Comments about ‘Colliding causes: Gay rights and religious liberty’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Feb. 11 2012 1:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

I am for religious liberty and for all people to have equal rights. I was a big reader of the civil rights movement and this reminds me of some of my readings. It used to be that black people, women, and others were not allowed in certain jobs, public and other areas until their rights were addressed. We don't have to agree how a person lives their lives to respect them.

moniker lewinsky
Taylorsville, UT

It seems like a very very few bigots have gotten a taste of what gays and lesbians have experienced for years. I believe that private businesses- as long as they aren't getting government tax exemptions- should be able to decide whom to serve. Sometimes the courts make bad decisions. That said,

1) denying an entire class of people civil rights is not the way to go about ensuring that the rights of religious people are protected. Especially when gays are far more threatened than conservatives. I'm sure we can find ways to make sure that everybody's rights are protected. But please let's not make anti-gay bigots out to be a threatened class because of a few isolated incidents.

2)It is not treating somebody unfairly to boycott their business because you disagree with their business practices. Conservatives are pro at doing this, in fact. Conservative groups are always boycotting liberal business for this and that. They houldn't complain when Liberals do the same. That's free enterprise, a concept conservatives agree with for the most part.)

Cottonwood Heights, UT

to atl134:

Yes, because the gays and lesbians can't handle the truth. So if a lie will make them feel better about their lifestyle I'd be happy to lie. The truth of the matter is that they live in sin and expect us to accept it and adjust our lives to cover up those sins.. which is the bigger lie?

Salt Lake City, UT

One thing that should be noted is that this took place in New Mexico. So "fear of these sorts of things occurring" wouldn't be a reason to ban gay marriage since there's no gay marriage in New Mexico.

Orem, UT

I'm a huge champion of LGBT rights, however I think one thing that might help resolve this issue is perhaps a change in how the law is structured. There might be a way to ensure that minority groups like this can receive medical attention, housing, and food without discrimination, while service-oriented things like photography, graphic design, etc. would not be forced to accommodate the individual.

As a web developer, I would be completely uncomfortable if I were forced to build a pornographic website, even though it is a completely legal endeavor. It's a tough, tough, issue, to be sure. I personally don't see anything immoral about two people of the same sex being in love and sharing a union, but I understand how this issue illustrates a collision between the rights of two groups.

  • 5:17 p.m. Feb. 12, 2012
  • Like (5)
  • Top comment
Salt Lake City, UT


" Before I get responses attacking my comment, I have a gay son, who I love dearly, and he even thinks there are too many obnoxious gays in our society. "

I don't care if you have a gay son, you're advocating discrimination against a group of people and you're hiding behind the "hey I'm not racist I have black friends" defense.

Free Agency
Salt Lake City, UT


There are a number of gays who are "political"--not just in terms of securing the same rights for gays that straights have--but in terms of "pushing the envelope." Which often means demanding that people accept them who don't want to accept them.

These are the gays who the media so often showcase, because they capture eyeballs.

But there's a much greater number of gays who simply want to lead quiet, live-and-let-live lives. They're not so interesting to the media, just as most straights who have the same attitude aren't very interesting to the media.

My point is that they public gets a very distorted view of what gays in general want. As I implied in an earlier posting, most gays have no desire to be around people who disapprove of them--much less support those people's businesses. Only someone with a radical agenda would push for this. Especially in a city like Albuquerque, which has a significant number of gay and gay-friendly businesses.

To repeat my earlier message: please don't judge America's gay population by the acts of a relatively few people. Whether you're aware of it or not, you already know a number of gays. They'll never make the news, just as you most likely never will. But they--or should I say, we--are the gay majority.

Temple City, CA

For me the distinguishing point at which discrimintation based on religious beliefs must be allowed is the point at which one may feel that one is encouraging an improper sexual relationship.

This is hard to define or prove, under normal circumstances, but in the case of a "commitment ceremony" (euphemistic for same-gender marriage where same-gender marriage is illegal) or marriage ceremony, the sexual relationship may be taken for granted.

A celebration of such a sexual relationship would be offensive to most Christians, Jews, and Muslims who believe it to be an abomination. If a photographer views photographing a celebration of same-gender sexuality as abomination, that photographer rightly ought to be allowed to choose not to take the photographs, as suggested in a post above that uses pornography as an example.

In matters such as housing, non-celebratory food, hospital visitation rights, and inheritance rights one may not safely assume that any such sexual relationship exists; these matters may rightly be protected by anti-discrimination laws.

the truth
Holladay, UT

This all about the extreme left believing the are entitled to someone elses labor, skills, talents, time, money, services, property, and business.

Let's make it simple for them: they do not.

Thye MUST take away someoe else freedom to do this.

YOur rights end when you stomp on my freedom and rights.

This nonsense about they get this public thing or that public thing does not fly. There is nothting in the constitution that says one must give up constitutional rights if you receive some public thing. You do not have constitutional rights to demand something from another person or group.

Depriving someone of rights based on skin color or ethnicity is not the same.

Homosexuals and the left should be ashamed of themselves when they try.

Lets us not forget religious expression is a guaranteed right.

St. George, Utah

Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
"I think the Deseret News is way over the line here. There is another side to the story.
Those who are concerned about gay rights deserve to have their concerns aired. But doesn't a newspaper have the obligation to give both sides a voice?"

There is always 3 sides to every story! Yours, Mine and what realy happened. I do not know what papers you read, but all I have seen in the media (both print and on tv) is the gay and lesbian side of the story. I have never seen any news media give justice to both sides they are always major slanted (mostly to the left) It was very refreshing to read this article!!

Alexandria, VA

In my opinion the term "Religious Liberty" merely suggests that those who operate businesses in the public arena can discriminate against people they donât like (for âreligious reasonsâ). If you are going to be a licensed business operating in the public arena, you cannot discriminate. You may ask for common courtesy and respect from those whom you do business with, and if you cannot be civil between the two parties then you simply walk away. The free market will decide who was right or wrong, but in the end - arbitrary and capricious discrimination (which is what this call for âReligious Libertyâ strikes me as) is, was, and forever will be wrong.

Dallas, TX

Small business being forced to provide services against their personal beliefs.

Church-owned companies being forced to provide birth control against their beliefs.

Children being force-taught about homosexuality in schools, against their beliefs.

Citizens being forced to purchase health care, on threat of financial penalty, against their wishes.

Have you noticed? The country is not the country you knew 4 years ago. So does anybody want to discuss the Constitution hanging by a thread yet?


Does this couple have the "right" to to be photographed by this woman? I know, the question sounds simple, but is their constitutional right to have this photographer do their wedding? Since when does any of us have the right to demand service from someone else?

Is it the same right we each have to be supported by the rich? Is it the same right each of us has to insist that our employer pay for our health care?

Is it the same right we each have to be successful financially whether we merit or not?

None of these rights exists. neither does the right to demand that someone else supply service to us, gay or not. The commission erred badly here and set yet another precedent for poor social engineering.

No contract existed between these parties as no offer was made nor accepted and no consideration changed hands. This is purely a matter of PC run amok.

As purely a side note, I would not want someone taking my wedding pictures who did not want to do it.

Salt Lake City, UT

There's no place for bigotry.

Salt Lake City, UT

The gay community was all upset when a lesbian actor said this was her choice.
She later explained that she was bi-sexual and CHOSE to be involved with a woman and be a defacto lesbian. She cannot choose to not be attracted to women.

Riverside, CA
These aren't isolated cases. There's a similar case going on right now with a bed and breakfast in Hawaii.
This is no different than the other businesses who, of their own free will and choice, choose to disobey the law regarding discrimination.

A handful of elite judges have foisted gay marriage on California despite what voters have had to say.
I read the decision. I also read the previous decision which was being challenged. The decision was proper. The only objection Judge Smith (the LDS judge from Idaho) offered was that Prop.8 could pass "rational basis scrutiny" because the state has an interest in having kids raised in the "optimal parenting situation". The problem with his assertion, as explained by the majority opinion, is that Prop. 8 was intentionally written and openly advertized/marketed as not changing any laws or rights that gays had prior to 8...just the term "marriage" would be denied. If no LEGAL rights were changed, then there is no way the 8 would have ANY effect on any child being in an "optimal parenting situation". Denying gays the name "marriage" does nothing to better the parenting situation of any child.

perhaps Judge Smith was feeling pressure to give at least token opposition to ensure the ruling wasn't unanimous. He succeeded in both, especially giving a minimal and token dissent.

So does anybody want to discuss the Constitution hanging by a thread yet?
After reading the three decisions on 8, I can honestly say that if the Constitution were hanging by a thread, we LDS were the ones who tried to bring the scissors.

Tooele, Utah

While "Gay rights" are promoted and at the forefront Gay marriage, the future consequences have to be taken into account. Statistics that are glaring are: 50%smoke, over 50% drink alcohol, there is double the use of illicit drugs then in the regular population, there is double the incidence of "domestic abuse" in these households, 70% are depressed and the depression was shown to NOT be due to societal pressures on Gay people, life expectancy is 20 years shorter than the regular population (just to cite a few statistics). Any of those factors make for a troubled home. By granting marriage they would then have equal standing in court as any other couple that wants to adopt. And we want to allow children into to households that have all those negatives? The incidence of all of those problems increases in their children. Children have the right to be raised by a mother and father. That is and has been the ideal for millennia. The slippery slope of "gay rights" and consequences is before us.

Salt Lake City, UT

A Scientist:

"Can a business owner likewise claim, 'We don't do business with Mormons,' or how about 'We don't serve blacks here'?"

Or, how about 'This restaurant does not serve people entering with no shoes or shirts.'?

Seems a business can refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Salt Lake City, UT

Darrel: "Religiously I find coffee and tea offensive...does that give me the right to ban them from the work place? No"

Personally I find smoking offensive... does that give me the right to ban smoking in my restaurant?

Truthseeker: "Should people be denied housing or service in a restaurant due to sexual orientation?"

Should people be denied services in a restaurant if they want to smoke there?

Christy: "So discriminating against same sex couples is a 'Christian conviction'?"

You can find information about distaste of same sex couples in the Christian Bible. Look it up.

ClarkHippo: "I've heard people say, 'If gay and lesbian couples can go into any business and demand service, next thing you know, they'll demand to be married in any church they want and no one can stop them,' but in my opinion, such arguments are apples and oranges."

Don't hold your breath. You apparently haven't a clue as to the power the federal government has acquired in the last few decades.

Owen: "You're right, however, that it will affect their lives. For the better. The same way accepting diversity has throughout American history."

Wait'll your kid goes to a school dance mixer where the girls form a line and the boys form a line to encourage pairing. Where would the same sex kids line up... with their same sex or opposite sex?

Riverside, CA

I read the decision. I also read the previous decision which was being challenged. The decision was proper.

Oh. Well that settles it then.

Seriously. There is no legal precedent or legal analysis and certainly nothing in the 14th Amendment itself that requires the original Cal Supreme Ct edict enunciating gay marriage in Calif, the District Ct decision finding Prop 8 in violation of the Fed Const, or the 9th Circuit's decision. The 9th circuit had to use that cynical ploy - that a right had been granted (oh yeah, by other justices) and then taken away - because they know the traditional definition of marriage will pass a rational basis test. Yes, gay marriage has been foisted upon California -- in a shameful way.

Heber City, UT

They would leave, feeling as discriminated against as segregated blacks did - having no "place" in polite society.

to comment

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