Quantcast

Comments about ‘Obama: Religious intolerance has ‘no place in our society’’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 14 2014 11:13 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Understands Math
Lacey, WA

@1978 wrote: "'Does allowing marriage equality infringe on anyone's rights? No, it does not.'

Please explain that to the baker in Colorado and photographer in New Mexico."

Colorado does not have marriage equality. And the case in New Mexico pre-dates marriage equality in that state.

Those cases are about public accommodation discrimination laws, not marriage equality.

relientk
Saratoga Springs, UT

What I've learned from these comments is that no matter what stance somebody (especially on the right) takes, they will be labeled as a "hater" by somebody.

jsf
Centerville, UT

@airnaut, "If the President was addressing this toward a right-wing KKK member" This comment is false in that the shooter is a democrat and applied to run for political office as a democrat. Historically, the KKK was supported by the democrat party and a high percentage of its members were democrats. The KKK organized against the republican party because newly freed slaves across the south aligned with the republican party. It truly is a hateful organization, but its history is tied deeply with the democratic party. Democrats work hard to hide the facts.

sharrona
layton, UT

RE: 1aggie,” I'd like to remind you that this article is not about same-sex marriage, but the killing of three innocent people”. True,

"You shall not murder”(Ex 20:13 NIV) The verb (ratsakh) refers to the premeditated or accidental taking of the life of another human being; it includes any unauthorized killing (it is used for the punishment of a murderer, but that would not be included in the prohibition). This commandment teaches the sanctity of all human life(abortion). Or Pro-murder.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

@ Ranch: "Why don't you list religious people persecuting LGBT? That list is extremely long."

Why are you not condemning the examples of LGBT terrorisom that were listed? You cite the golden rule, yet fail to apply it to those you agree with. If gays have been persecuted for so long, why do you silently condone persecution and violence against religious people by gays?

Or do two wrongs make a right?

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

Couple of questions:

1) A gay man walks into your restaurant, is it a sin to refuse him service? Is it a sin to serve him?

2) Two gay men walk in together to your restaurant, is it a sin to refuse to serve them? Is it a sin to serve them?

3) A couple in which the woman is already pregnant comes into your cake shop to make a cake for their wedding. Is it a sin to refuse them service? Is it a sin to serve them?

4) Two gay men walk into your cake shop and want a wedding cake, is it a sin to serve them, or refuse them service?

May I suggest that unless your answer to each of the four questions is identical throughout, you have inconsistencies in your logic?

Objectified
Tooele, UT

And yet Obama won't tolerate other people's religious beliefs by causing them to support birth control while a significantly huge religious Catholic church so highly is opposed to birth control. Forcing such things on private companies is not being religiously tolerant. In fact it seems quite hypocritical.

@ Ranch and Michaelnomo:

Disagreeing with someone is not the same thing as hating them. Yet that is the erroneous practice and policy of LGBT advocates in this and similar matters. Using the word "hate" so indiscriminately causes a huge loss in credibility and exposes a weak stance in the matter.

@ JoeBlow:

Marriage in Utah, throughout it's entire history has alway been between a man and a woman (or women)... and never involving any form of homosexuality or LGBT, which according to God in the Bible is a gross abomination before Him. (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 and Romans 1:24-27). He makes it very clear to understand.
Trusting in the Christian God of the Bible is a much better bet than in going along with the current trend of political correctness of man which is always changing from one generation to the next.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@jsf
"It truly is a hateful organization, but its history is tied deeply with the democratic party. Democrats work hard to hide the facts."

And Republicans ignore the fact that the Dixiecrats left the Democrats after LBJ eventually joining the Republican party, and that is why Democrats can't win southern states anymore while pulling a whole 15-20% of the white vote in the region.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

procuradorfiscal -

" . . . Obama supporting radicals?"

So then you're saying that the people who voted for Obama are radicals.

In other words, for you, Radicals are the majority of voters.

That's basically the same argument a lunatic makes when he's defending his views.

He's not crazy. Everybody else is.

1978
Salt Lake City, UT

@Understands Math

Should a catering business that is run by an Othrodox Jewish owner be forced to cater an event on Saturday which is his Sabbath because he has a public business?

Should a doctor who is opposed to abortion be forced to perform an abortion for any reason because he is in a public business?

lket
Bluffdale, UT

sad people got murdered for any reason no one has the right. and i would defened any of you no matter what i thought of your opinion. thats what is good about our country. the guy live by you might be strange but you would watch out for him because thats what we do.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Hey Objectified - A key point you seem to be missing is that in America NO religion has the right to call the shots and tell other Americans what to do.

Get used to it.

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

@1978 wrote: "Should a catering business that is run by an Othrodox Jewish owner be forced to cater an event on Saturday which is his Sabbath because he has a public business?

Should a doctor who is opposed to abortion be forced to perform an abortion for any reason because he is in a public business?"

Neither of your scenarios as you put them have anything to do with anti-discrimination laws.

In the first case, if the Orthodox Jewish owner were so opposed to offering their services on Saturday, then presumably they would not be open on Saturdays at all. It would only be discrimination if they routinely *did* offer their business on that day, but would not offer their services based on the customer's sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or (in states where they are protected) sexual orientation and gender identity.

In the second case, doctors are allowed wide latitude in what procedures they perform based on freedom of conscience. But again, if the doctor refused to perform an abortion based on any of the classes mentioned above, it would be discrimination.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@1978
"Should a catering business that is run by an Othrodox Jewish owner be forced to cater an event on Saturday which is his Sabbath because he has a public business? "

No, they don't have to work on a Saturday, just like Chik-fil-A doesn't have to be open on Sundays. The issue is treating customers differently based on race, gender, religion, or, in around half the states, sexual orientation. So, say... if the Orthodox Jewish owner refused to cater a Catholic wedding during their normal business hours, that'd be a problem.

"Should a doctor who is opposed to abortion be forced to perform an abortion for any reason because he is in a public business?"

No, and I'm not sure why anyone would want a doctor who isn't trained in a particular procedure to perform it, that's just asking for malpractice suits.

RG
Buena Vista, VA

@ Ranch: "There is NOT ONE scripture that tells you to refuse to do business with those you consider "sinners".

Doing business such as selling them bread in a bakery is one thing, but making a cake especially to celebrate a gay union is quite another.

@Darrel "May I suggest that unless your answer to each of the four questions is identical throughout, you have inconsistencies in your logic?"

Actually, I believe that the answer to Q#4 should be different, and that mine is the logical approach. Treating gay people like human beings is the right thing to do. Serve them cheerfully in your cafe, even a gay couple. The hetero pregnant couple should have gotten married before getting pregnant, but better late than never! That's called repentance, and it is to be encouraged and celebrated. But as stated above, creating a cake to celebrate something you believe to be a sin is a different matter altogether.

jsf
Centerville, UT

Schnee makes a point of distancing the democrats from their heritage. But my point is the KKK was deeply entrenched with the Democrat party. The republicans worked and brought forward civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960 and 1964. Lyndon opposed the legislation in 1957 and 1960. By 1963 Lyndon swung in support of legislation and signed it into law in 1964. Famous Democrats opposing civil rights include, Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond, Albert Gore, Sr., and J. William Fulbright. Woodrow Wilson is the President that segregated the military and Washington D.C. The point being made is the Democrats have a history of racism entwined with the KKK. As many have posted it is wrong to not own the history.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@RG

So, how is making a gay couple celebrating an anniversary at a cafe any different than making them a cake to celebrate their wedding?

I am not trying to be difficult, but I fail to see a distinction.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "It is hateful to deny others the benefits you enjoy via marriage . . . ."

Paraphrasing the wisdom of Hollywood -- "You keep using that word [hateful]. I do not think it means what you think it means."

"Hateful" is a perfectly good English word, with a well-defined meaning -- "arousing, deserving of, or filled with hatred."

Attempting to redefine the word, as you clearly have, to meet the exigencies of your strawman argument, does not change its real meaning in the minds of real people.

Like it or not, it's simply not given to you to decide the feelings of others.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

This coming from the most religiously intolerant (policies, not the man) of my lifetime.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

jsf,

"....The point being made is the Democrats have a history of racism entwined with the KKK. As many have posted it is wrong to not own the history...."
______________________________

Time for a fact check on some half truths and confused information being passed off as history in a couple of your posts.

First, the original Klan composed of former Confederate soldiers to terrorize freed slaves disbanded in the 1870s. Second, the reconstituted Klan that started up in the 20th century infiltrated not one but both of our major political parties. Here in Colorado in the 1920s, we had a Republican Governor who was also a Klansman. He is regarded as the most extreme Governor in Colorado history.

to comment

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