Comments about ‘Renewed challenge to Utah liquor laws no longer mentions LDS Church’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 17 2012 1:07 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

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.

no fit in SG
St.George, Utah

Big election year.
Big time Mormon candidate running for President.
Obviously, the theocracy and peculiarity of the State of Utah must be hushed.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Rifleman,

Read the Utah state constitution. It bars any church from interferring or becoming controlling in our legislature. Plain and simple.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Cedarite
Cedar City, UT

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.

ouisc
Farmington, UT

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.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

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.

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

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.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

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 functions."

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"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 honest.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

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.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: no fit in SG St.George, Utah

The 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.

Zack Tacorin
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Johnson72
Salt Lake City, UT

In Utah it should be known that Church is the State and the State is the Church.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

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 Saturday?

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

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.

to comment

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