading an article in the SL Tribune or the Washington Post or New York Times! Why are "liberals" interested in reading a paper that's markedly conservative in the first place?

Springville, UT

Could we get some better reporting? Any group that wants to tell anyone that they don't have a right to participate in democracy, is a despicable group. I want to know who they are, so I can be sure not to patronize them.


What's keeping some of these "Good" resturants from coming to Utah, but not serve alcohol as they do in other places? If what they serve really is that good, people will come whether there is alcohol served or not.

Mesa, Az

I have to agree with Gramma b, there is no constitutional right to consume alcohol, but there is a constitutional right for peoples voices to be heard irrespective of their religious beliefs. One could argue that it is not constitutional for people to refuse input because of their religious beliefs.

Allen, TX

Hey, Utah;

Try a little perspective on for size. In Oregon, where I lived until 6 years ago, the State controls all liquor consumption by routing all liquor through state stores. Bars and restaurants pay the same price as a private citizen, so the drink in the bar costs 4X what it would cost at home.

In Texas, where I live now, there are still "Blue Laws" which allow Dry Cities and even Dry Counties, where you cannot buy liquor at all, but have to drive to the next town or county. (Beer and wine are excepted, but you can't buy them after 10:00 PM or on Sunday).

These are the result of the values of the community, as is the discussion in Utah. In neither Oregon or Texas is the LDS Church at the core of the debate. In Oregon, the State wants all the revenue. In Texas, deep seated Christian values drive policy. In Utah the LDS Church reflects much of the state's culture, and their right to free speech allows them to wield influence on the regulations governing the populace.

to comment

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