Deseret News | Utah's 'private clubs' on way out?

Reader comments
Utah's 'private clubs' on way out?

143 comments | Read story

Bert | 6:33 a.m. July 31, 2008

There needs to be a new commandment. "Thou shalt not supersize."

re richard 12:15 a.m. | 6:35 a.m. July 31, 2008

If you lived in a state with a majority religion and you were not a member, and the church spoke for and the people voted for one of the following, which of the following do you think would be right for the majority to impose on you?

Equal Rights for all? (churches that supported civil rights)

Liquor Law Restrictions? (LDS and others)

No Blood transfusions? (Jehovas Witness)

Wife has to wear head covering and can not leave the house with being accompanied by male relative?
(moslems)

No use of Birth Control (catholics)

No Dances (baptists)

I think all right thinking people would support equal rights for all.

Drinking laws fall in the middle, because there is legitimate reason to have restrictions, however excessive restrictions with religious motivation is what is wrong here, and it is a judgement call, however when the LDS church comes out against this but not against other health or safety issues, that makes people wonder.

Birth Control, Womens Rights and Blood transfusions are clearly out of bounds for religions to try to impose on other people.

Religions although they have a right to speak, need to should not impose religious restrictions on people.

Vegor | 6:58 a.m. July 31, 2008

"Uh-oh!

Could Utah be headed for the 21st Century?"

Utah...on your way to the 21st century could you please stop by the 20th century too?

Comments continue below

Rich | 7:02 a.m. July 31, 2008

I think the church's involvement in this issue in Utah while ignoring the liquor laws in other states diminishes the church's stature. The LDS church is a worldwide organization with more members in California than in Utah, with fewer members who speak English than other languages, with a worldwide mission. The fine points of Utah liquor law might have minimal impact on the level of alcohol consumption here in the Beehive State anyway. And forcing drinkers away from non-drinkers during their visits to Utah reduces the opportunities for visitors or non-LDS residents to mingle with and get to know and understand LDS residents.

Equal Rights | 7:32 a.m. July 31, 2008

What about the rights of those that don't want what some one else wants? Why do the minority groups always get what they want and the majority has to accept it? When will the minority groups accept what the majority wants. Fair is Fair and Equal is Equal. If the majority wants strict drinking laws so be it. If the majority want same sex marriages so be it. Since when does the vocal minority rule the silent majority. The silent majority needs to step and become vocal and impose its will. Vote in legislators who are part of the majority, pass the laws that you want.

Ozark Bubba | 7:33 a.m. July 31, 2008

Though LDS, we live in an overwhelmingly conservative state and in a dry county. (Yet many of our fundamentalist friends vote "dry" and drink "wet.")

The problem of a dominant religion attempting to control the politics of a state is not unique to Utah. So, suck it up and deal with it! We tire of others badmouthing our faith while trying to legislate their views on the rest of us. Yet we live here because our livelihood is here.

Confused | 7:42 a.m. July 31, 2008

I think that if these people want to relax the Booze Laws they should also be willing to take the punishment for abusing it.

Let say that a Drunk kills another person while driving. Then I think that Drunk Driver should get the death penalty! He caused an "Innocent" person to die, why not make him pay the alternate price for his stupidy?

As a son of a bar tender, I can tell you that those people who "Say" they can control their drinking or they are only a social drinker, they are simply naive and only fooling themselves.

The problem with people today, is they want unfettered freedom without taking responisbility for their actions.

the LDS church has as much right to speak out or for any social issue. It is not a violation of Church and State as some myopic people want you to believe.

For those of you that believe Comsuption of Acohol does not hurt anyone else but the drinker, never lived with a person who drank.

JCL | 7:44 a.m. July 31, 2008

The interest of the members of the LDS church on this issue is not trying to control everyone else. It's exercising our right to keep our neighborhoods safe.

I have to commend Gov. Huntsman on this one. It really looks like he's trying to go out of his way to ensure that a good compromise is reached on this.

Gun Control? | 7:48 a.m. July 31, 2008

When an adult gives a gun to a minor and that minor uses it to kill someone the adult is arrested and hauled off to jail for a long time. When an adult gives alcohol to a minor and the minor kills someone while intoxicated the adult gets a slap on the wrist. What gives? If you want to loosen alcohol laws then toughen up other aspects of concern.

LDS Hoosier | 8:01 a.m. July 31, 2008

I personally think this article has created an issue where there isn't one. The article clearly states the governor's office is soliciting feedback from a wide variety of organizations that may have an opinion regarding a potential change in the private club laws. The LDS church is simply one of many potential stakeholders that were invited to comment. This is how representative government works. Leaders ask for feedback, propose legislation and the political system processes it.

Yet the opening of the article makes it sound as if the LDS Church rather than the governor's office is at the middle of all these discussions. If you have differing opinions with the current or proposed legislation (either for or against it), I would suggest taking the time to contact your political representatives rather than slogging things out on the desnews forums will have a greater influence on the future laws of the state.

Anonymous | 8:10 a.m. July 31, 2008

We can't let adults drink. It' too dangerous. Every soul who drinks is an irresponsible alcoholic that will kill our children. They make me so nervous when I'm driving that I have to take my Percocet and Xanax just to cope. I also have to call/text my friend to vent. You people make the roads so dangerous.

What ever happened | 8:16 a.m. July 31, 2008

to separation of church and state? I don't drink myself but I refuse to tell other people that they cannot. I beleive that shoving your religion down others throats is a violation of their rights. The LDS religion should worry about their own and leave everyone else alone!!!!

Paul in MD | 8:22 a.m. July 31, 2008

A lot of posters are castigating the LDS church for imposing its standards on Utah. Please reread this quote from the article:

"Tani Downing, has spent the past several months attempting to talk with every group that has an interest in the issue, including the LDS Church."

The LDS church isn't going out of its way to corner the governor and force him to do anything. The LDS church was sought out for its opinion, along with a lot of other groups.

There is another idea I'd like you to consider as well. Utah is heavily influenced by LDS church teachings because its population is 50 - 70% active LDS (I don't know the exact figure, but it's somewhere in that range). ANYWHERE you have a single group with that high a percentage of the population that group's interests will be predominately served, especially if they exercise the right to vote.

The group doesn't have to be religious or of one religion. Liberals in San Francisco have turned that city into a haven for illegal aliens. I don't have room for more examples, but they abound.

G | 8:33 a.m. July 31, 2008

Sometimes I wonder if alcohol is an ultimate good or an ultimate bad. We teach minors that alcohol is bad for them and we pass laws to prevent them from having easy access to alcohol. But after a child reaches "adulthood" we allow unlimited purchase and consumption af alcohol as a "right" and a personal freedom. What magical transformation makes alcohol good for adults and bad for minors.

I feel the same way about movies. Is there a magical age when the human mind is not damaged by violence, explicit sex and crude language on the big screen?

Do we condone for adults what our gut feeling tells us is wrong for our children? Why is this? It has always been puzzling to me.

lost in DC | 8:36 a.m. July 31, 2008

thank goodness for Balmforth.

Don't anyone tell the governor that brothels and marijuana cafes would bring in more tourist dollars, or he'd be pushing legislation legalizing them.

church | 8:38 a.m. July 31, 2008

I guess its true in Utah, the Church does run the State. Good thing I don't live there!

Once again..... | 8:43 a.m. July 31, 2008

We see a clear case where the LDS church is sticking it's nose into politics. I'm willing to bet that if you take away their tax free status, you'll see them back behind their pulpits in no time. Where they belong.

Anonymous | 8:54 a.m. July 31, 2008

So what does Utah gain if it "loosens" the liquor laws? Nothing but more consumption of alcohol. Nobody is going to come to Utah because the liquor laws have been "modernized", they come to ski, or see the parks, or whatever. Let them whine and complain, who cares. Alcohol is the bain and curse of the modern world. All hail to anyone who can make it more difficult to get the stuff.

Pay up and Shush Up | 8:53 a.m. July 31, 2008

if you are not willing to pay the MERE 12$ membership fee then you don't want to drink bad enough. Likewise if you don't want to pay the high taxes on tobacco then you don't to smoke badly enough. Pay up and shush up. It's such a minor amount so just shell it out. If you really want to complain about something unfair complain about unfair energy costs, or high property taxes.

Matthew | 8:57 a.m. July 31, 2008

Either the current Utah laws make it harder to get a drink or they don't. If they do, then they represent a control and they probably contribute to reductions in alcohol related social ills. If they don't, then what's the problem? Why change something that doesn't inconvenience anyone? The people that are for change tend to want to argue both ways at the same time.
I live in Oregon and hard liquor is sold in state run liquor stores. People in Utah need to wake up and realize that Utah's laws are not nearly so different or strange as those that want alcohol everywhere would like everyone to think. The motive for the changes is profit from liquor sales, not personal liberties or "not looking silly." It is an issue that every part of society has a stake in, including churches.

2 bits | 9:04 a.m. July 31, 2008

Personally, I don't care if we have private clubs or not. They sound like a stupid idea.

That said, I don't think we should be wringing-our-hands about changing our laws to get the acceptance of tourists or outsiders like Anonymous (who has already committed to never come to Utah).

I don't think many tourists come to Utah for the drinking (nor would they if we changed the laws or made access to liguor easier). I don't think we're going to see "Spring Break Snowbird" or DVDs titled "Girls Gone Wild Utah Edition", regardless of our liquor laws (Nor would we want to attract this scene).

Tourism research shows the top 3 attractions in Utah are:
1. Temple Square (a lot of those folks, Mormon or not, are not in SLC for the bar scene).
2. Skiing (These folks come for the snow, not the booze. I've never been to a ski resort in Utah where I couldn't find liquor for my guests).
3. National Parks (Again, this isn't the boozer crowd. All they need is what they can pack in their cooler or their RV fridge).

Admit it. This isn't about liquor. It's a vailed anti-LDS influence topic.

FREEDOM | 9:14 a.m. July 31, 2008

comes with a price. People who consume alcohol want it both ways. They want to drink at will, but want everyone else to pay the enormous costs of alcohol related deaths, welfare, child abuse, etc. etc.

just wondering | 9:22 a.m. July 31, 2008

if alcohol, being a drug, is legal why are other drugs being discriminated against. probably because of the liquor interests. is this a free country or not?

Most utah DUI | 9:28 a.m. July 31, 2008

The sad statistic that most people who oppose this are using is that a majority of Utah's DUI's are not from alcohol, but the average LDS Utah resident who abuses prescriptions and drives while high on Lortab, Percocet, Valium or the other plutura of medications we abuse in this state.

I think we need to introduce a new law requiring membership at all pharmacies. All Utah pharmacies now are required to be "Private Pharmacies for Members." This will cut down on all prescription abuses and DUI offenses.

non drinker | 9:35 a.m. July 31, 2008

What is the church doing meeting with the Government anyway? We don't mix church and state. Why do we have this law anyway? It serves no purpose but to drive away tourists and shrinkin the tax base.

Decided by lawmakers | 9:36 a.m. July 31, 2008

The LDS church has the right and the obligation to speak out on any issue that it feels is important.
As the article states, the church was one of many organizations contacted by the Governor's office to collect input.

Ultimately, legislators pass laws and courts review them...not churches or other advocacy groups. So the decision to change or not change the private club laws rests with our lawmakers, who are elected by the voters. Lawmakers should make every effort to ensure that they are representing all of the people that live in their district. If they fail to do this, we should find someone else to vote for, or perhaps even better, run for office ourselves.

I respect my friends and neighbors right to drink responsibly, and do feel that it would be beneficial to find the best possible balance to allow them to do what they wish while protecting the rights of others at the same time.

As for what outsiders think of Utah, I'll start caring about that more when they move here and become a neighbor of mine. (It's a great place to live!)

Anonymous | 9:59 a.m. July 31, 2008

The reason to change the private club law is because it doesnt do any good and only causes confusion and consternation.
Can anyone explain why we should keep the private club law?

HarryL | 10:01 a.m. July 31, 2008

If you look at the damage that is accrued to the use of alcohol in our society, you would praise any person, organization, church, social agency, or otherwise who takes a stand against it. The problem is that alcohol masks its own problems, so the alcoholic is said to be in denial, the loss of inhibition is seen as a positive by the person under the influence, guilt is transformed into pride and the blame of others, and so on. It is not about popularity. I know women who are alcoholics as a result of the taste of the beverage. In a way then, it is not an issue of alcohol, but rather the insidious efforts being made to trap people into a life of addiction. At the bottom of virtually every social problem, be it drugs, abuse, crime, etc it is not heroin, it is alcohol. This is not opinion, it is fact. If you want a society where your kids can get drunk and become alcoholics before they are out of high school it's up to you, and it's up to me. It is not worth it, meaning the risk involved.

Jon | 10:09 a.m. July 31, 2008

The private club law affects me in this fashion: Instead of paying the membership fee every time I wish to drink, I use those $12 to buy myself that much more liquor at the nearest liquor store and get that much more drunk. Think about it, going to a private club I could spend $12 on about three drinks. With the sane amount of money I can but a fifth of vodka, which is good for ten times that many drinks. Thank you Utah for assisting me in my alcoholism.

Evil around every corner | 10:09 a.m. July 31, 2008

I am an LDS church member who lives in a distant state. I like to keep up on Utah news by reading this paper as well as that other one. I happen to believe Utah's liquor laws are antiquated and do little if anything to protect against drunk driving or other alcohol-related crime. However, as I read this paper online, I am struck by the realization that there exists a group of people who like to ascribe ill will to the LDS church whenever it says or does anything. The church (along with lots of other groups) has met with (not given direction to) the governor's office (who won't be drafting or passing any proposed legislation anyway), and has said they won't be taking any position until they see the proposed legislation (which will come, I reiterate, from the legislature, not the governor). Somehow this translates into the LDS church imposing its will on all Utahns? Huh? Sometimes I wonder if you people even read the articles before you publish comments critical of the church. More people would probably agree with your arguments if you could just start by getting your facts right.

Alternate | 10:20 a.m. July 31, 2008

First thing, drop the hate. Hate is a bigger killer than drunk drivers. Second even though one person "hates" controlling booze, another person wants it controlled. Therefore you find common ground. That is what is happening here and always have. To all you haters, please read the story again. Many groups were consulted. Drop the hate, get a life!

Blah Blah Blah | 10:30 a.m. July 31, 2008

This whole issue is absolutely ridiculous! First off why is the church even getting involved? Their members are not supposed to drink anyways. I will drink at a bar with or without having to buy a membership and I know that is how it goes for 99.9% of drinkers out there. It is not going to encourage or discourage people from drinking.... Its about time that the church can not be the moral police for everyone! We need to stop living in this bubble! Whatever happen to the seperation of church and state?

Robert | 10:30 a.m. July 31, 2008

The real issue here is the availability of alcohol, not so much in how it becomes available. Let's remember: the membership fee regulations came about at the request of liquor sellers. Years ago, they and their trade association wanted to clear the confusion about when and where alcohol could be served by the drink. The law did not allow liquor by the drink in "public establishments", but there was no legal guidance about what exactly was a "public establishment", and private clubs like the Alta Club in Salt Lake City didn't know how they fit into the picture. So the state defined a private club as any establishment that charged a fee for membership. Such businesses could sell liquor by the drink. As a result, liquor sellers of all types began to charge membership fees in order to sell liquor by the drink in Utah. That's how we ended up with our "confusing" private membership requirements. Now liquor sellers are turning the laws on their head: they say that the private club rules, which they initiated, are too confusing. But the question remains: how does the state implement liquor by the drink, and what safeguards should be in place?

GB | 10:36 a.m. July 31, 2008

I agree with LDS Hoosier and Paul in MD. The first paragraph of this article created images of secret deals being struck in smoke-filled (or caffeine-free Coke-filled) rooms, but as I read the article and learned what actually happened, I think what happened is completely appropriate. I note that the governor's office reached out to the church, not vice versa, and that the governor's office is meeting with lots of stakeholders. Sounds like exactly what should happen.

Laws restricting alcohol, like laws restricting abortion and many other laws, are a far cry from violating the First Amendment's proscription on establishing a religion. These laws don't tell people how to worship, pray, which church to go to, etc. Rather, these laws deal with creating the type of atmosphere and limits a society wants to create. The fact that someone's opinion about creating a healthy environment is rooted in their religious beliefs is fine.

A lot of comments mention that people will drink regardless of whether the private club rules exist. They're probably right; a lot of people will drink either way. But barriers to alcohol will surely deter some people.

To Some Facts | 10:37 a.m. July 31, 2008

You said that Utah has one of the highest teen preganacy rate in the US. This is not true, in fact, it is the opposite.

As a percentage, births to teen mothers in Utah was the 7th lowest in the nation in 2000 and the lowest in 2005. I could not find the rate. I did find that the percentage of 15-19 year-olds in Utah was the highest in the nation. (Source: "Statistical Abstracts of the United States")

The combination of the lowest percentage of births to teen mothers and the highest percentage of teens show that Utah does not even come close to having one of the highest rates of teen pregnancies.

How does a high rate of deaths from LEGAL prescription drugs support your case? This category includes drug interactions, allergies, not understanding the directions, as well as abuse. Curiously, drug/alcohol interactions make up a sizeable percentage of the category. (various sources)

I actually agree that NO church should set public policy. Using bad "facts" hurts our argument more than it helps. It is too easy for someone to spot a bad fact and throw out ALL of the other facts that are good.

Paul in MD | 10:38 a.m. July 31, 2008

To Rich @ 7:02 7/31
Just because this story only mentions Utah's request for input from the LDS church, doesn't mean the church hasn't given input to other states or the Federal government on their liquor laws, or other laws for that matter.

The church, in general, does not go out of its way to impose its views on the government. But when a government official invites input, the church gives it. So where's the problem?

I'm sure many just read my statement above and started tallying up a list. Let me clarify - the church teaches the membership what the doctrines are (no drinking, no smoking, obey the law of the land, etc.), and encourages members to study the issues, make up their own minds, and get involved in the political process. With very few, very extreme exceptions, the church does not directly state a position on any issue or candidate (the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70's, and California's recent same-sex marriage issues are the only two I can think of).

LDS Not Stupid | 10:42 a.m. July 31, 2008

I understand the rage of non-LDS who feel suppressed and restricted by the LDS controlled legislature, because morality should not be legislated. Morality is one's private sense of right and wrong and should only be published as law when there is clear proof that the public's health or safety is involved. In the case of private clubs there is no proof that the public health or safety is protected or improved and the law should be eliminated. One thing I'm sure of: the LDS want to be viewed as reasonable and mainstream by the public, and ultimately these laws will pass. Time and patience; they're not stupid.

Happy in Happy Val. | 11:10 a.m. July 31, 2008

Ah Heck. Utah might be leaving the 1800s and cross a bridge to 21st century. By golly gee whiz we are off to see the wizard the wonderful wizard of Oz.

re Equal Rights | 7:32 a.m. | 11:11 a.m. July 31, 2008

Why doesn't the majority always get to rule over the minority?

If majority rule was the rule, we wouldn't need a constitution. The constitution in part, is about rights that the government or the majority can't take away from people.

Now the right to liquor is not in the US constitution, however if you believe the majority should always rule,

Take yourself and your family to Afganistan for a few years, during that time, I hope and think you will get an appreciation for the rights of people, regardless of what the majority has to say.

The constitution protects some of our rights specifically. In those cases where it does not, the majority would do well to remember the golden rule. If you lived in a state where they make contraseption illegal, do you think it is any of the majorities business to force this upon you?

to LDS not Stupid | 11:28 a.m. July 31, 2008

As a non-LDS (actually not anyhting) I also understand the rage and resentment of LDS who seemed to get blamed for everything from air pollution to world hunger. If Jesse Jackson can have an opinion - so can the LDS Church. If California can restrict tobacco and transfats, then Utah should restrict more dangerous drugs. Mormon bashing gets tiring.

Dave | 11:29 a.m. July 31, 2008

Get over complaining about the private club membership. It's cheap compared to "cover charges" in many clubs, who charge each patron. The private club temporary membership is cheap, covers the group, and lasts a couple weeks. It discourages bar hopping. The private club membership is a good idea in every conceivable way. Why is the State Government even wasting time with this? Surely, there must be more constructive things they have to focus on!

The Constitution | 11:32 a.m. July 31, 2008

The men who forged the constitution did not want separation of state and church. But the ability to choose what religion and not have the state choose for you. We need a moral law in our society. There are some who have convinced us this is in the constitution. Benjamin Franklin 1787 Speech "I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Haven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assemble every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service". We need to keep our abilities to allow others there opinions. This country was built on The Ten Commandments/ Union Article III of that ordinance state: Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to a good government and happiness of a mankind.ï¿½

Let us all vote our within our belief system. We are a nation built on religious freedom not separation of state and religion. I believe all denominations have a say in the laws that govern our Nation. With in those denominations are the people of the Nation.

The laws are governed by the people wait for the vote.

I read the entire article | 11:37 a.m. July 31, 2008

You may want to before you post. "She's met with a plethora of people," Roskelley said, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Utah Hospitality Association as well as members of the LDS Church's public affairs committee. This is clearly a case of the government meeting with concerned groups and the press writing it up in a way to evoke emotional responses and sell more papers. I repeat, read the entire article.

Anonymous | 12:03 p.m. July 31, 2008

Utah has about 58 percent of its *adult* inhabitants claiming membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 31% of the population is under the age of 18 and therefore not an adult. I am willing to venture to guess that a large portion of that under 18 population is being raised LDS. Just some interesting stats. I don't agree with the archaic liquor laws of Utah but I also see no problem with values being faith based. Values will always infuse political choices since this is a democracy and elected leaders represent their constituency.

uncannygunman | 12:08 p.m. July 31, 2008

Has the governor met with any group that actually represents Utah's drinkers? UHA represents Utah's bar-owners, which is not exactly the same thing.

Also, its not the annual $12 that people object to, it's the infantilization and control aspect. I'd be much happier with a system that simply mandated a $1 cover charge every time you walk into a bar. It would cost me a lot more over the course of a year, but I would be much more inclined to try new bars. As it is now, I get my one or two memberships and just go there--trying new places is an expensive hassle.

Finally, the "other paper" is reporting a so-called compromise whereby tourists would be given special privileges over Utah residents--let's nip this idea in the bud right now. Utah's laws should serve Utah's residents first and foremost, not outsiders. If the focus of club-reform had always been on catering to Utahns instead of tourists, we wouldn't be having to debate such ridiculous proposals.

Anonymous | 12:13 p.m. July 31, 2008

Go right ahead and change your laws. In the end; California, New Mexico and Idaho with still be funner places to visit.

Corruption with a Halo | 12:19 p.m. July 31, 2008

Anonymous | 12:03 p.m. July 31, 2008

Although Utah has about 58 percent of its *adult* inhabitants claiming membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, just less than half of them are "active". This means that over half of LDS do NOT attend Church regularly and therefore, do NOT "sustain" the leaders of the Church. Thus, only about 30% of Utah citizens are the "active" kind who are trying to force their fear of and prejudice toward alcohol onto the other 70%.

I don't care how "representative" you think the Government should be, but when a 30% minority write the laws to bend to the will of a rich and powerful local Church, that is corruption.

CITIZEN | 12:23 p.m. July 31, 2008

Does anyone remember the first miricle JESUS CHRIST PREFORMED??According to the bible he turned water too wine.not grape juice,not non-alcoholic wine but "WINE"Period..!!

to citizen | 12:51 p.m. July 31, 2008

But Jesus could only serve it one glass at a time .. probably ;-)

PROBLEM | 12:53 p.m. July 31, 2008

Here's the problem as I see it - 90% of the legislature is Mormon. Whatever their church says to do, they will do and there is not a darn thing we can do about it. They make the rules in this state when it comes to drinking. There is a majority of Mormons voting for Mormons and they will keep that power for a long time.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.