My view: Religious liberties and gay rights


Return To Article
  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 3, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    @ Uncle Charles: "...evil is called good and good called evil."

    So many people are so fond of using that quote. But I have noticed something - those who quote it the most, often have the least Christ-like posts.

    So tell me, since you are one of the ones who insists that evil is good and good is evil, what parts of your post reflect the teachings of Christ?

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    March 2, 2012 10:40 p.m.

    do you think you live int eh 1950's uncle charles? try refusing services to someone because of their race. religion, gender etc.... and see how far you get? anti discrimination laws and the sorry reasoning you use to appose them are not a new thing.

  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    March 2, 2012 3:11 p.m.

    Again, it looks like the uber-Progressives have to foist their perversion onto everyone else. What a sad day it is when people make a case to tell people they have to condone something they otherwise wouldn't.

    If I own a business, who are any of you to tell me who I can or can't do business with? I could choose to do business with only blondes and people over 6' if I choose. If you don't like who I choose to allow to use my business then go find someone else who will allow you in.

    It's all about choice --- homosexuals don't want anyone to say anything about their choice but don't allow the same courtesy to me and my choice. Again, forcing people to accept something they don't approve of, condone or accept all in the name of "tolerance", "equal rights" blah blah blah.

    What a sick and twisted society we live in where evil is called good and good called evil.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 2, 2012 9:02 a.m.

    Irrelevant. Too many federal laws in place that protect anyone from discrimination in housing.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    March 2, 2012 6:46 a.m.

    Doesn't the Bible say something about "Judge not lest ye be judged?"

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    March 1, 2012 9:44 p.m.

    per Mike Richards 9:24 a.m. March 1, 2012
    South Jordan, Utah

    "The State does not own private property. Private property is private. The owner of that property has the right to do with it as he pleases."

    It seems you were asleep for Kelo v New London. It, essentially, gives the government the "right" steal someones private property for the "common good".

    Don't come crying to me when the powers that be "decide" your neighborhood could be better put to use a gas station, bank, or a franchise of their choosing.

    Is the 'free market' really free

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 1, 2012 6:33 p.m.

    @Mike Richards;

    You can't tell people they can't marry and then tell them that the only way to have sex is within marriage; that is hypocrisy.

    The "Proclamation on the Family" applies ONLY to Mormons. Nobody else. It isn't law, it isn't anything more than a Mormon declaration TO THE MEMBERS. Nobody else is required to adhere to it.

    Your God and his rules apply to YOU and believers and nobody else. You are allowed to follow them. I don't have to. All your claptrap about "God says this, God says that" is irrelevant. You believe in him, you follow his rules (being a bigot isn't one of his rules though - that's a choice).

    I've never seen an apartment lease agreement that specified "married couples only".

    Why is it that ALL you think about when you think about gays is sex and the way we do it? That's sick actually.

  • James B. Young SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 1, 2012 4:41 p.m.

    No one's civil or religious liberty is attacked by this type of legislation. To say so merely reveals that one is ignorant about liberty, or about the legislation, or about both.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    March 1, 2012 3:15 p.m.

    @ J Thompson & Mike Richards: Fine. You don't like me calling it semi-public, let's just call it public - because it most certainly isn't private.

    If you buy property and make it available for use by the public, you are subject to certain restrictions on how you can behave.

    I am more than willing to give you all the dignity and respect that you would like. But that does not mean I am going to stand by and allow you to behave badly.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    March 1, 2012 2:27 p.m.

    re: Sorry Charlie!

    Now you're twisting the meaning of "semi-public" to suit your needs.

    According to Merriam Webster, it means "open to some persons outside the regular constituency" and "having some features of a public institution; specifically : maintained as a public service by a private non-profit organization".

    Neither of those definitions relates to a private property owner who rents apartments commercially or to a business owner.

    Treating people with dignity and respect requires that YOU treat property owners with the same dignity and respect that you expect them to show to you. You demand things from them, things that you would never allow them to demand from you. In your world, dignity and respect are one way. They are required of others, but never of you.

    If you can't treat business owners and property owners with dignity and respect, then build your own apartment building and rent it out to people who believe like you do. Open your own business and hire whomever you want.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    March 1, 2012 2:03 p.m.

    @ Mike Richards: "Semi-public" means partially open to the use of the public. Businesses are semi-public because they open their doors for the public to do business with them. Rental property counts as semi-public because the landowner, for a fee, allows members of the public to use the landowner's property as if it were the property of the fee-payer.

    And you are right - when it comes to private property, we - as a society - can and do make laws about things affecting "public nuisance", "health issue", and "drug enforcement"...

    as a society, we can - and do - also make laws about social expectations for those who choose to run businesses. Part of those expectations is that you treat all members of the public with dignity and respect.

    If treating people with dignity and respect is too difficult for you, don't have a business and don't own rental property.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 1, 2012 1:58 p.m.


    I have lived in apartments several times in my life. Each time, the contract clearly stated that only married couples and their immediate family could rent the apartment.

    Having sex inside marriage is not offensive in the church I attend. Having sex outside of marriage is offensive. Having sex with someone of the same sex is offensive and is treated the same as having sex outside of marriage by my church. There is NO double standard.

    Marriage has been defined by God in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"

    "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the CreatorÂs plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

    Renting property to anyone who misrepresents himself as being married, or to someone who uses that apartment for illicit sex is offensive to people who believe in God and who live the commandments that God has given us.

    You may disagree. You may believe in a sexual free-for-all world. You may think that everyone should be obligated to provide you a place to practice your form of sex. You may think that anyone who does not allow sex with anyone at any time and in any place is discriminating against you. No matter what YOU believe, on my property NO ONE participates in sex outside of marriage and no one ever will, regardless of what you or your friends may want.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 1, 2012 12:54 p.m.

    LDS lib,
    yep, all we need do is read ANY of your posts and we KNOW of a surety that your first statment is true.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 1, 2012 12:43 p.m.

    Mike Richards says:

    "Telling a property owner that he must allow sexual acts, which are against his religion, to take place on his property, is what you are demanding."


    You are aware, I hope, that those very "sexual acts" which are "against his religion" are ALSO practiced by heterosexuals too.

    So to asuage your guilt, don't rent a property out.

  • Noodlekaboodle Salt Lake City, UT
    March 1, 2012 12:02 p.m.

    @ Mike Richards
    How would you feel if people treated Mormons the same way the treat gays? I realize that wouldn't happen in Utah. But pretty much any were else Mormons are an unpopular minority. Would you be ok with people refusing to hire them, rent to them or fix their car because they are mormon? Or is it only ok to discriminate against homosexuals?

  • KDave Moab, UT
    March 1, 2012 11:22 a.m.

    This law will be great for employment. For lawyers.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 1, 2012 11:07 a.m.

    Bigotry is alive and well in Utah in the 21st century.

    I would be safe to assume the same group opposed to anti-discrimination today,
    were the same conservative groups against Anti-Discrimination laws back in the 1960's for coloroed people.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 1, 2012 10:56 a.m.


    Please define "semi-public". Please tell us how a hotel or an apartment building becomes "semi-public". Please show us how private ownership of property becomes "semi-public".

    You cited issues that are covered by "public nuisance", "health issue", and "drug enforcement" laws and ordinances. Just because Bill Gates used FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) to sell his products does not validate the use of FUD when discussing social issues.

    Telling a property owner that he must allow sexual acts, which are against his religion, to take place on his property, is what you are demanding. Telling a business owner that he must hire people who flaunt their sexual choices in front of his customers or who threaten to take him to court if he does not allow them to flaunt their chosen life style, is what you are demanding.

    Stick with the basic issue. Read the 5th Amendment, particularly the last part of that amendment and see for yourself that the government may not deprive a person of his property without due process. Dictating terms and conditions of rental is depriving a person of his property without due process.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 1, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    what happened in the old story when the bedouin allowed the camel to stick his nose in the tent?

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    March 1, 2012 10:16 a.m.

    @ Mike Richards: First: This legislation has nothing to do with private property - it deals with semi-public property that the property owners chose to place in the position as a way to increase their income.

    Second: We constantly tell people what they can and cannot do with their private property. Don't believe me? Try to plant certain items on your property - or leave a couple of old toilets, couches, and/or cars on your front lawn. Heck, just let your grass grow without caring for it.....

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 1, 2012 9:24 a.m.

    The State does not own private property. Private property is private. The owner of that property has the right to do with it as he pleases. The government MUST NEVER tell an owner of private property how to rent that property, how to sell that property, or who his customers must be.

    Those who advocate FORCING private property owners to sell their services to anyone are the same people who would baulk if the tables were turned and THEY were forced to hire or rent to a Republican, to a neo-Nazi, to a Muslim activist, or to a terrorist.

    They push gay-"rights" as if it were a racial issue. It is not. Private property owners do not have to accommodate "choices" nor do that have to allow activities on their property that violate their conscience.

  • Bloodhound Provo, UT
    March 1, 2012 9:11 a.m.

    As the gay rights movement advances its cause in our legal system via legislation and court decisions, religious people who believe homosexual behavior is immoral are finding themselves under fire. With the law on their side, gay rights supporters will start pressuring religious people to either change their religious beliefs or hide them in the closet. It appears to only be a matter of time before religious people are persecuted for their politically incorrect beliefs.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    March 1, 2012 8:24 a.m.

    Thank you, Deseret News, for publishing this article.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    March 1, 2012 7:26 a.m.

    Well said, Professor Rosky. You hare exactly right.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 1, 2012 7:15 a.m.

    An excellent article, thank you.

    Religious liberty is not at stake; people will be able to believe whatever they want, worship however they want and exclude whomever they want from their organizations.

    Even AFTER marriage is a reality for GLBT couples.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 1, 2012 12:51 a.m.

    A large majority of Utah citizens approve of anti-discrimination legislation, but we already know that our legislature doesn't care what we think.