Comments about ‘Former Utah Gov. Michael Leavitt tells UVU conference now is the time for discussion on religious liberty’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 10 2013 10:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Reasonable Person
Layton, UT

coltakashi
No one is forcing the woman to "love" gay marriage, but she could be a REAL Christian and treat everyone with the love she expects to receive from others.
What's going to happen is that she, by refusing the following the anti-discrimination laws of Washington State, has decided to throw away what she worked hard for.

WHAT IF that florist refused to marry YOU, because she didn't believe in your religion? Or what if she didn't like the color of your skin? Or maybe she doesn't like your political party. Is THAT OK with you, coltakashi? Why not? You choose your religion. You don't choose your sexuality.

Throughout my life, I have been related and friendly with gay people. I didn't know they were gay, at first...but I came to realize that they were good and decent people, moreso than those who wanted to discriminate against them. My first crush? Gay, years later. My high school gym teacher? A lesbian.

Once one realizes, like Senator Rod Strickland of Ohio, that you have a gay person in your family, you suddenly step back from the hate.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

@GD: Free their minds from what? Religion does far more to limit the minds of sheeple than free their minds.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@coltakashi --

"The Attorney General of Washington is prosecuting a florist in my city who declined to take on the job of creating special floral arrangements for the same sex marriage of two gay men who were her customers for nine years. She does not hste Gay men but declines to have her name associated with a same sex marriage due to her religious convictions. "

One more time --

Private businesses have not been legally allowed to discriminate since the days of the lunch counter sit-ins. This is nothing new. This same florist would not be allowed to refuse black people, either, even if her religion believed in "white supremacy". And hey, she also couldn't legally refuse Mormons, even if she believed that the LDS church was an evil cult.

Some people are upset right now simply because our long-standing Constitutional protections against discrimination are being applied to a group of people that many would still like to discriminate against.

Well, that's just too bad.

Constitutional protections, within the limits of Federal and state laws, apply to EVERYONE -- not just to people that you happen to like.

O'really
Idaho Falls, ID

Reasonable Person and amazondoc...
If I were turned away from the florist shop because she didn't want to do a Mormon wedding, I'd take my business somewhere else. Gays really need to grow a thicker skin if they are going to be "out" in the community. Not everyone is ever going to accept or even like them a little bit. That's life. The florist is being made an example of to FORCE this lifestyle down the throats of anyone who dare to publically disagree with it. You two sit back and smugly say it has everything to do with discrimination of Blacks and the likes. No it doesn't. It is nothing like that at all. Blacks way back when couldn't simply go to a different lunch counter.They literally had no options. But gays have the freedom to do their business elsewhere. Sure they could find a gay-friendly florist. This is nothing more than a public lynching of a person trying to live her religion.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

To Contrarius & 1Aggie: My point has been validated again. Both agree that you really don't stand for anything but what you deem as 'ethical' or 'moral', which as you say, is according to your 'facts' and 'logic', which you also declare as the wonderful thing about it all. Wow, without God, what keeps me from taking from my neighbor anything I want that I deem as 'ethical'to do? I'm certain that all the men and women that worked in the death camps of Germany thought they were doing a lot of 'ethical' work. Who was to say that they weren't? They had families, they thought the future looked great, they loved their children, and went to church on Sunday. How is anything extreme when there is not an 'ethic' that says otherwise? Whose Ethics? Yours? No thanks? Check out all the 'ethical' people in the inner city of Detroit right now. Ethics isn't quite working there on a whole is it? No, without God anything is acceptable! No rational thought can justify otherwise! God's laws and wisdom never change. Ethical actions are tied to individual choice, hardly condusive to a stable society.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@O'Really --

"Blacks way back when couldn't simply go to a different lunch counter."

Of course they could. There were black businesses as well as white ones, black restrooms as well as white ones, black schools as well as white ones. Those blacks could have gone to any business that welcomed them.

But separate is not equal. And discrimination isn't okay, and it isn't Constitutional.

@banderson --

"without God, what keeps me from taking from my neighbor anything I want that I deem as 'ethical'to do?"

"Ethics" are not random desires that flit through your head. Ethics are rational systems of thought, carefully constructed using those pesky facts and logic that you despise so much, which help in leading us towards the most desirable actions. If you can rationally tell us why it might be desirable to take something from your neighbor -- for instance, perhaps your neighbor has a girl tied up in his basement -- then, indeed, it might be ethical to take that girl away from him. Otherwise, not.

I'll repeat: why is your religion different than anyone else's? Many religious people support gay marriage. Why does your God get to win over theirs?

Steve C. Warren
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

@The Skeptical Chymist

It's been so long since you posted your comment about my comment, I'm afraid you may not get around to reading this response. Anyway, you're right. I agree entirely with your point of view. In my original post, I was just being satirical (or trying to).

Best regards.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

Lane Myer
"Explain to me about being free FROM religion is wrong"
It depends on how you define freedom FROM: if you mean the right to not believe - you have that right already; if you merely do not want to be expected to tolerate other people’s religious views when they cross your path, as you demand that they tolerate yours - then you are merely intolerant. Demanding intolerance while failing to offer it is WRONG

You have no freedom FROM Jews; no freedom FROM Muslims; no freedom FROM Christians - they exist - learn to tolerate them if you expect them to tolerate you

HotGlobe
SAN RAFAEL, CA

Why is now the time to discuss a non-issue? If there is a problem, what is it? No answers here.

to comment

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