Comments about ‘Courts limit our right to just say no’

Yes, wedge issues are a strange new territory. Doug Robinson is creating a worse America by choosing to divide us by his litany of stereotypes.

As Americans, we are entitled to equal protection under the law. Equal protection under law means that you can't wholesale discriminate against a particular group of Americans. Robinson is trying to push that boundary into a strange new territory where anyone not like him can be marginalized.

Fight the temptation to be like Robinson - embrace the fact that all Americans deserve to be treated without prejudice.

Doug--Once again, you've hit gold. Loved your list of the possible we'll see in the future.

Couldn't help adding a few.

Will Sports Illustrated be required to include some very large, overweight willing-to-bear-all women for their Swimsuit Calendar??

Will Prosche and Lexus dealers be forced to also include new Fords and Chevys on their lots??

Will Nordstroms and Dillards have to provide items priced the same as WalMart??

Will the BCS be required to accept any team for a bowl game berth, even lesbian teams??

We've gone too far in our society and a lot of the reason? We have failed to elect and track the judges of our country. We were warned. We did not and do not listen.

This doesn't make sense:

1) A gay couple claims they have the right to marry

2) A Christian pastor claims he has the right to choose to NOT marry the couple because of his religious beliefs.

The first example can sue and win. The second example will lose. Why does one class of people have a right and the other doesn't?

Why couldn't the gay couple just go to another pastor and get married rather than suing the first one?

Why is it that an article about tort reform concentrations exclusively on homosexuals?

Do straight people not file just as many frivolous lawsuits? Trying to imply that "the gays" somehow have a corner on that market is irresponsible, Doug.

The court system needs work, but not because of homosexuals.

I think a business should be able to discriminate on any basis--even race!

Think about what would happen if a restaurant decided not to serve African-Americans. Public pressure and protests would force them to change their rules or go out of business. That's how you change the behavior of businesses, not by court rulings.

Based on the cases presented, shouldn't the headline read "LEGISLATURES limit our right . . ."? The first two cases (and probably the third as well) result in the enforcement of laws passed by the local legislature.

I noticed on cases #1 and #3, it was those professing Christian beliefs and values that were found guilty by the courts.

What if a Jew or Buddhist or Atheist refused to accept these certain clients or perform these certain procedures because they had personal feelings or values to the contrary?? Who has greater rights, a Buddhist or someone who is gay? An atheist or a lesbian??

...as it was writen prohibits the governemnt from interfering with the free practice of religion. If a doctor, pastor or businessman refuses service on the basis of their religious belief the courts should have no say in the matter.

Doug asks alot of questions, and the simple answer is if in any "human rights" question the plaintiff is a member of an aggreived minority and the defendant is white Christian and male, then no discrimination will be allowed.

But it will never go the other way; Muslim mosques will not be required to perform gay marriages, for example.

Kinda like hate crime laws: They were never intended to protect the rights and property of straight white Christian males.

Got it now?

Our 'free' country continues to become less 'free', all in the name of fairness.

Doug seems to pointing out that the misjudges who issued the opinions he cites have forgotten the part of the first amendment to the constitution banning government from prohibiting the free expression of religion. Oh well, it's PC for the misjudges to do what they have done, and we know that political correctness trumps the constitution every time.

The judges who have ruled in these cases do not understand the law. The Constitution establishes law in the United States; it is the supreme law of the land. It is based on natural law, for which the Declaration of Independence set a precedent. The Declaration of Independence is organic law; it is clear that these documents base all law on natural law, which is God's law. If a judge rules inconsistently with God's law, he or she is violating the supreme law of the land. These judges need to go back to law school and study Blackstone and a few others to learn their law. So the answer to the question by some is, yes, it is based on Christian beliefs and values. That was how we established the law of THIS LAND. If you live in this land, you are subject to that law. Is that discrimination? Absolutely. Anything immoral or amoral is a violation of natural law and therefore not legal. It is that simple.

Interesting column. Pope John Paul II pointed out late in his life that civil rights issues will be a great tool for Satan in the future. He was right on.

If I were that photographer, I would have taken the job, charged a high rate, and made photos that would be on the level of a 10 year old. I would then sue if they gay couple refused to pay.

Why are these examples the only ones ever trotted out by those who support discrimination and bigotry? Are there really so few examples of gays trying to get equal treatment? As far as frivolous lawsuits are concerned, how about the guy who sued because his pants were lost and wanted millions of dollars. I'm sorry, 10's of thousands of ridiculous suits are filed each year. Robinson uses these suits by gays as if they are the only ones in the country trying to seek redress for perceived wrongs. Such bias, such bigotry. . . Robinson would do well to listen to the measured words offered by the LDS leaders concerning this matter.

Since it's the Deseret News, I won't get sued for quoting scripture will I?
Alma 10:27 And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges.
--------------
Add to this "Ethics of our Law-makers/Legislators"

on "frivolous lawsuits." Did the guy with the million dollar pants win and set a precedent? I think you know the answer. Nice misdirection, though. The eHarmony case boggles the mind. These examples are scary because frivolous and unjust WON. He didn't even use the case of the Mass. people trying to have the public school system let them opt out their children from homosexual "diversity" education. You know, the kind of case that the California people said was just a "scare tactic?"

Many "frivolous" lawsuits win. So what? That is the way America works. The eHarmony case is an excellent example of blatant discrimination and is NOT a frivolous lawsuit. Why should a company offer the PUBLIC a service and then deny accommodating a segment of the public because of... Actually, I am unaware of a reason why eHarmony originally denied gays the use of their services. It must not have been a very deep reason (unlike the undying bigotry of many groups) because they quickly offered gays the same services they offer straights. This is the way it should be. If religions want to discriminate and be biased that is their right. But time after time the courts have ruled that it is WRONG for businesses to discriminate and treat different groups of people unfairly.

To "scary scary gays | 11:32 a.m." what is worse to discriminate based on sexual orientation or religion?

If you look at the cases that were presented, sexual orientation trumps religion. Religion is directly addressed in the Constitution as "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." In otherwords, the state cannot have laws that limit somebody's freedoms. By ruling against the people that had religious grounds you in effect limit their rights.

The people who sued could find the same service elsewhere. The lesbian who had the fertility Dr refuse to treat here was not denied fertility treatment, she went and had 3 kids. The Dr. made a business decision, for good or bad, it was his choice.

Freedom isn't about being able to do whatever you want, but is about having choices and being able to choose the consequences of those choices.