Comments about ‘Arizona Gov. Brewer vetoes so-called anti-gay bill’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 26 2014 6:25 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Buena Vista, VA

In her column today, Kellie Fiedorek poses some interesting questions: "Do you believe a photographer who identifies as homosexual should be punished for refusing to photograph an event celebrating the Westboro Baptist Church’s hateful ideas? Do you believe a Jewish printer should be threatened for declining to promote a conference criticizing Israel? Do you believe a pacifist should be coerced to paint pro-war posters for a rally?"

These are the kind of questions that all the detractors of Arizona's bill must ask themselves. And of course we could come up with a dozen more.

Bountiful, UT

Wise decision, Governor Brewer. History doesn't look kindly on those who stand against equality.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

The radical right is moving to a very small corner by choice.

Modesto, CA

it is good to see common sense prevailed in uncommon legislation. As for business owners, if they offer a service either follow through with the commitment to serve or at least recommend another vendor to serve the customer. However the offended party needs to spend their money elsewhere if the business refuses service. Running to the courts because you are offended seems to have gotten all too common.

Federal Way, WA

I think this was best. I support a persons right to not to be forced to "participate" in gay weddings and similar activties that go against a persons religious beliefs. However, I am not sure that right can be worded properly.

Going forward, I suggest that those businesses who offer those type of personal services simply hire a "subcontractor" to go do the wedding pictures, bake the cake, or whatever "service" they dont want to do themselves.

This wont validate the persons religious "right" but it should help prevent them for actually participating in the objectionable activity.

Far East USA, SC

"And of course we could come up with a dozen more."

Yes we could.

Could a Jehovahs Witness Surgeon refuse to give a blood transfusion during an operation?
Could an Evangelical employer refuse to hire a Mormon because he felt they were not Christian?
Could a hotel refuse to rent a hotel room to someone wearing a Muslim headscarf?
Could a restaurant refuse to serve a bi-racial couple?
Could a Catholic Doctor refuse to write a prescription for birth control?
Could a LDS businessman refuse to hire someone who drinks coffee?

This is a complex issue. The discrimination can cut both ways.

Didn't we have the exact same issues concerning black people in the past?

salt lake city, utah

Our differences are prolific and vast, but it's comforting to see common sense and common ground.

salt lake, UT


the simple answer is yes, if they choose to do business in the public square and the work they are asked to do does not violate the law (including discrimination laws) then they should not be allowed to discriminate. We may find what these organizations stand for distatsteful but it is the price of living in a free society.

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.
Provo, UT

Someday, someone with more power and more authority will veto her ability to govern.

You can write up whatever you want and call it a law. But writing a law saying 'gravity doesn't exist' doesn't change the anything but your own wisdom and intelligence. Most people don't realize how serious their actions are. That's the point in this life, to learn what is true. But the number of those who wish to learn nothing but dictate their own morality... it's growing.


Imagine trying to jump from an airplane then re-write the laws of gravity mid flight.

Imagine trying to jump from the most functional human system in existence and re-write the consequences.

The sad part is that we're not even preventing people from jumping. We just don't want people to tear down the recognized plaque of value for the system we already have. Push comes to shove... this issue was never about freedom or equality, but forcing your opinions on social institutions, your choices on business owners, and forcing your way into defining what privilege and right are to overthrow reason in favor of self-denial about morality and consequences.

salt lake, UT

let me ask you this, should evangelical business owners be allowed to deny services to an LDS person because they believe their religion is a cult? Would such actions not be a violation of the LDS persons religious freedoms? this law, the way it was written, would have allowed for such actions.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ RG: The simple answer to your questions is "yes". If you have a business it is your obligation as part of your business license to follow the laws of the state and community in which you operate - you do not get to cast judgement on your customers and decide if they are worthy of receiving your services.

If you do not want to treat all people equally, don't own a business - or limit the scope of your business such that you will not be required to provide services you find questionable.

It really is not a difficult situation after all and has been addressed before.

Jim Cobabe
Provo, UT

The intended purpose for the "Religious Rights" bill seems to be an attempt to provide the same basic protections found in the First Amendment. Presumably it would be cited in lawsuits where such issues are argued. The passage or veto will not change the nature of this conflict. The much maligned "NO GAYS ALLOWED" signs will continue to be just as much on display in Arizona as they ever were.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

We all enjoy freedom of the press but nobody is required to read what you or I write.
We have freedom of speech. Nobody is required to listen.

Rights do not place obligations on others.

Gay activists seek to place obligations on others simply because they disagree with them.

For the record, this has nothing in common with the civil rights struggles of the 1960s.

Kings Court
Alpine, UT

I like how the headline says "so-called" as if it meant something else. Lol.

Salt Lake City, UT

I wonder how long it will be before someone is sued for providing a service in what they feel is contrary to their religious conviction and doesn't exhibit the "proper" enthusiasm, or simply because they don't smile as broadly as the offended claimant thinks is their due?

All of this kind of political correctness is just a short step away from the kind of coerced devotion to the "Dear Leader" in N. Korea.

Freedom of expression and thought includes the right NOT to express.

Salt Lake City, UT

Operating a business is a privilege.
Freedom of religion is a right.
A privilege does not become a right, just because the privilege holder is religious.

the truth
Holladay, UT

This is a HUFE blow to individual freedom and liberty.

Apparently homosexuals can now force another into forced servitude.

Where does the public end and personal or special labor and personal or special service begin?

I believe no one is entitled to another service or labor when becomes personal or special service or personal labor.

Onsite photography requires a person's person and therefore personal labor and service.

Making a special cake require special service and therefore personal labor.

Please explain where the public ends and the personal begins?

What state law requires special and/or personal service and labor?

It is not discrimination when it becomes personal or special.

slc, UT


Yes we have so much evidance of people being sued all the time with all the other groups of people that ready have protections from discrimination (religion, race, gender) oh wait no we don't. I almost bought I tithe dooms day there for a minute.

AZ-Byu fan
gilbert, AZ

@the truth

Well Said!! There is so much difference between selling a product and a personal service. You should have the right to sell a personal service under the paramaters that you establish. You basically have people making an argument that you must provide servitude to every request as long as it is legal. This argument is crazy! Basically commenters are arguing that a photographer would be forced to shoot nude photographs if that is what his client requested. Let's have some common sense here. Selling a pair of shoes is so much different than photographing a wedding.

@Tolstoy, @Kilindra - your arguments are ridiculous. You are basically saying that you have no right to ever say no if you decide to run your own business.

A Run
South Jordan, UT

You know, people say that they are just trying to do what the constitution states, giving everyone freedom of religion, speech, etc.., as well as following the 14th amendment. This is true completely. Everyone should be able to have as many rights as they want.

However, as in the recent bill in Arizona... The constitution does say that no state shall deny equal protection of law. It does not say that the citizens can't refuse service to other citizens

That last sentence sounds bad, and probably reminds people of oppression of the blacks during the 1960s. Many of you are probably going to say Blah Blah Blah Civil Rights Act Blah Blah Blah. This still sounds terrible. The civil rights act of 1964 says that you can't discriminate based of of Gender, race, religion, color, origin. Last time I checked, Homosexual isn't a religion. Also, because the companies in Arizona sold to both male and female, just not to gays, it is legal to do so. It may not be right, and it is not my position to decide, but it is LEGAL

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments