The constitution gives states the right to ban all liquor sales or the regulate
them in any way they chose. The claim that any liquor law can be
unconstiutional is pure hogwash.
A Scientist Provo, UT"Why can't I buy a beer at the grocery store
on Sunday in Utah County?"For the same exact reason that you
can't smoke a cigarette in that grocery store on Sunday. They are both
against laws created by legislators the majority of us voted into office. How
hard can it possibly be for scientist to plan ahead and buy their beer on
In Utah it should be known that Church is the State and the State is the Church.
A Scientist,"There shall be no union of Church and State, nor
shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions."Wow, so having an opinion, or stating an opinion is "A union of
church and state", "Dominating", or "interfering". By your
argument, you have just dominated and interfered all the same. See, unless you
can prove that the LDS Church has done something wrong- then you have no
argument. Utah has a very high LDS population percentage. Because of that, many
of our laws will reflect its population. If you'd rather live somewhere
without other people (aka: democracy) then go for it.Furthermore-
Utah isn't NEARLY the only state with such laws.Furthermore-
refer to my previous comment where I so simply explained that because the LDS
Church has only been suggesting compromise and NOT pushing LDS beliefs down your
throats- that any accusations against the LDS Church are unwarranted and must
surely be in ignorance. There is a difference between speaking out against the
church cause one simply hates anything and everything LDS, and forming a
rational opinion.Do you hate the LDS Church? Have you read the Book
of Mormon? Please consider it.
I used to be a dedicated, full-believing Mormon. I've been disaffected from
the Church for a few years now because I don't believe in its foundational
truth claims. I give that background only to show that Mormons and those
strongly opposed to the institutional LDS Church can (and should in my opinion)
stand together to support freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I not only
support the right of the Saints to be involved in the political process to try
to enact laws that reflect their values, I would fight for that right. It is the
same right that protects me in expressing my beliefs, whether the beliefs agree
with the majority or not. All have the right to express their desires for laws
that reflect their morals whether those morals are based in Theism, Taoism,
Secular Humanism, etc. May we all work together to protect these liberties
regardless of our religious perspective.
Re: no fit in SG St.George, UtahThe LDS Church was removed from this
challenge because a federal judge didn't buy their argument and not because
Mitt Romney is running for President.No one forced the Utah
Hospitality Association to remove the LDS Church from their lawsuit. They chose
to do so on their own in an attempt to salvage their doomed lawsuit.
Alcohol has been responsible for many more deaths, divorces, infidelity, messed
up kids, tatoos, fatal car accidents, drug abuse, non-fatal car accidents,
suicides, welfare, domestic violence, domestic abuse, bad hair, arrests,
incarceration, stupid behavior and many other societal maladies than religion.
Or drugs for that matter.
"they don't realize how foolish it is to try to take people's
freedom away"No, we don't want people to lose some of their
freedoms, unless we don't like those freedoms.At least be
Why can't I buy a beer at the grocery store on Sunday in Utah County?That makes no sense at all. The best possible explanation for such an
absurd law is that the influence of the LDS Church has violated the Utah State
Constitution:Article 1, Section 4: "There shall be no union of
Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its
Alcohol is the most dangerous drug, not cocaine or heroin. This is because it
not only hurts the drunk, but those he runs into with his car. Anything that
makes alcohol harder to get is good. We don't need liquor in every store
or bars on every corner. When cheap industrial alcohol was invented in England,
gin, the alcoholism rate tripled.
ouisc Farmington, UT"Maybe we should actually be placing limitations
on when and where religion can be practiced."Unfortunately the
First Amendment makes that idea moot. In part it reads: "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof ...."Got to be real frustrating for those who
don't fit the Farmington lifestyle.
ouisc,You're right. In fact, maybe we should just get rid of
the rest of our rights while we're at it.All sarcasm aside, I
hope my comment gets published because I very seriously mean it when I say that
people who don't believe at the very least in every human beings inherent
right of conscience- that such persons should leave the United States and never
return. That may seem like a harsh thing to say- but notice that there is a
difference in not liking another opinion and in trying to force people not to
have a different opinion.Our nation, its founders, its servicemen,
and its elected officials are all persons who have sworn with their lives to
defend the freedom that you just suggested (whether seriously or not) to
abolish.By the way, your right and freedom to make that statement-
and the fact that people are willing to defend that right- is the only reason
you are even able to say it. If it weren't for other human beings
we're all indebted to- those words would not have been uttered.
You know, more people have been killed or castigated in the name of religion
compared to alcohol. Maybe we should actually be placing limitations on when
and where religion can be practiced. Maybe we should set a limit that only 25%
of households in each neighborhood is allowed to practice religion. Maybe only
two church permits allowed within each square mile.
Forbidding the issuance of any more restaurant liquor licenses isn't
productive. It hinders many types of new eating establishments from opening, and
all diners lose out, drinkers and non drinkers alike.
Another interesting point. Those who want power over others and to silence
voices they disagree with- they don't realize how foolish it is to try to
take people's freedom away. Not only is it the most fought over principle
in human existence- but it is illogical for their own sake.Example:Assume they succeed and the Church can never make
statements to elected officials. We still have the right to talk with ourselves
as a people or for the church to communicate freely to the LDS membership. If
the LDS population in this state united in voice and every last Utahn were to
vote their opinions- the alcohol policy would have very little compromise, if
any at all.Clearly, that may seem like an extreme example- but what
do they think will happen if they successfully infringe the right of the LDS
Church to simply have an opinion? That example is a reality the second they
start taking free speech away.Free speech isn't conditional on
whether you agree with the opinions or beliefs spoken. Today's liberals
have neglected that fact in favor of their agenda they call "equality"
ruling over everyone else by force.
Article III of the Utah State constitution holds that "Perfect toleration of
religious sentiment is guaranteed."This is a protection of
freedom. Religious expression or sentiment is as much our right as secular
expression or sentiment. If we could justify prohibiting others from stating
their beliefs simply because those beliefs differ- then others would have as
much authority to prohibit our own freedom and therefore no one would be free
and we would all live in misery.It is in choosing to uphold freedom
that we cannot justify prohibiting the LDS Church from sharing its views,
cautioning the people or their representatives, or from simply 'speakings
its mind'.Speaking is not a criminal act in this country- in
fact its quite the opposite. A spokesperson suggesting anything to an elected
official is no more or less appropriate then my suggesting anything. No laws are
broken and we are still free.Furthermore, while the LDS Church has
officially pronounced cooperation and compromise, not prohibition or LDS
doctrines. For people to still claim wrongdoing suggests that Alcohol is not the
issue- but rather that they want power over the people.
Rifleman,Read the Utah state constitution. It bars any church from
interferring or becoming controlling in our legislature. Plain and simple.
Big election year.Big time Mormon candidate running for President.Obviously, the theocracy and peculiarity of the State of Utah must be hushed.
The Utah Hospitality Association "sought to bar The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints from weighing in on political issues"They
must have forgotten about the First Amendment to free speech. How careless of
them. Your typical liberal embraces the First Amendment and abhors the Second.