Two questions, first why is this in every section but the one it belongs in? the
opinion section and two why is the author being paid to rehash the rehash of
stories that have been heavily vetted and found to be without merit several
times in this paper alone? repeating the same nonsense over and over doe not
make your point any stronger.
Two choices-In order to preserve freedom for gay persons, we take
away choice from religious persons.In order to preserve freedom for
religious persons, we do not intervene and the choice is left to the people how
they live their lives.---With freedom, unpopular choices
are made and sometimes people get offended or inconvenienced. However, freedom
exists.Without freedom, we all have the same options available but
are forced into this system against our will.-------There is a difference between not having the option for others to recognize
your union or do business with you and then forcing other people to act
according to your will instead of their own. When people say 'why does your
church spend so much time on issues less important than jobs, etc? I can't help
but reply, and you really don't think my freedom is that important?"Gay Liberty" is an inappropriate heading for this article. It
should read "everyone else's freedom, will we let them be free or
"We don't photograph same sex weddings".Can a business
owner likewise claim, "We don't do business with Mormons", or how
about "We don't serve blacks here."? Can a public school teacher
refuse to teach children of a different Church because it violates their
personal religious freedom? Can a University professor kick all the Mormons out
of his class and refuse to teach them because of personal religious beliefs? Can
that professor refuse to give them good grades because his personal religious
belief is that they are brainwashed, unenlightened, and ignorant?Is
that acceptable to you? Is it acceptable if they claim it is a "religious
belief", of it is a "personal value"?If a person is
going to claim they deserve an exception from the law on religious grounds,
there must be clear and relevant religious justification and support for the
exemption. You can't just throw any old personal prejudice or bigoted bias out
there and try to pass it off as a "religious belief".So
where in all of scripture, or in the policies and commandments of this
photographer's religion, does it say "Thou shalt not photograph two
Small businesses should be exempt from such laws.It may be time for
the gay community to exercise the kind of consideration they claim for
Why is this even an issue? Religously I find coffee and tea
offensive...does that give me the right to ban them from the work place? No
(unless I own my own business and then I can decide what I want) I can however
decide not to consuem them.Religously I find same sex marriage
offensive...does that give me the right to ban it? No. I can however decide to
only persue hetero marriages (which is all I am really interested anyway I like
girls too much)I have my set of religious beliefs that are sacred to
me. That does not preclude someone from finding my beliefs offensive and
thinking they are just as sacred to him. That is the great thing about this
country, we are allowed to do that.On a personal note, if I don't
want someone voting whether or not my marriage is valid, what right do I have to
do that to someone else? Would that not make me a hypocrite?
Thank you. I have to add my voice. I am very very shocked that any American
would be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs. This is
America. The lady who fought her "legally," because of not
photographing her same sex ceremony could have gone to any other photographer.
Why did the government get involved? This has nothing to do with the
government. Both same sex people and heterosexuals have their freedom and
choice. The Hugenins were treated very very unjustly. And what did the money
solve? Absolutely nothing. New Mexico and every state and our country is
drifting away from the very principles America was founded on. There are
consequences to this, and I exhort us to return to what George Washington and
all the founding fathers preached, respect of people's beliefs, all people. If
we do not we will reap devastation. I pray we will change our course of
governing. Thank you.
Wow. What a well-researched and informative article. It's rare to see an article
on this topic go into this much depth.
I have no problem with gay marriage, but nothing is gained through antagonism.
If this person doesn't want to take the photos, it's their loss. If one or
another church doesn't want to perform the wedding, it's a buyers market. Let's
not just keep forcing ourselves into corners.
lol, well the headline changed.It is certainly more appropriate to
weigh both options as "colliding causes" as I think we'd all agree
that this is frequently the case.---Free Agency, my
stance.It is morally right to be free to choose.Religious
group chooses to do something with other people.Gay couple chooses to
join.Religious group chooses not to accept them.No one has had
choice taken away from them. If we accept that in order to preserve gays choice
to participate, we must remove the religious group's choice- then we have
accepted a infinitely dangerous doctrine. This same principle would mean that I
can invite myself to my neighbors party, I can invite myself into your home, and
so on. Equality is a good premise, but equally free to decide, equally free to
progress, not equally free to take from others.State recognition is
the people's to give. We don't give it to polygamists and they hold ceremony's,
just not state-endorsed. This photography business is their choice to make. When
you force it from people, we are not free. Free to make your choice is free.
Free to make other people's choices is wrong.
Hutterite--"If the person doesn't want to take the photos its their
loss."Yes, a court imposed loss of $6000.
Why is this not in "opinion"?Or is the Deseret News in the
business of biased reporting?
So discriminating against same sex couples is a 'Christian conviction'? I think Christ might have a problem with that.
Racial/Sexual discrimination laws have become nothing but 'reverse'
discrimination on the most innocent of law abiding citizens...on the weakest of
premises that wouldn't...rather shouldn't stand the light of day in a court of
Churches have wide latitude to discriminate. For example, many, most churches
don't have women in senior leadership positions, can choose who/who not can
marry, get baptized. Most recently the Supreme Court ruled they were able to
fire someone with a disability etc. But when people choose to
have a public business or accept govt. money, then they cannot discriminate.
What if 2 women decided to buy a house and are turned down for a mortgage
because the lender believes they are lesbian? Should people be denied housing
or service in a restauraunt due to sexual orientation? Should a store clerk
refuse to sell beer or cigarettes because don't align with their moral values?
Get over it people. Recommended viewing:Republican Representative Maureen Walsh from Washington state, explaining her
stance on same-sex marriage. Google it.
I think the Deseret News is way over the line here. There is another side to
the story.The reason the Catholic Charities were not allowed to
discriminate is because they were using public money to run the adoption agency.
Do you honestly think that religious liberty includes the right to take public
funds but only use it to benefit those you agree with? Had it been Mormons who
were discriminated against, I suspect this paper would have cried foul. The case with the Pavilion was similar. They were granted special tax
exemptions by agreeing to make the Pavilion open to the public. Again, if it was
a Mormon wedding reception they refused to host under those circumstances
because they felt "Mormons aren't Christians" this paper would be the
first to say the tax exemption should be revoked.You will find
similar circumstances in these other stories if you care to search them out. You
will have to, since the Deseret News seems intent on only providing half 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?
My wife and I are active LDS, having both served missions and been married in
the temple. A few years ago, my wife started a small house cleaning
business, and one of her clients has a grand daughter who asked my wife if she
would clean her house once a month. This grand daughter is a lesbian who has a
live in partner. Nevertheless, my wife took her on as a client for a few months,
and only stopped because of time conflicts. My wife and I both feel
we did not compromise our religious beliefs. Should we feel different?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. The former is about commerce, the
later is about church vs. state.
Perhaps we should educate the religious community that we should give to God
what belongs to God and to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.If you are
in the public arena, if you are running a business, you have no right to
discriminate because you would be violating the law. Are you
violating the law of your God when you are following the law of your nation?We believe in freedom of religion. But we cannot accept the
dehumanization of a person because you don't believe in his/her/their legal
status based on your morals.Nobody is asking or forcing anyone to
believe in same sex marriage. We as society ask that if you offer a service for
monetary gain, you offer the service to everybody under the law.
Christy said "So discriminating against same sex couples is a 'Christian
conviction'?I think Christ might have a problem with that."It would depend on what you believed Christ and his apostles taught. From what
the Bible says (our source of Christ's teachings) he did not treat the sinner
with scorn, but lovingly admonished them to repent and change their ways. He also taught that only those that repented of their sins, accepted him
as their god and obeyed His commandments would be able to live with Him in
heaven. It seems that ultimately He does discriminate.So, yes. Not
wanting to take pictures of a wedding that goes against this couple's beliefs
can be stated as a "Christian conviction" and Christ may indeed not
have a problem with it. The couple was polite in their reply to the gay couple's
request, just as Christ would have been.
Here are some suggested edits:That means that when individuals of
faith (who take public money or run a public business) refuse to host a
(non-white) wedding in their catering hall, or refuse to provide health
insurance benefits for a (minority spouse) they can, and likely will be
sued...After all, when (the Constitution) written, (civil rights or
female voting) wasn't even an issue...A public business or church
that takes public money (in the form of tax exemptions) can not hang up a
"whites/males/hetero only sign. We've already and this debate in America.
Over and over and over.
Excellent article. I'm LDS and do not really have reason to oppose gay marriage,
in my personal opinion. My feeling is that the church is against gay marriage
because of the legal implications included in this article. Tough to find middle
ground on this but I suppose it exists. Truthfully SLC is one of the
worst places to discuss this in a reasonable manner. You have over hyped LDS
members who want to pound their collective chests and a gay community that wants
to do the same. Finding middle ground in this community may prove tough but
willing to try.
Truthseeker,Except that the freedom to make those choices is more
often being scrutinized. I don't force gay activists to place a Mormon at the
top of their organization, nor do I have the right to. If this were reversed and
the people shouting 'discrimination!' actually were fed their own medicine, they
would see this doctrine clearly. Freedom goes both ways. Eventually everyone
will be aware of the truth. People ultimately reap what they sew. If you deny my
beliefs, then fine. But if people will that they should live according to
certain principles, it is only just that when they force those laws on everyone
else that they in the end will be required to live by the same doctrines. In the
end, everyone will be consigned to the fruits of their labors.Nehu,The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has given
reasons why it's position is maintained. It isn't because of legal impact, but
because according to our doctrines, God's laws, and what we believe is right and
best for all mankind is adherence to the basic principles of our existence-
which is the divine design of the family. It is most sacred. No other unit can
foster eternal happiness in this life and throughout eternity. For this reason,
we affirm our position to protect and promote this true governing principle of
@nehuI rarely if ever discuss same-sex marriage with family or
friends for the very reason you mentioned. I remember after Boyd K.
Packer's General Conference talk awhile back that stirred a lot of controversy
in the gay community, some of my Facebook friends on both sides got into some
pretty heated and at times nasty arguments of President Packer's talks. For the most part, I chose to stay out of it. I have my
convictions and beliefs which I take seriously, but not to the point that I will
throw insults and make wild accusations against those who disagree with me.
A few points:1) That a business or person who offers a service to
the public should be forced by law to cater to gay-marriage clients is a
violation of freedom. The article makes the excellent point that when those
discrimination laws were put in place, gay marriage wasn't part of the equation.
We didn't have the option then, really, to lobby for the laws to include
individual protection on the grounds of religious beliefs. And, might I add, the
photographer, hotel owners, etc were not using public moneys like Catholic
Services. 2) That the Deseret News is somehow "biased" by
covering the points in this article is nonsense. Given that the mostly left-wing
based media has covered the pro-gay marriage news far more, especially the Salt
Lake Tribune, I wholly welcome the coverage of the religious point of view, and
think that just a little bit of balance is long-overdue. And I think it is about
time these issues are thoroughly covered. As such, we can see that it is CLEAR
that those who are concerned about the advancement of gay marriage into our laws
have LEGITIMATE reasons to oppose it, not just based on religious beliefs, and
especially not because of hatred and bigotry. I would hope that making the legal
issues better known would cut down on the cries of bigotry and hatred, and at
least, even if you disagree, see that religious people do indeed have a true
I perceive that Christians hold up this story of an example of how their world
is somehow being compromised by Gays or others that don't adhere to their
particular Christian view. But they should step back and see the impact of this
type of self righteous treatment of others on the big mission - spreading the
Gospel. Almost every non-member in Utah was told, sometime in their youth, by
an LDS friend, that "Sorry, my parents won't let us play with
non-members". I am sure these LDS parents somehow felt like they were
really showing their devotion to the Gospel and holding to the iron rod, but
their actions are emotionally devastating to non-members and create lifelong
negative feelings towards LDS members. The New Testament is laden with
teachings to "love one another", "love thy neighbor as
thyself" and "judge not that ye not be judged". Yet well meaning
Christian continually stick their faith in the faces of people they deem
unworthy with the message that "we're better than you". Be humble.
Think of the big picture. Love first and long.
Is discrimination wrong? Yes and No.We are all God's children. We
need to remember the teachings of Christ; "In as much as yea do it unto the
least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me."I have no
desire to make life hard on anyone. Most people create their own problems and
punish themselves far more than I could.For a business to turn away
customers only because of race or religion might be reprehensible. I know a
young lady who was raped. She got a good look at her assailant. She is mortally
afraid of men of that race. To ask her to set her feeling aside is asking a
lot.Personally I am sick and tired of people from certain religious
persuasions telling me that I am not a Christian and a member of a cult. It
would be very tempting to not accept them as customers. (I do get a certain
satisfaction out of taking their money and sending it to LDS Missionaries. I
love getting to finance my religion.)Discrimination and Decide come
from a common Latin Root.You cannot make a single decision that effects
another without discriminating. When I eat at Denny's I am discriminating
against The Olive Garden.Freedom is the right to make our own
choices. Anti Discrimination laws amount to giving certain groups the
"right" to make the choices of others.Outlaw
discrimination and you outlaw freedom.
Private business should have the rights and freedom to choose clients they serve
just like the public has the right to not choose a business because of those
choices they have made. I would never sue a baptist if they didn't want to take
pictures at my mormon wedding.Am I going to eventually be sued for
not buying services from a gay/lesbian business if I choose not too? Sounds
pretty silly doesn't it.
The law requires that businesses not discriminate against anybody. What is so
hard about that. If you can't run your business without discriminating against
some people, you are better off not opening a business."...that
defends the right of individuals to freely live their faith."--- Does living your faith require you to be a bigot? I don't think so."Supporters of the Proposition have been labeled bigots and even
attacked, and their churches have been picketed and vandalized."--- Proof please."Catholic Charities of Illinois lost
millions in state funding when they refused to place children with homosexual
couples. Catholic Charities of Massachusetts stopped doing adoptions in 2006 for
the same reason..."--- You can't take tax payer money and
refuse to service some of those very taxpayers."The (LDS)
Church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable and does not do
violence to the institution of marriage,"--- Same sex couples
getting married does not "do violence" to marriage either; on the
other hand, heterosexual divorce does.This article is really very
one-sided, DN. Why not include the other half of the argument. That tax money
can't be taken if you want to discriminate against glbt couples. The pavilion
received a tax-break for being a "public place" and then they want to
discrminate against gays too? No. Catholic charities take tax
money and want to discrminate against gay couples? No.Some of that
tax money comes from glbt people. The LDS Church refuses to adopt to gay
couples too, but they do it on their own dime; which is fine. They'll never be
required to allow same-sex weddings in their chapels or temples. Never. I don't care if religious people want to discriminate against glbt
americans in their homes and churches. If you run a business, you can not
discrminate. Otherwise religion becomes an excuse to discriminate. Today it's
discrimination against gays. Tomorrow it'll be discrmination against Muslims.
The next day it'll be discrmination against blacks; "my religion says
blacks are descendents of Cain, I can't support descendents of a murderer".
And on and on and on. All in the name of "religion".
OK, so I know this is a heated topic but I have to comment on this whole Prop 8
thing. So...does this mean in a few years in our public schools we
have sex education on both hetero and homo-sexual relationships? Are school
dances open to both homo and hetero-sexual couples? Are many more kids growing
up from a very young age dealing with an identity crisis and gender identity
decisions because homosexuality is being taught so openly? Schools are
federally funded so I can see that they would need to follow suit with any
decisions being made.I don't really get comments that say,
"this doesn't affect me and my marriage." They seem a little short
sighted. This is going to affect our children and their marriages and our
Not so deep in thought - another suggested edit: This is going to affect our
children and their marriages and our grandchildren (not at all). My
gay brother's decade-long partnership has not affected his six sibling's
marriages in any way -- except that they have another happy, loving person to
share all family activities with. And have learned to speak out against naive
comments that have no basis in fact. You're right, however, that it will affect
their lives. For the better. The same way accepting diversity has throughout
Curious what the law would say if this couple had advertised to photograph only
christian weddings? Would there be reason to sue them for religious
discrimination on the basis of atheist exclusion or muslim exclusion? What about going into business only to photograph weddings for couples over
the age of 50? Would that be age discrimination? What if they refused service to
a Mormon wedding. Is that open to suit on the basis of religious descrimination?
Something smell fishy here.Theirs is a service business not a public
convenience business. It is an issue of right of association. It is not taxpayer
funded. It is not a walk in business which relies on public accomodation.
Legally, please show me why this couple cannot offer their services to anyone
they choose or not choose?No opinions please. Cite me legal
precedent other than the overreaching government entity which fined them
$6,000.00 for refusing to support the GLBT.
Can someone explain to me why we give churches tax breaks that other
institutions do not receive? Also, organizing a boycott because a business's
values do not coincide with yours has been a tactic long used by Christian
conservatives, and is entirely legal.Let's not confuse religious
freedom with religious popularity.
@Clarkhippo Cleaning a lesbians house is different from taking pictures of
their wedding- usually kissing and embracing are involved in the photographs.
It's hard to define the difference but it's there.
This is the liberal agenda, to cry individual rights when they believe one party
is discriminated against and then throw lawsuits at anyone who will not follow
what they believe to be right. It is hypocrisy in its purest form.
If I were to be the judge of the situation where the lady in New Mexico said she
couldn't photograph a gay wedding because it conflicted with here religious
beliefs It might go something like this.me: Why did you refuse to
photograph a gay wedding.her: It violates my religious beliefs.me: can you elaborate.her: yes, homosexuality violates
teachings in the bible.me: Suppose your sister or one of your
roomates from college had been divorced, and was getting remarried, would you
object to photograph their wedding?-----option 1her: yes I would, the Bible teaches women who have been divorced are not
to remarry.me: you win the case, you can not photograph the wedding
and suffer no penalty from the law.------option 2her: I would have no problem with photographing her wedding because she
was divorced. As a matter of fact, I myself am living with my 2nd husband.me: The Bible teaches married women not to remarry. It appears you pick
and choose what you want to believe or act upon from the Bible. Either that or
you don't care enough to learn what it says. You must photograph the wedding or
@the rock once again as has been pointed out to you over and over
again discrimination and decide do not come from a common Latin Root. Seriously
at this point you are just rendering your arguments meaningless by repeating
this same distortion over and over again.
Chik-Fil-A is a christian owned company. What if they suddenly decided to stop
serving mormons or black people? Nobody is talking about forcing a private
religious entity to minister to gays. But if you are taking public money or
operating a business in the public, anti-discrimination laws do apply. And that
doesn't affect your religious freedom. You are free to choose to close your
business out of moral beliefs.
What happen to the "right" to refuse service?
@captain Moroni your right to refuse services does not extend to
violating others civil rights. ever heard of lunch counter sit ins? try to catch
This is an example of why I contribute frequently to the Alliance Defense Fund
and will continue to do so. Liberals were all for freedom of conscience during
the 1960s when they were protesting against the draft and the Vietnam War. Now,
however, their commitment to that concept seems to have mysteriously
diminished.Moral standards are, by nature and definition,
discriminatory - distinguishing between courses of action and behavior as
differentiated from other courses of action and behavior. Individuals are
within their rights to make such judgments and religious denominations are
within their rights to advocate such standards publicly.
I don't care what you do in your own home with two consenting adults but I do
care if you want to force me to take pictures of it or provide cake for it.
Why do people mix up homosexual behavior with race? People are born with a
particular race - but Hollywood and the media have given us plenty of examples
of people who switch between hetero and homosexual. A black man is always going
to be black, no matter what. He didn't choose it and he can't change it.And don't give me the argument that gays were born that way.
Alcoholism, OCD, and other issues may have genetic or biologic components too -
doesn't mean we call them normal or promote them.We have
constitutional protections for religion and for freedom of association. That
means we also should have freedom NOT to associate.Why on earth
would a gay couple WANT a Christian photographer, or to use a pavilion belonging
to a church that teaches their behavior is sinful? If somebody didn't want to
serve me because I'm Mormon, you can bet I'd take my money elsewhere.
A Mormon couple contacts a flower shop and asks for flowers to be delivered
to... the Temple grounds for a photo shoot. The guy who answers the phone says
"sorry, no thanks, I'm a 'Christian' and I do not sanction weddings of
other religious groups." Is that ok with everyone? Guess what, that same
discrimination rule that protects us all protects those of other races,
religious creeds, etc. It's all so divisive. So this lady is a
"so-called" Christian, she says can't do it because I don't condone
same sex marriage/union. Where else in our jobs do we discriminate like this,
against something we don't personally agree with? Think about it. Do we not
serve our communities? Ive never walked in a grocery store in Utah and seen in
absent of some vice that is not condoned by the LDS Church (tobacco, alcohol,
coffee, tea, etc.). If I own a small car sales lot, do I get to discriminate
like that? Tax preparation, if the person I'm doing taxes for wants an
exemption for some activity that is legal, but I'm morally opposed to, do I say
"sorry, use HR Block?" SILLY!
An excellent and well researched article.
@Sorry Charlie!It depends on which etymology you study. Even if
Discriminate and Decide didn't come from a common root it is still not possible
to make any decision that effects others without discriminating.If
you outlaw discrimination you outlaw freedom.No right guaranteed by
the constitution places obligation upon other. I am exercising my right to
freedom of the press but you are not required to read what I write. We all enjoy
freedom of speech but nobody is required to listen.Anti-discrimination laws place huge obligation upon others. These are not
rights, they are wrongs. Most discrimination laws eventually turn into reverse
discrimination laws.Conservatives rarely file discrimination law
suits. It is not in their DNA to sue. Almost all discrimination law suits are
filed by liberals. It is in their DNA to impose their will upon others.Every private citizen has the right to spend their money as they choose.
Business owners have the same right.I believe that it is wrong to
engage in extra-marital and per-marital relations. Why should a land lord who
shares my belief be force to aid people in wrong doing by renting housing to
them?Sorry but most discrimination laws only protect certain groups,
mostly liberal constituency groups. The work they carefully to make sure that
conservatives and whites cannot use them.If you outlaw
discrimination you outlaw freedom pure and simple.
re 'Captain Moroni' | 9:36 p.m. Feb. 11, 2012 ----It was
justifably done away with in the civil rights act of 1964. Before that time
companies abused this right, therefore it was taken away.
All I want to know is, where's Pagan?
This article is based on false premises, setting up a conflict that is not real.
There is no danger to religious liberty. "Religious liberty" involves
freedom to worship, not freedom to discriminate in a non-worship setting. The
examples cited are fraudulent. For example, if a photographer happens to belong
to a white-dominance group calling itself a religion -- and such things have
existed -- he cannot refuse to provide a business service to a back person by
claiming that violates his religion. In the case of the pavilion, the church had
a tax subsidy, and could not discriminate against one segment of the public. Gay
people subsidize the pavilion as much as straight people. The Constitution is
supposed to embody the noble ideals of the Declaration of Independence, the most
fundamental of which is that all men are created equal. That definition has
undergone a welcome evolution over many decades, expanding to include women and
former slaves. Who would deny that equality? The sooner people accept the notion
that all are created equal, with equal rights, the better. That doesn't mean all
whites or all men or all heterosexuals, it means all, period.
Thiarticle is more about "religious BIGOTRY" than it is about
"Religious LIBERTY". There are responsibilities and requirements for
taking advantage of the opportunities that this great country offers. One of
them is non-discrimination. Imagine if this woman said "Sorry....I don't
photograph inter-racial weddings" or "I don't photograph Jewish
weddings"...or even "I don't photograph black people". What if
this were a restaurant that said "Sorry, gays are not allowed to eat
here" or "Whites only". Would that be any different? I don't
think so. Shame on this woman. This is America. You either leave your bigoted
views at the door or you stay home. You aren't free to do business in this
country in a discriminatory matter. Period.
So if my evangelical mega Church believes that that the LDS faith is a heterodox
cult, and I am a devout follower of my mega church, then I can rightly justify
denying services to Mormon couples based on the religious freedom argument? Accepting the business of a young LDS couple seeking a professional
photographer would be akin to tacitly accepting their Temple marriage as being
equal to a marriage sanctioned by one and only true church.Being
forced to do so is an assault on the Constitution and my freedom of religion.
The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves. It is my God given right
to be a bigot and use religion to shield my bigotry so I can extend this
personal bigotry to the public realm.
The Rock: If you outlaw murder do you you outlaw "freedom" as well?
How about rape, or theft, or any other crime against persons or property?.
Discrimination may be more insidious but It can be very damaging to persons and
to the universal social compact that we depend upon to maintain a strong civil
I literally believe Mormonism and Christianity are immoral. That doesn't stop
me from doing business with Mormons and Christians. But imagine
what would happen if, say, Baptist photographers had turned down Mormons for the
same reasons?May I add one more thing? Is it just me, or does the
desertnews.com web site have serious technical problems? I always get too long
to respond messages.
It is a tenet of progressive/liberal values to choose not to buy or sell as a
statement of morality. Japan attached Pearl Harbor because the US and the
British empire would not sell them raw materials because of their pillaging of
China and Korea. We should rewrite hte history books. Roosevelt was a bigot
against Japan and that started World War II.I look forward to a
growing movement to boycott Israel. Would Israel's defenders sue a university
that divests from Israel because they argue that the university not acting on a
sincere belief that oppressing the politically weak is immoral but rather
because of anti-semitism? In avoiding Israeli products, etc. am I actually a
bigot on the same level as the KKK?
Soon the photographer, the wedding cake baker, florist, gazebo owner etc. will
catch on and learn the power of lying:Oh sorry--can't do your
wedding. I'm all booked up.
There are several issues here to discuss.First, the simple ones:
Catholic Charities, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Catholic church,
receives tax dollars (and lots of them) to provide social services such as
adoption (but other services, as well) for ALL of the public, not just the
people it deems as "not sinners." They were not "forced"
out of anything. They chose to not comply with the law and backed out of the
agreement. Adoption services were farmed out to another corporation. This was
the case in DC where CCI contract was for $22M/annually.Very simple
here. The task was to provide services to the government and comply with all
government laws including non-discrimination laws. CCI felt it was unable to
perform these services and backed out. Prior to this, however, the church in
their typical passive-aggressive manner went on an ad campaign against the
upcoming passage of gay marriage in DC, threatening to "pull out of
DC" should the law pass. The DC Council called their bluff. With $22M on
the table, CCI blinked.With regard to the other companies, this is a
contentious issue. The parallels between failing to serve a person of color at
a public restaurant and failing to serve a gay couple, is very close. I am sure
the discrimination against inter-racial marriages and serving people in a
restaurant had more than one reference to some biblical restriction. I also am
sure the perpetrators of the discrimination felt fully justified at the time.
Still, it was discrimination.This is a legal issue, no doubt, but it
seems to me that if a church or a company hangs out a shingle and is "open
for business" to the public, they ought to serve all of the public. They
have crossed over from "religious protection" to
"capitalism" once they open their pavilion to the public for
profitable commercial use.But, as a practical matter, I would not
push it. I would not want to eat a wedding cake from some company forced to
produce the cake. There are plenty other bakeries with which to spend one's
dollars. I know it is a matter of principle, but unless there is some severe
hardship (the only tux shop in 400 miles), I'd take my dollars elsewhere and
alert my friends this establishment discriminates. These kinds of shops are
anachronisms in this day and age. In another 20 years, this kind of behavior
will be as unusual as would the idea that blacks have to sit in the balcony of a
movie theater.Hands down, young people (71%(?) of 18-29) are
pro-gay-marriage and are perplexed why this is an issue. Proof of this is look
at the success behind the repeal of DADT. No reported incidents. Good
acceptance and even gay squad leaders have retained their command abilities.
Interviews with the troops said their gay squad leader still commands their
respect. So, times are changing. Give it some time and this issue will take
care of itself as the new generation comes in and takes over.
A President who listened to Reverend Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, who spent a
lot of his time preaching social issues instead true religion has skewed this
President to believe that Religion is about social issues instead of religion.
He has changed religion from belief in God and His teachings of the Ten
Commandments and the basic beliefs in the Bible, Judeo-Christian teachings to
the social values that have taken over the Congress, Executive and Court's
responsibilities to Defend the Constitution of the United States. Both parties
have fallen into this realm over the past 50 years. You can buy happiness with
money is what they believe is the most important part of their job. The money
has gone away so they keep on borrowing money for their happiness. The salaries
and more importantly for bankers, Wall Street, and others is to take from others
as long as they are happy. They go against the Golden Rule, as long as They are
happy with money in Their pockets they don't care for their brother or sister.
@The Rock"Sorry but most discrimination laws only protect certain
groups, mostly liberal constituency groups"Actually that's not
true, race and gender discrimination protects whites and males too, we just tend
to find that majorities (or in the case of men, the ones who are in positions of
power more often) tend to not get discriminated against much so it's rarely used
for those categories though it can be.
@Christy"So discriminating against same sex couples is a
'Christian conviction'? I think Christ might have a problem with
that."Christ did, read the Bible, key words "Sodom and
To all religious beliefs; all it's going to take is a gay or lesbian couple
professing to be a member of your religion, possibly living the rules that your
religion lays down, to then ask for a marriage within your synagogs, chapels,
cathedrals, churches or temples, then what?The first one to say No,
will be involved in a law suite, then what?How will you answer the
question at the Judgement day; what did you do to stop this sin that ravaged the
country I gave you?Its time to stand up for your religious beliefs.
Fight for them and don't be silenced. Its time to band together!
As a gay man, I would not want anyone at my wedding who does not believe in me
and my life and the reasons all my family and friends were together. Or would I
want to have any ceremony on any church grounds that hate me and my life.I'll take my money, family and friends to a community where my partner
and I are excepted with open arms and empty cash registers and make the most
wonderful day we can.
There is something missing from this article. Each of the mentioned entities,
since she/he/it has chosen to go into business and, therefore, has to have a
business license. In order to get a business license, the applicant has to
agree to comply with statutes and regulations in effect in the jurisdicion. The
article doesn't mention the discrimination statutes and regulaions applicable to
each entity's jurisdiction. For example, if an area has statutes and
regulations which prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, by
obtaining a business license the business entity agrees not to discrimination
based on sexual orientation and if it then does discriminate, it is liable for
sanction. If the entity chooses to do business, it has to comply
with applicable statutes and regulations. If it goes against the entity's moral
or religious standards to comply with those statutes and regulations, it can
choose not to do business. That is where the choice is found. The business
entities aren't being FORCED to do anything.
It seems to me that there are two independent issues being confused here:The first is marriage equality for same-sex couples.The
second is public accommodations and the laws governing them.They
aren't the same issue at all.If there are sound reasons (and I
believe there are) for recognizing the right of same-sex couples to sign
legally-binding marriage contracts that opposite-sex couples now get to sign,
then those arguments are necessarily independent from issues of who has to
recognize legally-binding marriage contracts.After all, the Catholic
Church need not recognize a civil divorce. How do bakers who follow Catholic
teachings handle baking wedding cakes for civil marriages of divorcees?How does a Jewish photographer handle the wedding of a mixed-religious couple
that her own temple would never agree to?How does an Evangelical
motel owner respond to an unmarried couple that wants to book a room for the
night?How does a Christian photographer handle an unmarried gay
couple that simply wants to celebrate the 6th anniversary of their meeting?I don't know the answer to public accommodation laws, but I do know that
this isn't a question that applies uniquely to same-sex marriage. It's exactly
the same principle.I think this article, however sincere, does a
disservice to both gay couples wishing to marry and to those with religious
convictions wishing to thrive in a pluralistic society.
I also think this couple was unjustly dealt with by the commission and I would
of told them to stuff it! My choice my business! Now personally I don't agree
with same sex relationships and I also think it's immoral. This gay couple
wanted something for nothing and the more this allowed to happen the more
problems there are going to be. What ever happened to the business owners
choice to set up their business anyway they want. If you're doing work on the
internet I would have formated what my service would and would not do and if the
customer doesn't like it they can go elsewhere but oh no the customer is trying
to dictate how a small business should run thru the commissions or courts.It's
also like a small restaurant With an english only menu or having each item
listed be a number. Do you have any idea how hard it would be to have a menu in
As a gay guy I'm totally in agreement with any private service provider who, for
whatever reason, does not want to have gays as their clients. They have the
right to choose who they will, and will not provide services for.Why
any gay would even *want* to hire someone who doesn't approve of him or her is
beyond me. There are a multitude of gay and gay-friendly services which would
gladly have gay clients.I don't understand the gays who brought
these "discrimination" suits, but I strongly suspect they're fringe
radicals--and in the distinct minority. Please don't get the idea that gays in
general are out to "get" religious people. We simply don't want those
people to impose their own beliefs on, e.g., our right to marry--a right which
does *not* limit in any way how religious people run their own lives. It's a
huge distinction.Again, this article is not about
"gays"--it's about a handful of gay radicals who don't represent the
great majority of us.
There IS a way to "live and let live." Civil unions. The
LDS Church's position as described in this piece is once again exactly right.
You show tolerance, compassion and accomodation without fully embracing and
celebrating something you believe is wrong.
It's interesting that the same week the heavily LDS supported Prop 8 is declared
unconstitutional(for a second time), the Des News prints an anti-gay article
window dressed as an impending religious liberty crisis. It's specially
disingenuous when it is primarily extrapolated from one sensationalized case
SEVEN years ago.Gay marriage has been legal in Canada,
Massachusetts,and parts of Europe for years now. It hasn't changed the daily
functions of the LDS Church. It hasn't forced any changes to LDS religious
doctrine or beliefs, and hasn't impacted LDS Temple work in those
jurisdictions.Yet somehow that monumental fact never seems to make
it into the Deseret News.
Here's the key... every business and every individual has the right to refuse
service to anyone but not in a discriminatory manner. For example, the
photographer in the story should not have refused to take the photos because of
the sexual orientation of the customer. But she could easily have refused based
on a "scheduling conflict" or other non-discriminatory reason.
For once, a balanced article. My comment:At many restaurants there
is a sign at the front desk that reads "we reserve the right to deny anyone
service", especially if the customer is antagonistic toward the
restaurant's house rules". At bars, unruly or uncomplying customers are
physically removed from the premises by a security officer (or bouncers). A
customer can choose to comply with reasonable house rules (such as the business
owner's religious belief does not allow them to photograph gay unions) or CHOOSE
another business that allows services. It may be inconveinient but neverthless
reasonable. Gays cannot force others against their rights to religious liberty
and personal convictions. And it goes both ways, business cannot stop a
celebration from happening. Financially, the house rule is an
income loss to the business owners BUT you both get to choose; and you continue
to have your freedom to choose.In this case, the photographer does
not have a bouncer to kick out unruly gay couples, neither can the photographer
stop the wedding celebration from proceeding.
Reading about the wedding photographer, the Ocean Grove Methodists and catholic
Charities yet again reminds me of all of the anti-Mormon literature I've come
across...Both have been answered and refuted several times yet their supporters
refuse to even consider the truth.The businesses were in
jurisdictions that forbade discrimination against gays, yet they CHOSE to do so.
They knowingly violated the law of their own free will and choice.The Ocean Grove Methodists made a deal with the government to allow the
park/gazebo to be tax exempt if it were open to the public. Weddings, concerts,
etc... were held there. The church knowingly violated the deal of their own
free will and choice.catholic Charities likewise knowingly violated
the deal with the state of their own free will and choice. They got money if
they didn't discriminate. They took the money anyway and discriminated.Being a libertarian, I am ALL in favor of ANy business being able to
discriminate against ANYONE for whatever reason they choose, including race,
religion, sex, etc...We as a society have chosen another path. We
don't allow it. We LDS and other Christians can't say that OUR discrimination
against others is fine, but discrimination against us is wrong. Christ hated
I do not believe in the basic premises upon which homosexuals have historically
based their case. These premises are systematically assumed nowadays as fact.
The scientific basis of such assumptions are not irrefutable.If I
believed those premises; that homosexuality is uncontrollable (i.e. a
biological imperative), that abstinence is not a viable option, that there is
nothing immoral/unhealthy with having same-sex, that there is no God, nor
prophet, then it would certainly follow that gay people are truly a persecuted
minority and need the same *rights* (i.e. legalized same-sex marriage) as
heterosexuals. These premises automatically lead to the kind of demands being
made. Without these premises, the whole house of cards falls.Respectfully, I do not believe those premises. I know many of you do. The
problem is that the pendulum is swinging so far in your direction that the First
Amendment rights of sincere religious people are in jeopardy. I hope that
concerns you of the GLBT community who are also sincere in your beliefs.Of course, those who practice GLBT lifestyles deserve respect and
compassion just as any fellow human beings. But not at the expense of religious
Again, this is not a case of civil liberties but this is a case of Religious
Freedom and Freedom of Speech. People do not like to hear that they are living
amoral and want to stifle anyone who says they are living amoral. The gay
community was all upset when a lesbian actor said this was her choice. They want
to force her and us to think that it is all biological and not a choice. If we
say this life style is wrong we are labeled a bigot the discrimination is turned
around. The article was very well done. The article did not include
the doctor in California that was force to complete artificial incrementation on
a lesbian couple against his will or the San Diego firefighter that was forced
to participate in gay-lesbian parade against his will. Many comments
accused the article of need to be in the options column, but again, when someone
brings out the facts that are against the gay and lesbian community, they scream
and yell that it is opinion and want to silence it. The bottom line, the gay and
lesbian agenda will put great limitations on religious freedom and the freedom
of speech,which is The very cornerstone of this country.
@OnlyInUtahSo lying... you want someone to lie to cover up their
These aren't isolated cases. There's a similar case going on right now with a
bed and breakfast in Hawaii. The IS a slippery slope. The sky IS
falling for those of us who don't believe homosexuality is perfectly normal and
healthy and don't want our kids taught that it is. In California it's not
tolerance it's totalitarianism. You WILL agree with our position. A handful of
elite judges have foisted gay marriage on California despite what voters have
had to say. SB 48 will now force schools to indoctrinate kids from Kindergarten
on up about gays and lesbians.I will say this. It's wrong to refuse
to photograph someone simply because he or she is gay. But it's also wrong to
insist that someone photograph a gay wedding or some other overtly gay activity.
There's a big difference.
Those people who voted this Prop 8 going to be sued and fined? This is getting
ugly and evil.
So i guess that any business that has a sign up that says "We
reserve the right to refuse service to anybody" could be sued for
discrimination if they decided not to serve someone who has long hair and
tattoos even tho the owners had the sign up saying the reserve that right.
I'm so tired of gays DEMANDING their rights -- what about the rights of people
who don't embrace the beliefs of gays. If this couple declined to photograph
the lesbian couple in their "commitment", that should have been their
choice without the fear of being sued. Too bad the photographers don't sue the
lesbian couple for discriminating against the beliefs of the photographers. I'm
sure the lesbians could have found a photographer who would have complied to
their wants, but no, they had to make a big issue out of it and cause a
financial burden to a young company. There are too many gays who are thin
skinned, and think they are the only ones with rights. 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 personally don't care who anyone sleeps with (unless it violates the law).
That is their business and the government shouldn't be peeping into their
bedrooms. That said, the only way that homosexuals have to practice their form
of "poor me I'm discriminated against" is in the courts and the so
called "human rights" commissions. I for one am getting sick and
tired of the homosexual community always trying to ram things down my throat.
If you go and watch one of their parades, they are in your face. The homosexual
community want acceptance and tolerance. They should be able to give it
back.In this case there were more than likely 100's of photographers
those people could have chosed after being turned down by these people. Why
didn't they go to another photographer? They threw the equivalent of a tantrum
and wanted to force someone to accept their views and their way, which by the
way is not the way Americans do things. There is no middle ground in this
because no one wants there to be.
If a boy scout had approached these photographers, wanting them to take pictures
at his Eagle Court of Honor and, for what ever reason, they declined -- there
might have been a few critical words spoken around the dinner table and the
community. But a law suit? I doubt it.There is a difference
between a hospital refusing to treat someone, and some photographer listed in
the yellow pages from wanting to do business with someone, or anyone. It's
capitalism in it's purest form. You do business, you make money, you don't, you
lose out. Again, we're not talking about life threatening issues here.I don't think it's right to deny people services that are needful for
existence - food, shelter, clothing --- but if I don't want to mow your lawn
because there are too many hills, or someone won't paint my house because the
siding is falling off . . . . there has to be some common sense here.From what I see, I get the feeling some individuals might even be purposely
approaching someone to take pictures, rent a hall, or what ever, knowing full
well they'll be turned down just so they can run to an attorney.These are the tenets of liberty or freedom. I don't attend churches which
disagree with my beliefs just to start a fight -- but some do.
Let's take this photography example to the extreme and see if the same logic
holds up that the current court holds to. Let's say an active Christian
photographer is asked by a potential client to do a pornographic photo-shoot.
The photographer declines on the basis of violation of his beliefs. The
potential client sues because they felt 'discriminated' against. Since
pornography is not illegal, do you think the court would rule against the
photographer? Many say that the wedding photo issue is no big deal
and we should all get over it. Wake up! It's not about the wedding, it's about
the ramifications of government intrusion into private (note-- not public)
business, and the voice of a tiny angry minority turning the world on its head.
thanks for the article. Discrimination is taking away someone rights based and
gender, race, sexual preference. I didn't know that have a photographer at your
wedding is someones right as a human being. I wish we would just let Capitalism
work in this country. Another photographer could create a niche and get very
well known for same sex weddings. Free Markets work, if the government would
Rational people of Utah.. Unite and take over!
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.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
@mytymouse09" 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.
@mytymouse09There 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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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
So,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.
There's no place for bigotry.
markusjbearThe gay community was all upset when a lesbian actor said this
was her choice.LDS4She 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.SoCalChrisRiverside, CAThese aren't isolated cases. There's a similar case going on right now with a
bed and breakfast in Hawaii. LDS4This is no different than the other
businesses who, of their own free will and choice, choose to disobey the law
regarding discrimination.SoCalChrisA handful of elite judges
have foisted gay marriage on California despite what voters have had to say.LDS4I 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.MacfarrenSo does
anybody want to discuss the Constitution hanging by a thread yet?LDS4After 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
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
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
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
LDS4I read the decision. I also read the previous decision which was being
challenged. The decision was proper. SoCalChrisOh. 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.
They would leave, feeling as discriminated against as segregated blacks did -
having no "place" in polite society.
This is what Jesus said about gay people..................He didn't mention them. So you can't use the 'love the sinner, hate
the sin' thing. YOU labeled it sin. HE didn't. Why don't you pay
more attention to his, "As I have loved you, love one another"
It's so tempting to try to address all the wild lies and dead wrong, made up
statistics regarding gay people and gay couples on vivid display here.But it's better to remember that truth overcomes lies, and love overcomes
hate. Civilization is naturally progressive. Such narrow, bigoted
views thin out and die, for the most part.
wrz says:"You can find information about distaste of same sex
couples in the Christian Bible. Look it up."Your own God said:
"As ye have done to the least of these, ye have done unto me" - Look
it up.---"Distaste" isn't a valid reason to
invalidate Constitutional Rights of any Citizens. Your bible and it's
"distaste" has no standing in Civil Law.SoCalChris;The Constitution guarantees Equal Protection under the Law to ALL
Citizens; even those you don't approve of.
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."wrzYou apparently
haven't a clue as to the power the federal government has acquired in the last
few decades.LDS4If gays ever try that, a constitutional amendment
banning that would pass so easily that no politician would dare oppose it. Even
most gays would support it. Women have FAR more power than gays and yet there
has been no push trying to force LDS and Catholics to ordain women.
SoCalChrisThe 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. LDS4The CA Supreme Court has a right, under CA's
constitution, to interpret CA's constitution and they felt that Prop.22 violated
CA's constitution. If prop.22 was a constitutional amendment instead of a state
statute, no gays would have been married and therefore the 9th's reasoning
wouldn't have applied and it would have been found constitutional under federal
law. The anti-gay strategists made the tactical error in passing 22 as a
statute. I wish you would address my comments on Judge Smith's
opinion. Do you support the "separate but equal" status
offered by Civil Unions?
I would not ask someone who hates Mormons to come to the temple and take
pictures. I would not ask someone who hates the Boy Scouts to come to an Eagle
Court of Honor. If someone told me it was against their religious beliefs to
take pictures of my family I would honor their right to believe as they wish and
find someone who likes families. If my child married an African American, I
would welcome them with open arms but, there are those in my extended family
that would not. I would be hurt but I would honor their right to not come to the
wedding. My rights do not extend into forcing others to believe as I do!
These businesses advertised their products and services to the general public
without any caveats or conditions specified. Based on those ads, same sex
couples had a reasonable expectation to receive goods and services. For these
business owners to lure them in then deny those services for any reason is at
minimum false advertising. To deny the advertised services explicitly for
reasons of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and such is explicit
illegal discrimination.If these businesses do not want to do
business with "those kind" of people, then they must disclose that in
their advertising and post it openly where the public can see:
"Heterosexual Photography Only""This pavilion
reserved exclusively for the use of 'worthy' Christians who are not violating
Leviticus 18:22""Whites Only"-- oops,
wrong issue with that last one, right?Claiming that your customers,
who responded to your business advertising, are violating your religious
freedoms by accepting your offer for goods and services, is disingenuous, false
advertising, and downright illegal!
The merit in this case is specious at best. This gay couple simply found a way
to get a free $6,000. Why in the world would you insist that someone who
doesn't want your business perform a service for you? Has logic and reason gone
completely AWOL?Again, this is not a public accomodation business.
It is subject to agreement on the part of both parties before any contract
exists. It is no different than saying "I don't take photos in bars. Please
contract someone aho does." This issue is yet again being hijacked legally
and politically by LGBT extremism run amok.How about a service that
only reds books to disabled children? Am I legally obligated to read to any
person who requests my services or suffer legal action?Can a hotel
refuse service to people who insist their pets are "family?"
'All I want to know is, where's Pagan?' - Shuzzie53 | 1:05 a.m. Feb. 12, 2012
I'm here, I'm here! Always nice to be wanted. :) Now, the crux of the issue is that homosexuality might conflict with
religious practice, right? Which one? No. Really. Which
religion are we going to follow? As, some Judeo-Christian faiths
actually SUPPORT gay marriage. One example? United Church of
Canada. Also, there is more than ONE faith. Mormon, Wiccan,
Catholic, Muslim, etc. So, if we are going to follow the teachings
of religion about homosexuality... 1) Which one, should we
follow? 2) Are we then going to follow ALL teachings from a
faith? As exampled, the bible has stories of: Rape
Infidelity Slavery Murder Genocide. So, are we
going to follow the teachings in the bible about homosexuality...and then NOT
follow the examples of selling a wife into servitude. (Moses) 2)
Which teachings, are we going to follow? i.e. If we are going to
deny photography due to homosexuality... then we cannot photograph
people who are divorced.
False advertising is one thing. But then to turn this on its head, as this
article tries to do, and make the false advertising business owners out to be
innocent victims of gay and lesbian "activism" is blatantly dishonest
and appalling.And it is hypocritical, especially when you consider
that these religious business owners are all claiming to follow the doctrines of
Jesus, who not only "did business with" but also dined with and hung
out with tax collectors, drunkards, prostitutes, and probably a few gays and
lesbians!Are these religious business owners placing themselves
above their claimed Master? Are they claiming to be better than Him?It sure seems that way.
Also: If we are going to target homosexuals then ANY minority can be
subject to the same treatment. I will bring up the 'white only'
resturants for Ameriocans of color in the 1950's. NOT, because
orientation is comparable to race but because BOTH... are examples
of discrimination. The only difference is that once you are INFORMED
of a persons orientation, they are not 'moral.' And yet BEFORE the
photagrapher found out, it was 'fine.' The people who do cannot see
PAST the issue of race, do not want to draw the parralels of discrimination. Would then make THIS statement: **'Rick Perry backer
decries Mitt Romney, Mormons' - By Jamshid Ghazi Askar, Deseret News -
10/08/11 "(Robert) Jeffress described Romney's Mormon faith as
a 'cult,' and said evangelicals had only one real option in the 2012 primaries.
... Asked by Politico if he believed Romney is a Christian, Jeffress answered:
'No.' " - article I want any Mormon willing to DEFEND
this comment... after defending discrimination against LGBT.
'...70% are depressed and the depression was shown to NOT be due to societal
pressures on Gay people...' - 1hemlock | 10:26 p.m. Feb. 12, 2012
Let me show you the facts: **'Teens gay or straight more likely to
attempt suicide in conservative towns' - By LINDSEY TANNER - Medical Writer - AP
- 04/18/11 'CHICAGO Suicide attempts by gay teens and even
straight kids are more common in politically conservative areas where schools
don't have programs supporting gay rights, a study involving nearly 32,000 high
school students found.' - article Utah, is one of the most
conservative states in America. And: **'Utahns think
about suicide more than other Americans, study shows' - By Dennis Romboy,
Deseret News - 10/21/11 There is a DIRECT link to conservatism and
depression. And unlike you, I can prove it. 'Children
have the right to be raised by a mother and father.' - 1hemlock | 10:26 p.m.
Feb. 12, 2012 No. They do not. And I can
prove it in two words: Bristol. Palin. "In most
ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not
markedly different from those of heterosexual parents." -
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP) - 02/01/10
As usual and as promised, it is not enough that they be allowed to marry etc but
now the militant gay community will force you to take pictures of them even if
you don't want to.Imagine, they are forcing you to take pictures of
them or else.So where will the line be drawn about what they can
force you to do?I'm sure thera are plenty of photographers who would
take their picture but they want to legally force this one to do it.Gays expect tolerance for all of their beliefs and yet will tolerate nothing
but forcing you into behaviors you thought you had a choice in.Gay
people create alot of the animosity themselves.
'As usual and as promised, it is not enough that they be allowed to marry etc
but now the militant gay community will force you to take pictures of them...' -
Anti Government | 9:48 a.m. Feb. 13, 2012 The. Humanity.
(sarcasm) Tell me where it says in your religion... to
not take pictures, of homosexuals. Can't find it? That's
because there is no such rule. 'False advertising is one thing. But
then to turn this on its head, as this article tries to do, and make the false
advertising business owners out to be innocent victims of gay and lesbian
"activism" is blatantly dishonest and appalling.' - A Scientist | 9:25
a.m. Feb. 13, 2012 Best quote in the comment board. The
issue here is disclaimer. What happened to the 'Right to refuse
service' buisness? They don't exist. People have a right
to have service, if they have the money to PAY, for service. Can you
picture honest disclaimers? 'We reserve the right to refuse service.
If you are black, female, or gay we can deny you serivce. If I do not believe
you are 'Christian', I can deny you service. If you are not in good standing...'
The irony is we are becoming more and more like Sodom every day.. but it's the
true sin of Sodom: being inhospitable."Also thou shalt not
oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were
strangers in the land of Egypt."
1hemlock illustrates the real reason christians have lost a lot of their
previous standing in society it is simply due to their own words and deeds.
Since christians have taken to complete fabrications and blatantly lie about
those they do not agree with they have done more damage to their own reputation
and standing in society then any atheist or gay person could ever do. As pagan
has already illustrated there s not one fact in 1hemlocks entire post. If
Christians want respect maybe they should stop breaking their own commandments
and live by their own dictates.
Photographers, simply say you loathe gay marriage, but you will shoot the
wedding because you really need the money. Any reasonable person would find
someone else to photograph their wedding.
One's "right of conscience" says that if I don't believe in something
I don't do it. It says nothing about refusing to do business with those who do
participate in the things I find morally wrong.Examples;(1) Drug use. Does this photographer do weddings of drug users/pushers? If
so, isn't she "violating" her religious conscience?(2)
Rape and Murder. Does she photograph the weddings of rapists and murderers?(3) Child abuse. Does she photograph the weddings of people like the
Sloops?(4) Shellfish eaters. Does she photograph the weddings of
those who eat shellfish? These people are abominations too, you can read all
about it in that wonderful book everyone seems to be quoting all the time, you
know, the "Bible".(5) Gingrich's 2nd & 3rd marriages.
Would she have photographed these weddings? You know, both wife #2, wife #3 as
well as Gingy were all adulterers and should have been stoned according to her
"Christian beliefs". I'll bet you she would have serviced
all of the above weddings though. Any takers?Nothing in your
Christian Values says you can't do business with sinners, only that you,
yourself shouldn't sin.That is what your "right of
conscience" should be about: "I won't sin, but whatever others do is
none of my business and won't affect how I do business with them".
Nobody is interested in gay marriage; just turning society and schools and
nations and families upside down (due to boredom) and calling religion and
history and traditional family-- bad names. You have been discriminated
against? Who cares? The Mormons were treated badly in Missouri and
Illinois and ended up leaving the USA and going to Mexico (Utah). Have faith
and forgive and pray and fast and believe in community. A society that
disagrees on every single issue is divided and won't last. Get a library
card, take up art, poetry, golf, learn a language, start a business, write a
book, start your own university. God allows us to do a thousand hobbies but
says no to a few things.If you can't say no to gay marriage, you won't say
no to anything.
Christy in Oregon----Peter and Paul called it sin---they did the Lord's dirty
work. The New Testament is more bold against this than the Book of Mormon.
Over 50 times Peter and Paul condemn lust and putting flesh over spirit. Peter
and Paul were called to leadership for a reason.
DanO"The irony is we are becoming more and more like Sodom
every day.. but it's the true sin of Sodom: being inhospitable"This claim that the sin of Sodom was being "inhospitable" does not
hold up under scrutiny. Genesis 18:2020 And the Lord said,
Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very
grievous;Genesis 13:1313 But the men of Sodom were wicked and
sinners before the Lord exceedingly.Genesis 18:2626 And the
Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare
all the place for their sakes.2 Peter 2:66 And turning the
cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making
them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;Jude
1:77 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner,
giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set
forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.Genesis 19:4-54 Â¶But before they lay down, the men of the
city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all
the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said
unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out
unto us, that we may know them.
There is no such thing as "gay rights". Check the constitution.
However, freedom OF religion IS in the constitution. Any person in America,
single, and of legal is can marry anyone else of the opposite sex they choose.
No discrimination there. This NM commission is just another example of a
radical left wing-nut agenda gone awry. Churches in NM need to rise up in arms
over this to get the governor to disband the commission.
Why is it that the public forum constantly being forced into the religious
forum, while the religious forum is constantly being forced out of the public
forum? It seem the separation of church and state is a one way street with
religious freedoms constantly being eroded. I used to create
websites and whenever I was asked to make a pornographic website I always
refused based on my religious beliefs. I am grateful I did not live in New
Mexico or I may have had to pay the pornographers not to build them a website.
If court ordered to make a porn site I would choose to go to jail.Due to personal experience with some gay individuals showing off their nude
gay photos; I feel Elaine Huguenin had every right to refuse photographing the
ceremony. What if Vanessa Willock asked Elaine Huguenin to take some erotic
photos of their wedding or reception? It would not be a surprise if this
happened. Elaine Huguenin had every right to refuse photographing Vanessa
Willock. There was no damage done to Vanessa Willock. Gays are constantly
pushing the boundaries, constantly forcing their way of life on others. I know
this from experience too! My wife was regularly hounded by her sister's lesbian
friends to come out, when she wanted nothing to do with them. My son is also a
victim of gays trying to get their way with him at his workplace. This is
harassment, yet it would be politically incorrect and dangerous to speak out
against the harassment by the gay community.
RE: Why do people mix up homosexual behavior with race? People are born with a
particular race - but Hollywood and the media have given us plenty of examples
of people who switch between hetero and homosexual. A black man is always going
to be black, no matter what. He didn't choose it and he can't change it.........religion is a choice too.
22ozn44ozglass, and none of those quotes had anything to do with loving
committed gay relationships. The Genesis 19:4-5 quote is about an act of rape
and humiliation, a very inhospitable act to say the least.Ezekiel
16:49 "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of
bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did
she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."Nope.. not about
committed gay relationships.
@Rynnwhether it is a chosen behavior or if people are born that way
is a hot topic but the bottom line is it does not matter since people that
oppose gay rights can give no legitimate reason to restrict their rights, which
is exactly why the courts keep deciding against them. You cannot simply
restrict another persons rights simply because you disagree with some aspect of
their life, it is on those that seek to restrict those rights to prove why such
restrictions are justified and not the responsibility of those how want their
rights to prove they deserve them.
@DanO Sorry, homosexuality is a sin and Jesus never did nor will He
condone it. This is what the scriptures have to say:bring them out
unto us, that we may know them, Gen. 19:5 (These were men wanting to have the
male guests of Lot and to "know them" is to have homosexual sex.)Thou shalt not lie with mankind â¦ it is abomination, Lev.
18:22 (Lev. 20:13). (to "lie with mankind" is to have homosexual
sex.)There shall be no â¦ sodomite of the sons of
Israel, Deut. 23:17 (I am not going to define what a "sodomite" is,
but it is not hard to figure out what city this sin was named after. And only
men are naturally capable of being a "sodomite")declare
their sin as Sodom, Isa. 3:9 (2 Ne. 13:9). men â¦
burned in their lust one toward another, Rom. 1:27nor abusers of
themselves with mankind, 1 Cor. 6:9them that defile themselves with
mankind, 1 Tim. 1:10as Sodom and Gomorrha â¦ going
after strange flesh, Jude 1:7 (Comparing "strange flesh" to Sodom
means homosexual sex.)doth declare their sin to be even as Sodom, 2
Ne. 13:9After reading these scriptures it appears there is no such
thing as a "healthy gay relationship" it is a sinful relationship.
The issue about gay marriage should be decided by the people state by state as
California did. The government was established "for the people and by the
people" therefore, if the people decide something, especially on a state
basis, it should be followed. The courts shouldn't have claim because it was a
decision made by the people. If you don't like the peoples decision move to
another state. If you try and say if this happened to Mormons it would be
different, look into their history. The Mormons were driven from state to state
from Missouri they were to be exterminated if found, talk about
unconstitutional. The Mormons finally left the country to find peace. I'm not
condoling or condemning anything here, all I am saying is that the people should
decide, and since there are already states who accept the marriage move there if
your so committed and for religious beliefs if you find yourself in a pickle.
Maybe it would be best if able to move to a state that would be more accepting
of your rights and beliefs.
@The American,Are you saying what happened to the Mormons in
Missouri should have been legal, that had the courts stepped in it would have
been an abuse of their power?An interesting position if you take it,
but it would allow you to support your majority rule position without being
hypocritical.I for one am glad we have a Constitution that seeks to
protect the rights of even the minority.
once again civil rights are not up for pubic vote.
@wrzI said - "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."You
said - "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."What power is that exactly? What laws have been passed forcing churches
to accept gay and lesbian couples? Can I get some specifics here, please?
Dan OThe law given to Moses was clearly and without question
declared any kind of homosexual relations as a violation of Gods law and an
abomination. If homosexual acts were a violation of Gods law then any
"committed gay relationship" that included sexual relations was
expressly offensive to God and an abomination unto God. The Old Testament is
very clear-God did not approve of gay relationships period whether the two men
deemed themselves as "committed" or "married" or not. When the Law of Moses was fulfilled at the time of Christ's
resurrection, some practices and rituals of the law were changed such as blood
sacrifices and burnt offerings. However, they were replaced by a higher law that
called for a more spiritual and a more personal offering, symbolic ordinances
such as baptism and covenants. In addition, the Lord was now going to send his
word to people and nations other than the house of Israel as promised. However, the Lords Law of chastity/morality did not change whether it was
against incest, fornication, adultery or homosexual sexual relations. In fact
the Lord instituted a higher law that included lustful thoughts and fantasies
regarding all of the previously forbidden sexual sins including homosexual acts.
The changes made to the Lords law and commandments as a result of
the crowning sacrifice of Christ were either directly specified or explained by
Christ, his Prophets, or his authorized Apostles or they were exemplified by
Christ as a model for us. There is absolutely no verse in the Old or New
Testaments that states the the Lord now approved of incest, rape, fornication,
adultery and last but not least homosexual sexual relations. Nor is there any
instance where Christ modeled these behaviors or stated that they were no longer
sins and now acceptable as a result of a change in the law. Christ came to
fulfill the Law of Moses which was a law of sacrifice but the spiritual laws and
principles behind the Law of Moses and the Commandments observed from Adam to
Abraham did not change.If you are going to use the Old and New
Testaments to support homosexuality in a "committed relationship" you
can not just cherry pick verses to suit your agenda.
Please become informed. Look up "religious liberty" in The United
States Supreme Court website. To join the argument of religious liberty
alongside universal rights is combining apples with oranges. The rhetoric is a
screen to prevent logical evaluation of the real history, background, and legal
defense for the issues.
Peter and Paul did the Lord's dirty work? The Lord delegated dirty work? He
outsourced? How many other prophets have done the Lord's dirty
IF you took the gay pride parade and called the celebration Haunika, would that
not violate religious rights? Marriage has a biblical definition, but that
definition seems to have been watered down by the continuous use of the word for
all unions of all faiths (or non faiths) in a christian founded country. The
gays... and everyone for that matter have the freedom or free agency to create a
union with similar contract commitments found in a marriage contract, BUT should
find another word other than marriage to use to identify that union. Christians
have the additional responsability of warning against what the written word
(scripture) has to say about certain situations and this is one of them. Gays
have the right to ignor them and create their union. They do not have the
right, in my opinion, to use the word that is religiously defined as a union
between a woman and a man. Do what you want to do, but don't claim our beliefs
and values to be the same as yours by using our words in your actions. I blame
the government for this conflict as they should remove the word in unions that
have no tie to biblical definitions. There would be a holy war if you called a
gay pride march by the name of a religious event... this is no different.
22ozn44ozglass, sorry, but Ezekial clearly pointed out that the sin of Sodom was
not taking care of others. Everyone says it was destroyed because of
homosexuality, but that wasn't the case. Ezekial's passage defines the list. It
doesn't say "some of the things" it declares a specific list.
Homosexuality wasn't in that list. The Jews were doing exactly to outsiders
exactly as the "good Christian folk" are doing today.Also,
you're rationalizing away the rest of Leviticus which I'm sure you don't follow
so that you can pick and choose the ones you do. But even then, there is some
argument whether Leviticus 18:22 is even translated correctly. As KJV has it,
it's unsupported by Hebrew text.
To The American | 12:59 p.m.Please tell me why you think some people
can vote away the civil rights of others. Please tell me where you believe
support for voting away the civil rights of others is found in the
Constitution.I'll give you a hint and a starting point -- it's not.
"Marriage has a biblical definition, but that definition seems to have been
watered down by the continuous use of the word for all unions of all faiths (or
non faiths) in a christian founded country. "-----------Are you telling me that there were no "Marriages" before the
old testament was written? Really?Check your world history. You
might be surprised that the tribes that wrote down the bible were not the first
to marry. In fact, if you look up the meaning of marriage in these countries,
they were mainly used to pass property and lineage down in a patriarchal
society. Women were property.That defination of marriage only ended
a few hundred years ago. Marriage has evolved and meant different
things to different societies. It is still evolving, wouldn't you say?
All you citizens who are against gay marriage: Can you give me an argument that
can be used in a court of law to support the ban of gays marrying? Would you
quote the Bible? It really is not admissable as evidence, any more than any
other book of beliefs are.What could you show to a judge or panel of
judges that would prove to them that marriage is not a privilege that we should
share with gay Americans? Where is the proof that religions will be harmed?Do any of you realize that New Mexico has a clause written into their
state constitution that makes homosexuals a minority that cannot be
discriminated against, just like Mormons and blacks? That is why the
photographer was sued. It was under an amendment to their constitution that was
duly voted upon by the citizens of New Mexico and accepted as law.I
do hate it when others tell only half of a story to prove their own point of
view.I am waiting to hear your fact supported argument that can be
used in front of a court. So far, no one has come up with anything that shows
that gay marriage is bad for society. Massachusetts has had gay marriage for
almost a decade. No one is clammoring to be married in the Boston temple. Not
one LDS member has complained that they cannot worship however they want to.
They can still preach again homosexuality in all their churches. Everyone there
can believe whatever they want to regarding being gay. All it has done is grant
a few more of of tax-paying, law-abiding citizens rights and privileges that we
all have enjoyed.Anyone have a good argument?
I suppose if we allow businesses to decide whether or not to provide services to
homosexuals because it is 'a choice' which they find morally objectionable we
should also allow businesses to not provide services to those who choose a
religion that they find morally objectionable. If so, then that seems fair.
The photographer did not discriminate against someone because they were gay.
She declined to photograph a gay wedding, something that contradicted her
values. Im amazed this distinction keeps getting blurred. If a photographer
refuses to photograph a Mormon group at a Prop 8 rally is that religious
bigotry? Or maybe he doesnt hate Mormons, he just opposes Prop 8 and doesn't
want to be a part of it.In California, the only hate that was seen
during the Prop 8 campaign was from one side. Prop 8 supporters were spit at,
flipped off, things were thrown at them. Prop 8 contributors have been black
listed and some have lost their jobs. I dont know of anything remotely
comparable on the flip side.
Congratulations to Washington State, the 7th State in the Union to legalize Same
Sex Marriage.Marriage and a big variety of them exist now and have
existed since the beginning of time.The LDS and any other group can
believe whatever they want about marriage, homosexuality, tobacco, alcohol, etc.
that is their right. Right that most civilized human beings would defend even if
they are in disagreement with their beliefs.When you are calling SSM
a "sin" you are stating your belief not a fact. Just your belief.Fortunately for a nation as diverse as ours. Your believes are personal
and should have no influence in the edict of laws for the people.We
are blessed to live in a time and place where social justice is finally making
roots in our society and culture.The courageous leaders, supporters
and people, gays and straihght , who have made this transformation possible
deserve our admiration and respect."Great spirits have often
encountered violent opposition from weak minds." Albert Einstein
@SoCalChris the only hate? I would call actively working to keep
certain families and individuals from having the same protections as everyone
else and in effect treating them as second class citizens pretty hateful sorry.
the first part of your comment trying to make a distinction makes no
sense. It is however a great example of circular reasoning.
Lane Meyer:"Do any of you realize that New Mexico has a clause
written into their state constitution that makes homosexuals a minority that
cannot be discriminated against.. That is why the photographer was sued. It was
under an amendment to their constitution that was duly voted upon by the
citizens of New Mexico and accepted as law"I suggest you read
the appeal for this case Elaine Photoghraphy LLC Plaintif vs Vanessa Willock
Defendant. First a few facts that make this case all the more interesting.
When Ms Willock inquired about having Elaine photogrhapy take pictures of her
"committment ceremony" she clearly stated that it was going to be a
same sex ceremony and then specifically asked IF the Elaine Photography was
"open to helping us celebrate our day".There are many
photographers in New Mexico who had no religous objection to taking pictures of
the commitment ceremony. However, Ms Willock then filed a complaint with the New
Mexico Division of Human Rights proving that her words and her actions are not
the same regarding whether Elaine photoghrapy was open to taking pictures of the
same sex union. It should be pointed out that at the time of Willock's
complaint, New Mexico did not recognise SSM or any type of legal union between
same sex couples. Now for a couple points of law that you are
wrong on. First, the complaint was investigated by the NM Division of Human
Rights. The New Mexico Commision on Human Rights and not a Jury or a legitimate
District Court ruled that Elaine Photography had engaged in an illegal act of
sexual orientation discrimination by a public accomodation in violation of New
Mexico State Statute 28-1-7 which is also referred to as Employment New Mexico
Human Rigts Act. In addition the director of the NM Division of Human rights and
not a prosecuting attorney determined that the complaint was valid and should be
investigated. The ruling was NOT based upon any ammendment to the
New Mexico Constitution as you claim,and the appeal makes it absolutly clear
that the State Statute mentioned above was the entire crux of the the complaint
against Elaine Photography. The NM Constitution is not even mentioned in the
ruling and the appeal of that ruling. LM sayeth "I do hate it
when others tell only half of a story to prove their own point of view"How do you feel about those who do not present the true facts and the
actual points of law to prove their point of view?
VocalLocal Salt Lake, UT"I suppose if we allow businesses to
decide whether or not to provide services to homosexuals because it is 'a
choice' which they find morally objectionable we should also allow businesses to
not provide services to those who choose a religion that they find morally
objectionable. If so, then that seems fair."If someone refuses
service to another because of homosexuality, how would the business owner have
any idea unless that person told them? I go into businesses all the time with
my wife, son, brother and or friend. No one knows my orintation or religion
unless they know me personaly or I tell them. They can make an assumtion by my
mannorisms or actions otherwise they would never know. I believe a business
owner has the right to refuse service to who ever they choose without government
intervention the owner is the one missing out on the sale.
I am one who believes in God and that the scriptures are true giving guidence
and warning to the world. For those who do not believe as such I say this. If
religion is man made and securalism is man made. Then those speaking of
religion and praying has just as much right in schools and the public square as
the foul language, stories and litriture that is allowed now days.All this discussion on marriage, what happend? it was not that long ago that
the media made it out that most people did not believe a piece of paper mattered
and marriage was not needed anymore.
What is unsaid is that a Mormon adoption agency in Massachusetts continues to
operates. They continue to refuse to place children with same sex couples. It is
very legal for them to do so, because they are a private agency, and their faith
says they can. What they also don't mention is that the Catholic
organization could also do the same thing if they operated as a private
organization. But they don't. They accept taxpayer money and thus strangely feel
at odds that the taxpayers don't like it when their money is used to
discriminate against them. Try being any charity receiving money and then the
charity telling you thanks, but you have absolutely no say in how it'll be used.
You'll find that charity out of business quite soon. And that's exactly what
happened here. Individuals and organizations are free to operate as
they choose. But the government cannot nor should it ever discriminate. If
organizations wish to use government funding, they shouldn't be surprised that
the government doesn't wish them to use it to discriminate either.
SoCalChrisThe photographer did not discriminate against someone because
they were gay. She declined to photograph a gay wedding, something that
contradicted her values. Im amazed this distinction keeps getting blurred. KJKSo ...a baker refused to make a wedding cake for an LDS couple
because the couple wanted the baker to draw the Salt Lake temple in icing on the
cake. If the baker feels that temple rituals are demonic, that would be OK?
Why is YOUR form of discrimination OK and the other is not?SCCProp 8 contributors have been black listed and some have lost their jobs. I
dont know of anything remotely comparable on the flip side.KJKSince
firing someone for their politics is illegal, why haven't we heard of those
fired suing?22/44It should be pointed out that at the time of
Willock's complaint, New Mexico did not recognise SSM or any type of legal union
between same sex couples.KJKSo, the photographer still violated a
valid state law.22/44Now for a couple points of law that you
are wrong on. First, the complaint was investigated by the NM Division of Human
Rights. The New Mexico Commision on Human Rights and not a Jury or a legitimate
District Court ruled that Elaine Photography had engaged in an illegal act of
sexual orientation discrimination by a public accomodation in violation of New
Mexico State Statute 28-1-7 which is also referred to as Employment New Mexico
Human Rigts Act. In addition the director of the NM Division of Human rights and
not a prosecuting attorney determined that the complaint was valid and should be
investigated.KJKHmmm...that sounds like the IRS. No prosecuting
attorney determines whether my 1040 looks sketchy and deserving of an audit.
The governing agency (IRS or the NM Division of Human rights) makes the call.
It's perfectly fine.22/44The ruling was NOT based upon any
ammendment to the New Mexico Constitution as you claim,and the appeal makes it
absolutly clear that the State Statute mentioned above was the entire crux of
the the complaint against Elaine Photography. The NM Constitution is not even
mentioned in the ruling and the appeal of that ruling. KJKSo? It's
a validly enacted law and Christians are commanded to "render unto
Caesar". The passing of and enforcing of laws in our secular society
definitionally belong to Caesar.
I tried this a couple of time with no response at all. Even saying thank you and
it will be screened. Either this is a duplicate, sorry 'bout that chief, or this
is the first to actually get through some computer bottleneck.Let's
see if I get this right. Allan wants Berry to do something for Allan that Berry
doesn't agree with. Berry says no and looses the job. Allan finds Charles who
does it with no problem. Allan doesn't like it that Berry said no so he (Allan)
sues Berry for not doing that thing that Charles did.Now Berry went to his
friend Doug and told him the story. Doug didn't like what Allan did and found
out that Allan sells widgets. Doug figures out a use of those widgets that Allan
wouldn't want them to be used for. Doug, Edward, and Frank each individually go
to Allan to buy some widgets but Allan tells them that he won't sell any widgets
to any of them. They would have to buy the widgets from Gregg.Whether it
be selling or doing a job, just as not selling something to a class of people,
something that another will sell, harms your pocket book there should be no
legal restraint from doing what you consider right in refusing to sell or do
something and you should face the financial consequences.Legal
consequences is [as a catagory, singular] a double edged sword that can be used
both for and against you.
It is disturbing to see how perverse are the arguments used to justify bigotry.
What a sad commentary on religion that it's followers will warp truth to
maintain hatred and condemnation of others.
I have some strong opinions about this and many other topics, but no matter how
respectful and on topic I write, my comments a not approved. Is there some kind
of trick to get your comments published because I see much more controversial
comments on here than anything I tried to write. It is difficult to
watch fellow Christians and LDS people discriminate against a group of people
and think it is okay. If you refuse service to someone because of race, gender,
or sexual orientation you should be ashamed of yourself. I'm LDS and work with
gays all the time and at no point do I ever feel like I'm compromising my
standards. Religious intolerance has cause more wars and murders
than any other cause. Once we accept others for what type of people they are and
not for what type of religious beliefs they hold, our society will progress.
Concerning bebot's comment about religious intolerance being the cause of more
wars and murders I can see that if one includes the religious wars started by
Muhammad against the jews and others, Hitler against the jews and others, Stalin
against Ukraine.You might search "how many people were killed by
tyrants" and see what comes up.It is true that tyranny kills more
than freedom.I assume that this got approved to show the other side
of an argument (debate) otherwise only one side would be presented.
Allowing same sex couples to marry will change marriage exactly as much as
allowing women to vote changed voting.If you have a problem with
anti-discrimination laws, get the laws changed. If you think a small business
owner should be allowed to discriminate, and the law says they shouldn't -
petition your legislature, start an initiative, circulate a petition.
@ Kevin If a baker didn't want to make a cake with a temple on it for me, I'd
simply find another baker, or make it myself. I think these
complaints serve only to further a dubious agenda, nothing else. They certainly
don't serve to generate approval and acceptance of LGBT "rights" from
those who disagree with the whole thing. They only serve to further antagonize.
RynnRE: Why do people mix up homosexual behavior with race? People are
born with a particular race - but Hollywood and the media have given us plenty
of examples of people who switch between hetero and homosexual. A black man is
always going to be black, no matter what. He didn't choose it and he can't
change it.LDS4I was baptized as a convert 35 years ago. I
CHOSE to be LDS. People switch between LDS and non-LDS all of the time. You seem
to imply that if one CHOOSES to be part of a group that faces discrimination,
then you can't complain since you CHOSE to join that group. Should people be
allowed to discriminate against people since they CHOSE to live that
lifestyle?Most LDS CHOOSE to be Republicans. What if Obama gave an
executive order ordering only the names of Democrat candidates be printed on the
ballot? Voters wanting to vote for GOP candidates would have to write in the
name of the candidate. Since the GOP guy can CHOOSE to be a Democrat if he wants
his name on the ballot, then there is no discrimination, especially since they
can still be elected via a write-in vote.Just because someone
CHOOSES to be X doesn't mean that we can freely discriminate against X and then
say that if people want societal approval, all they have to do if CHOOSE to no
longer be X. The LDS at Haun's Mill could have chosen to not be LDS. Do you
believe that it's their own fault for what happened to them? That's crazy!
@ Gregg WeberYou are using as examples selective cases to contradict
bebot's assertion. However, your presentation is also vague and
undefined.Because you are basing your position on fairly new historical
cases.If we look at crimes committed in the name of religion you may like
to start with the Old Testament;Israel against all those people they
conquered, took their land and killed in the name of God.Persians,
Assyrians, etc. against Israel.The CrusadesThe InquisitionLet's go to the Americas:The Inca Empire, being the chosen one by the
god SunThe AztecsThe MayansAnd the list goes on and on.
Unfortunately we don't have the numbers to corroborate bebo's assertion. But we
don't have the numbers to dispute it either.However, those numbers
are really irrelevant. Because, you see, no crimes should ever be committed in
the name of religion. One crime in the name of God is one too many.Discrimination, bigotry, social injustice in the name of God is wrong
regardless the number of time those Gospel violations are committed. They are
"As of July 1, 2003, New Mexico non-discrimination law extends to
categories of "sexual orientation and gender identity" as well as
"race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, physical or mental handicap
or serious medial condition." An Act Relating to Human Rights, N.M. S.B. 28
to be codified at ch. 196, N.M. Stat. Ann. Â§Â§ 28-1-2, 7,
9 (April 8, 2003); N.M. Stat. Ann. Â§ 28-1-7 (2001). Sexual
orientation is defined to mean: heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality,
whether actual or perceived."I was wrong. Just a law - not an
amendment.BUT it has been a law since 2003. Those photographers had
to choice to move to a state (like Utah) that has no anti-discrimination law if
they wanted to be able to discriminate to those who didn't believe like they
did. Why did they choose a state that had laws against the very thing that they
purported to want to do - only photograph those things that agreed with their
beliefs?Why can't we blame these individuals for their choices too?
If you believe in a Constitutional republic like we do, then you believe that
other people's beliefs, no matter how reprehensible to you, deserve some level
of protection. This obviously cuts both ways, hence the article. The answer is
balancing. We protect what's most important but have to sacrifice what's less
important.Which is more important: that a gay couple gets to choose
its photographer or that a photographer is allowed to maintain her livelihood?
Paraphrasing may commenters: "She shouldn't be offering a service to the
public if she's not willing to do it without discriminating." Rephrased:
"She shouldn't be allowed to make a living if she isn't willing to violate
her deeply held, Constitutionally protected religious beliefs." In my
opinion, the application of the New Mexico law in this case is
unConstitutional.That changes if every photographer were to
discriminate in this way. In that case, the tables turn as was the case in the
South as most business owners discriminated against blacks. If the gay couple
couldn't hire any wedding photographer, then that's worse than requiring the
photographer to photograph a single gay ceremony.I'm LDS. If someone
refused to shoot my wedding because of religious conviction, but I had other
photographers to choose from, I don't believe that my commitment to a
Constitutional republic allows me to force the photographer to shoot my
wedding.This principle also distinguishes fundamental things like
employment and housing from things like wedding photographers.The
irony is that the article referenced the need for balance and middle-ground,
something that seems to have gone unnoticed by many of these commenters.
@ Pagan and Ranch Hand...I suggest you do an indepth study of the Bible, not
just as spiritual direction, but as a historical document. It would explain the
accusations you so often use against religion, ie the tiresome old shellfish
barb (it was part of the Mosaic law which was done away with after Christ was
on the earth. It doesn't apply in 2012. It was a test of obedience before
Christ.) And all the accounts of murders and wars in the Bible. These are not
condoning the same violence in our modern times as you would suggest. So many
of these things you post are taken out of context in the Bible. From your
endless comments, you obviously have never read or studied it with the intent of
gaining spiritual understanding. I suggest you read commentaries by historians
and anthropologists about the Middle East and how the Bible fits into the
cultural past. As much as you blame religious folks for not
bothering to understand what may be behind gayness, it appears you haven't taken
the time to really understand religion and spirituality. There are far more
logical explanations within the Bible than you want to admit.
It is truly truly sad reading this article. To use God as an excuse to treat
others this is sad and then to turn the entire thing around and put the
discriminator as the victom in the story! Please, come sit down with me and I
will give you the chance to explain this to my face. How often I have tried to
reach out! there is a woman I admire and love so much. I was always so worried
what her reaction would be to know i was gay. At work, one day, she did. Before
i knew I was got frantic and I found myself telling her that I would do my best
not to offend. I still vcare deeply about this woman. Finally when all was out
in the open, we were both in tears. Thankfully, nobody was around. I thanked her
for those things that are hard to talk about. She cried and said she felt like
testimony meeting. She was right, and you know, it was the only time in years
that someone actually shared God with me. Without trying to offend anyone, we
deserve a little more.. . You don't always know! We should al care more. why is
it so difficult
A Scientist,My arguing from a religious standpoint doesn't disprove
my claims. As far as "warping" truth goes, you included that little
fallacy in your comment. You will find my comments frequently on this site when
this topic of debate comes up. I provide reason, and no one has yet proven me
wrong. Not only that, I have proven many of my claims to be irrefutably true. I
make statements like that, people say "what about this?" and I respond
with how people are either inadequately addressing the logic involved, denying
principles that are legally binding according to our laws and constitution, by
denying principles that are self-evident to our existence (simple principles
that are inescapable), and by denying all reason in order to further a
relativist agenda- to be a law "unto themselves" rather than accept
democratic government as a means of protecting individual freedom.The principles of the LDS Church's teachings can withstand and will withstand
any scrutiny you can ever come up with. Why? Because the LDS Church is true.
There is nothing warped about it. What's warped is people pretending they are a
different gender, people pretending that their anatomy functions according to
their desires and according to nothing else.There is nothing warped
about the truth, just those who deny it.
A voice of ReasonYou will find my comments frequently on this site when
this topic of debate comes up. I provide reason, and no one has yet proven me
wrong. Not only that, I have proven many of my claims to be irrefutably true.KJKDude? Seriously? Your comment reminds me of the Black Knight
from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". You can claim, "It's
just a flesh wound" all you want, but that doesn't make it true nor the
battle not lost.
I assume you'll be apologizing for misrepresenting the facts of the stories you
The caravan of equality is coming through. You can choose to join it or be a
casual observer.The worst part, of course, is to be stand in its way
and have your words be a footnote in history, becoming the part of the dialogue
that refuses to step up to an equality whose time has come.
This issue is exactly why the American people refused to pass the Equal Rights
Amendment. In today's world of declining morality I'm not so sure
that amendment to our US Constitution wouldn't have become law. Thankfully
"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. "The demands are
already being made. Go to the sltrib commentary and click " Time for
same-sex LDS marriages" and then tell me this is just all fluff.
The photography case is interesting, and so far the only case where I can agree
that SSM has posed a threat against religious liberty. The other examples are
void because it has to do with tax status and public funds, which cannot be
discriminatory. In fact, I would hope that more people would discriminate in
this line of business so that I can compete against them and gobble up all the
business they refuse to do.
The current dilemma is not new. In the 1960's "modern thinkers"
decided to abandon traditional family values and quit enforcing laws against
fornication and adultery. For centuries decent societies have risen and fallen
on the strength of weakness of their family values. The basic principles
haven't changed, a large segment of society has chosen to ignore those
principles. Now over half of our children are being born outside of marriage.
There is a reason the violation of the sanctity of marriage has
historically been an offense almost as serious as murder. It destroys our
society from the inside out much more effectively than foreign invaders from the
outside in. If mates cannot stay true to each other and commit to raising their
families, there is no hope for loyalty to any other institution, such as our
If it would have been me, I would leave and let it go, but there is a reason why
people don't. Maybe, one day, these people will truly have somebody that
steps over their bounds and lets them know what it is like. It is not a fun
feeling to get treated like you are some kind of leper. You know, give me a
break, how can somebody do that and say it is their religion that tells them it
is ok. I was raised 100% Mormon and this would never have been alright according
to how I perceived the teachings. Sadly, I have come to see that there are those
who use their religous beliefs to do some very nasty things. So, how far do
people use their religion to do things like this. Most of my beliefs have come
from Mormonism, so what about my religois beliefs! Because, being treated like
that certainly is something I never believed in!
You will hear all about the movie "Bully" that is out now, but not once
will the gay, lesbian, trans-gender group ever stop to think that what they do
is just as much bullying as what kids do on playgrounds. If you disagree with
their views they bully you any way they can to drive you out of business, out of
sight and get their way. I'd like to hear Ellen DeGeneres, who is a
sincere, good person, discuss this issue on her show.
This is a slippery slope that will continue to get steeper with each occuring
issue as the boundaries between gender/sexual orientation definitions get
blurred further and further.A couple of years ago there was a
situation in Oregon where a women had undergone partial surgery to look like a
man but kept her reproductive organs. She was in a relationship with a woman who
was unable to have kids. The transgender person (who now looked like a man) was
able to get pregnant by artificial insemination and 9 months later delivered a
healthy baby. Because he was the birth mother, the hospital listed
him as the birth mother. The couple fought the hospital and wanted him listed as
the father (even though she didn't provide the sperm) and the female
partner listed as the mother even though she didn't give birth.Things like this will continue to de-evolve into even further unimaginable
scenarios and what's now becoming a nightmare will continue to get even
Within the gay community, you'll find not just activists but the
"overzealous" kind, who are ready to jump on anything they see as
"discrimination" and march into battle.Probably every
minority group has this type. So it's important to look separately at each
issue in the gay fight for equality and ask, "Is this imposing on
others' beliefs? Or are others trying to impose *their* beliefs on
gays?"The legalization of gay marriage is a classic example.
There's no just reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. The
objections people have are based solely on their own beliefs.Should
clergy be made to perform marriage ceremonies for gays, even though it violates
the clergy's beliefs? Should vendors (such as the photographer) be made to
accept assignments for gay weddings, even though it goes agains th vendors'
beliefs?Absolutely not. That's an imposition on these people
of the gay clients' own beliefs.As a gay male, let me assure
you that the majority of gays are much more reasonable and fair-minded than
those overzealous activists. Please get to know gays individually before making
judgements about gays
Perhaps the Defense should have asked a more relevant question. Such as,“If a photographer being Hindu was asked to photograph an Orthodox
Jew’s practice of a religious ceremony which included an animal sacrifice
of a cow, could the photographer be accused of Religious discrimination for
refusing to shoot the ceremony on grounds that he believes cows to be
sacred.” Although the photographer would not be participating in the
ceremony should the courts be able to require this Hindu photographer to take
the job? I would stand and say emphatically, NO. Would this not infringe
upon freedom of speech and compel unwanted expression? If Elane
believes that eliciting sexual arousal in any person not your spouse and of
opposite gender to be adultery, then photography of such an event would be
considered pornography. So if her religious belief is to abstain from
immorality including pornography, then compelling her to photograph such
behavior would most definitely infringe upon her freedom of religion, and compel