Comments about ‘LDS Church refuses alcohol waiver’

There is never a "need" for a restaurant to serve alcohol. Good for the church, and good for the Baptist church in Tremonton.

I hope that they don't get the okay. The resturant just needs a new location.

Too tempting, I guess.. Build a 10 foot wall maybe?

i live in Idaho, and let me say that the curbing of
alcoholic drinks is a wise decision. In Boise most all of the late night or early morning problems that the police department deal with are connected to drugs or alcohol. If you reduce their usage you will reduce the crime in any city. Crime costs everyone money from policing, to the judicial system to the prison system. It all costs money and that is born by the taxpayers.

As a LDS may I state first I think the law is rather a stupid one, but I do realize I live in Utah now where many laws are stupid. LDS know that the tabernacle is seldom used for church services, it often is used for community events and for the church leadership to refuse the waiver is just illogical, especially since they have allowed waivers for other restaurants.

What is the percentage of time that the restaurant would be serving alcohol when there is a 'service' going on in the tabernacle? Does anyone know the answer to that question?

* "The tavern will argue before the DABC later this month that there is a community need for their establishment. Proving that need could override the church’s veto, which would be a first for Utah." *

Will the church(es) contend that the community and society need religion and its influence, while the taverns contend that the community and society need alcohol and its influence?

This could become a debate between whether it is better for a community to have people actively pursuing religion or actively pursuing alcohol.

What an interesting discussion that would be.

If you folks had read the article "the church" has already signed waivers allowing other restaurants to serve alcohol.

Why no on this one? More to this than appears.

There is no reason why the Church has any reason to support such waivers. The 2:03 commentator ignores the fact that Utah's liquor laws were recently changed, meaning that an institution serving alcohol today is in a different situation and under different rules than a year ago.
The Church thus is dealing with a different situation than it did in the past, so it makes its decision based on different criteria.

The LDS church is a bit sanctimonious on this subject, given the fact that Brigham Young owned bars and breweries and LDS owned Hotel Utah served liquor and sold tobacco.

Pardon my Dust doesn't seem to understand that as any other organization, the LDS Church has the ability to revise its policies as time and need require. I'm glad this ordainance is still in effect and the LDS Church or any other church have the ability to allow or prevent alcohol sales. I'm glad the State fathers gave every religious organization the ability to protect the surroundings of their edifices. Kuddos for Brigham and the conservative religious block.

Time to grow up, Utah, and abandon outdated policies and laws. Teach your own flock whatever principles you wish...and keep your nose out of other people's business...or businesses...as it were.

A new restaurant means a number of new jobs, revenue for the city...and perhaps a few Utahns off the State unemployment rolls.

The Iron Gate Grill is excellent! They have great food, a great atmosphere, and good spirits! For the LDS Church to be so unreasonable is... well, I guess it is expected.

The monopoly the LDS Church has on Utah is slowly but surely disintegrating. Monopolies are always bad things, and when a religious monopoly exists and influences business, politics, and education the way the LDS Church does in Utah, that Leviathan must be fought!

Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose that a church wants to set up shop, but some neighbors oppose its opening because it would inhibit future businesses moving into the neighborhood. If I've been fancying opening a restaurant, the arrival of an LDS church would indeed cause me some legitimate concerns.

So, should churches be required to get the go-ahead from neighbors to open up? Of course not; that would be a gross violation of basic property rights. Just like this restaurant is having its property rights violated.

The LDS should categorically apologize for its behavior, the law should be repealed, and the legislature should condemn the lawmakers who voted for it in the first place.