Comments about ‘Religious liberty advocates call for faiths to join forces’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, June 1 2013 11:15 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Huntsville, UT

@very concerned;

Actually, voting away the rights of one group, making them live by your beliefs is an imposition of YOUR beliefs upon them.

Churches that believe in "tradional values" should live those "traditional values" themselves and let others live as they see fit. Here's a "traditional value" for you: wives and children were the property of the husband.

Refusing the goods and services of your business to those with whom you disagree is not a "legitimate right" of the majority; it is discrimination.

@the truth;

The Constitution doesn't give you the right to violate the rights of others based on your religion. The rights of others shouldn't even be up for a vote by the majority.

The religious who vote against same-sex marriages are infringing upon the rights of those religions that believe same-sex marriages are okay. Who is attacking whom? The religious are the ones infringing upon the religious rights of others.

Saint George, UT

Ranchhand: what if you only make cakes between of a marriage that represents a man and a women because that is the only skill that you learned to run a your business and you don't know how to make a cake between a cow and dog or any other arrangement that someone requests? If you are ignorant,don't have the ability, or your skills only allow you to make a cake specifically the way you learned, then how is that discrimination?

Huntsville, UT



Please do a search for an article about the baker in Oregon who refused to bake for the wedding of a lesbian couple on the "it violates my religious beliefs" argument.

A reporter did an article and guess what:

He made a cake for a pagan celebration.
He made a cake for a divorcee's divorce party.
He made a cake for a single woman who was sleeping around.

All of the above cakes "violated his religious beliefs", yet he made them anyway. What he did in denying the lesbian couple's request was to single them out and discriminate against them.

What if the baker refused to make a cake for a Mormon's wedding becuase he felt Mormons were cultists and that "violated his religious beliefs". Are you okay with that too? Unless you answer YES, then you're a hypocrite (Jesus didn't like the hypocrites an condemned them, btw).

Saint George, UT

Ranchhand: I absolutely would allow someone that didn't want to make a cake for me for any reason to not make it. It is his business. I can take my business elsewhere! How simple can it get! This is making a mountain out of a molehill! This is very childish. Actually it sounds like something my children used to say, "I'll take my marbles home because someone hurt my feelings." O.K. take your marbles home. Argument over! Haven't heard that one out of my kids for years. They couldn't get any more attention, so they had to move on to something real. I don't know, maybe there isn't a difference between forcing someone to go to a gas chamber and someone not getting their cake made.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

It’s encouraging to see religious groups put aside squabbles over creed to come together on issues of common ground. But they won’t accomplish much by using the same tone deaf rhetoric that merely throws more fuel onto the fire. Respected religious leaders should know better than to use alarmist appeals describing controversial issues on which honest people disagree as an insidious attack on religious liberty.

Proverbs 17:27 tells us “Whoever restrains his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding.”

Words of wisdom for all to hear.

Huntsville, UT


You can take your business elsewhere because frankly, you're not in any danger of having the provider of a service or product deny you that service or product.

The point is that these people are in business and the law is such that discrimination is illegal. You're saying it's okay to discriminate and violate the law. It isn't. If you aren't aware of the legal requirements before you go into business, or are unwilling to obey them due to your "religious convictions", then you shouldn't be in business.

There is absolutely no reason on earth (other than flat out bigotry) to deny your product or service to someone - to use your "religious values" to do so only makes your religion look disgusting. Bigotry is NOT a value that any religious should condone.

While I personally wouldn't want to use a bigoted baker for my cake, I shouldn't be required to go from baker to baker until I find one who will fulfill my needs. Nobody should have to do that.

Provo, UT

Religious faith of all varieties is under attack from many directions. I'll just explore one ares-Education. In public schools wearing a cross or a Tshirt with a religious message is discouraged or punished while blasphemy using terms of Diety is allowed and even encouraged in "creative writing', Religious books are being pulled from library shelves while anti-religious remain. Any discussion of the religious underpinning of our Constitution or laws have been removed from history classes. That's a sample of what's happening in K-12. We are Ben Franklin said, " A half truth is often the biggest lie." In college the majority of professors are liberal anti-religious in their teaching. I had to drop two graduate classes at a well known university (in the 60's)because the professors would not accept any religious oriented ideas in their classes. Its much worse today and as one U of U prof told me it is his mission in life to destroy the faith of young LDS returned missionaries. The left does not just disagree they want to destroy not discuss. Why religion threatens them is a mystery to me.

Phoenix, AZ

the truth,

You state: The Obama administration is indeed constantly attacking Christianity, Judaism, conservatives, and any other group that opposes his views and ideology.

Please give some real honest examples.


Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@twinfallsid – “They are not preventing their employee from using it, they are objecting to paying for it.”

Can you explain how that is occurring given that it will be funded through insurance premiums which are a part of each employee’s compensation?

How is that any different than if an employee paid for birth control out of their paycheck? Based on your statement, that would still fall under the definition of the employer “paying for it.”

And if you still insist that this is a line that should be drawn (which would appear to go directly against Scalia’s opinion in Employment Services v Smith) would it be OK for a Christian Scientist business owner to offer only insurance that did NOT include blood transfusions (since that is against their religion)?

There are many other (not-purely-rhetorical) examples we could come up with… I’m just curious where you would draw the line.

the truth
Holladay, UT


One need look no farther than the IRS scandal.

One need look no farther than Obama's own ideology and radicals and extremists he surrounds himself with and their views.

One need no farther than Obama's own actions and treatment and words toward Israel.


What right?

You have not been denied a single constitutionally guaranteed right.

By the way business owners have rights too, and they are citizens with guaranteed rights as well.

You can ask for their services, but you can not demand it, you have no entitlement or constitutional right to their labors and services nor property or money or talents or skills.

@Tyler D

It is not compensation but a fringe benefit paid for by the employer at his will and generosity.

Compensation is your salary or wage.

Portland, OR

Someone said: "One could not, and should not, separate our laws from moralality and virtue."

That perspective confuses having a moral code with being religious. Research shows that the two are not necessarily related. Some of society's greatest leaders, say Martin Luther King, Jr., and Dorothy Day, were deeply religious. Others, including Thomas Jefferson and Clarence Darrow , were not. The scientific data reveals people who are regular churchgoers do not make more moral decisions than those who are unchurched, attend a church, synagogue or other organized gathering sporadically, are agnostic or atheist.

And, remember (it cannot be repeated too many times) we do not live in a theocracy. Religion will never be the controlling factor in our government. A closely related myth is that the U.S. was founded as a Christian country. That is false. The United States government was secular from the beginning, despite its many other flaws.

People reveal they are good by their unselfish acts. Their empathy. Their generosity. Their forgiveness. By doing unto others.... They don't have to belong to any particular religion or even be religious to achieve that.

Eldersburg, MD

It is important to recognize two things. First, the decline of religion and increase of immoral behavior in popular culture has caused many to abandon that which is righteous in favor of pleasure seeking self-gain.

The evidence is not only in statistics, but one only need look around to the standards of modesty, charity, sexual purity, and other virtues that are fast disappearing entirely. Many nations have become entertainment centered in their values that emulate hedonistic behavior, thinking there are no consequences. Yet, addiction, divorce, STDs, violence, and many other results are obvious.

Second, while the evidence is thin at best that Obama himself is directly assaulting religion, it is readily apparent that oppositional leftist organizations are thriving under his regime. These groups are not only seeking for "equality" as they put it, but go much further to turn the tables on what religious organizations historically did with gaining control by way of intimidation and hypocrisy.

Christianity and Judaism are subjected to increased ridicule, antagonistic propaganda, and sometimes persecution. The lawsuits that serve no purpose but to eradicate religion from the public square are driving religious groups and people underground. Those who deny these things aren't viewing reality.

Nan BW
ELder, CO

Google "Obama Paves the Way for Sharia Law." I'd like to put my head in the sand and deny that any such movement could exist, but all I'd do is get sand in my hair, or my brain.

Alexandria, VA

Once again I will repeat what I have often said, which is that if a religious faith focuses on its core values - taking care of the poor the weak and the sick and the afflicted instead of wandering off into political campaigns and becoming holier the Thou, the various religions would not be attacked and be forced to defend "religious liberty". If you are a religious faith looking for the "boogie man" who is taking away your religious liberty you have no further to look than the mirror. (If you are LDS – think of this as how many times do you go to Church / Church activities as to how many times to you see you Home / Visiting Teaching families - pretty simple). You need to set a better example.

Ghost Writer

I believe people who feel a need to constantly berate big bad "organized religion" simply don't want to make any commitments that require personal sacrifices (like getting up on Sunday morning and going to services, and then following through on any covenants made). I'm constantly amazed when a few go apoplectic when someone knocks on their door and sincerely invites them to church. They are free to do so, and you are free to politely say no thank-you. The most preachy people I know these days are athiests and non-believers.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@the truth – “It is not compensation but a fringe benefit paid for by the employer at his will and generosity. Compensation is your salary or wage.”

Really… well since the #1 (and only) objective of any business is to make money, why doesn’t this kind, beneficent business owner just take it away?

Do you really believe any business would be able to do so without a dollar for dollar increase in wages and still be able to attract the labor they need (which means this fringe benefit is de facto compensation)?

But in any event, nice red herring equivocation… sorry if the rest of my comment caused a painful amount of cognitive dissonance.

Park City, Ut

Lessons on how to assert religious authority on a hesitant society: Step one - Create a straw man/boogie man to bash unmercifully. In this case so-called secularism, and then throw in Humanism for good measure; Step two; complain ad nauseum about the straw man/boogie man youve created by insisting that they are somehow working against the efforts of religious freedom by insisting that the 1st Amendment means that religion should have no undue influence over those who are not religious; Step three; employ the use of logical fallacies and false analogies in order to try and make your point; Step four; push for the enactment laws that will protect religious freedoms that already exist so that you can show some sort of advancement for the cause, even though the new laws do absolutely nothing to actually advance your cause to begin with; Step five; Divide and concur by associating others you are already fighting with to the straw man/boogie man youve created, in this case the LGTB community, et al (Democrats, etc); and the final step, hope to gain sympathy from the gullible masses.

Huntsville, UT

@the truth;

You have none of it in you.

Salt Lake City, UT

@the truth
As someone who is free to go to church whenever I feel like it and was perfectly able to read the Book of Mormon (as an investigator) between classes while at Penn State I can't say I feel like my religious rights have ever been challenged in any manner.

@G L W8
"Obama DID attack the Catholic's position on birth control"

Most Catholics don't even practice that position. Regardless, there are religious exemptions in the legislation. A church is not the same as a business.

Salt Lake City, UT

"what if you only make cakes between of a marriage that represents a man and a women because that is the only skill that you learned"

It is physically impossible for that hypothetical to even be valid.

"It is his business. I can take my business elsewhere!"

So all those civil rights sit-ins... you oppose the Civil Rights Act requiring businesses to not discriminate in that manner and you think what they should've done was just take their business elsewhere?

@the truth
"One need no farther than Obama's own actions and treatment and words toward Israel."

His support of the same boundary (with land swap) arrangement the last several presidents have supported? His unwillingness to just give a blank check to Israel letting them do whatever they want? Nevermind the fact that Israeli leaders generally think everything is just fine with regards to relations between the two countries. You have an odd definition of what it makes to be anti-semitic.

to comment

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