Comments about ‘LDS Church joins 'growing chorus' of faiths asking followers to defend religious liberty’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Sept. 15 2013 4:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Coach Biff
Lehi, UT

Why must I sell my wares to anyone who wants them? And don't give me any "discrimination" malarkey. We all discriminate. If I choose to discriminate, the market will take care of my business by attrition or it won't. The left isn't interested in freedom for the individual, they want unfettered power to enforce their version of morality. They have failed to this point in the democratic forum, but they have always been able to use the now corrupt court system as their bully pulpit. And, Amen, to the posters on this board who have pointed out the lies told about religion being the greatest killers in history. You can't even touch the numbers attributed to Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. ad nauseum. The fact is, the irreligious have been responsible for more murder and misery than any of the religions of today or yesterday. Read a history book for heavens sake.

Ranch
Here, UT

"But religious business owners have found themselves unprotected and in some cases in violation of local ordinances that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation."

--

Businesses are NOT people. They have NO religion. They ARE require to OBEY the law.

Next thing you know, "religious" business owners are going to want to discriminate against blacks based on their "religious beliefs".

Here's the MAJOR religious commandment given these "religious" people by the man they claim is the son of god. "Do unto others as would have them do unto you".

Religious liberty does not give you the right to discrminate outside your home or church.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

Coach Biff: "The left isn't interested in freedom for the individual, they want unfettered power to enforce their version of morality."

Baloney.

You're only being told to _stop_ trying to impose your irrational Bronze Age beliefs on the 21st century.

If you feel the need to worship your god by privately performing whatever rituals your religion requires, that's your affair, but you may _not_ expect your rituals and prejudices to be given the force of law in our country.

Ranch
Here, UT

@michael.jensen369;

It is NOT the purpose of a business owner to judge the morals or worthiness of his/her customers. If you don't want to provide the service your business provides to *some* customers, for whatever reason, then you have no business being in business. The law states that you can not discriminate based on various criteria. If you refuse to obey the law, then you make the choice to accept the punishment for that disobedience.

How would you like to be required to go from business to business to business to business to business to find one that would provide you the services they offered everyone else? That is exactly what bigotry is.

Spider Rico
Greeley, CO

@Red Shirt "The facts are the world is becoming less religious and more spiritual, more respectful of others and vastly safer than it ever was under religious political rule."
Really? Do explain. Where do you live?

ParkCityAggie
Park City, Ut

The new way to rally your troops (followers, believers) is to wage war against something that doesn't exist is to create a boogie man that doesn't exist and then insist we all join in on trying to defeat the made up boogie man. I hear all of these silly anecdotal issues that threaten "religious freedom" but where is the hard evidence that suggest religious freedom is under some sort of secular attack? Making church owned for profit businesses pay for insurance the covers... heaven forbid, birth control? Oh my! Call in the troops, we're under attack by the liberal bureaucrats in Washington! Yet it's perfectly ok to push for legislation that forces all citizens to abide by the moral creeds of a religion? And those of the LDS faith, careful what you wish for, you may run the gambit in Utah, but when you are discriminated against in the Bible Belt and elsewhere under the guise of "religious freedom" maybe you'll think twice about your stance on this issue.

1aggie
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@cy1951

I couldn't agree more with your comments. And I would add that cozying up to far-right groups also risks alienating a percentage of current members who can see these groups for what they are. We know that leaders are fallable, and this does not feel right.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:cy1951
"I am concerned about my Church's continuing alliance with what can only be described as the Christian Conservative Right,"

Amen

"Did we not learn anything from the debacle that was Proposition 8 in California?"

Amen
Apparently not.
We did not learn that "Chirstian" political campaigns involve very misleading (at best), lies (at worst) tactics to demonize a groups of people. The same tactics have been employed against LDS people, and now we are setting aside good judgment and caution to join
" the club."

Big Bubba
Herriman, UT

If people think that religious liberties are not threatened by the homosexual lobby, they are probably wrong. With the federal repeal of DOMA we've stepped onto a slippery slope. The homosexual lobby will continue pressing their cause until they've made every religion conform to their ways. Case in point: recently California banned same-sex attraction therapy. Well now that creates problems for a LDS bishop who counsels a young boy on how to overcome thoughts on same-sex attraction, doesn't it?

wwookie
Payson, UT

@ Ranch and so many others -

We all understand that businesses are not people.

What you are sayin in essence is that businesses must now direct their employees to go against their religion. This is something new in the history of this country, and ironic because this country was founded bacause of the desire by its founders to protect religious freedom.

Catholic charities had to stop their adoption services in Massachusetts because they were being ordered to provide adoption services to same-sex couples. Now there are more kids in foster homes in Massachusetts. That wasn´t a good thing for the state, society or even the same-sex couples, yet the backward minded activists see that as a victory. Why? where has rationale gone?

A Georgia wellness counselor was fired because she referred the case of a same-sex individual to another counselor.]

How about the bed&breakfast owners in Illinois who were sued because their employees would not work for and support a gay union ceremony.

Your silly arguments about tiny points that we all know (eg. businesses aren´t people) show a lack of understanding and a myopic viewpoint.

themdg
Saratoga Springs, UT

Dear LDS Church: Which is it? Tolerance/Gay Scouts? Or standing for something?

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Well, lessee... Churches enjoy various tax exemptions. One federal holiday is overtly Christian and two others have religious undertones (as does a state holiday). It is career suicide for a politician not to conclude an address with "God bless America." The list goes on. Yet religious liberty is apparently at risk because of a wedding cake and insurance policies. The current fuss strikes me as more about religion losing hegemony than liberty. Its privileged status is eroding and it now has to compete with other philosophies and ideas. Attaining equality is tough on those who start out as "more equal."

The case for loss of religious liberty would be more compelling if those making the case were less selective in their examples. All reflect a right wing point of view. Why do they not ever mention (let alone defend) the Quakers required to pay for war through their federal income taxes or the Unitarians prevented by law from performing same sex marriages? By only tacking right they betray a partisan agenda where advocacy of genuine religious liberty is not the actual goal.

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Truthseeker,

What about the phrase posted by some businesses that state “No shirts, no shoes, no service?” Is that considered unconstitutional?

I am not “picking a bone” with you over this issue, especially when it comes to a wedding cake – just wondering from your perspective as to what is and is a not constitutional practice for a business.

iron&clay
RIVERTON, UT

Wall street bankers who profit from Marxist theology by having the government own and control everything and everybody are USING the 'gay'community among others to subvert our free society .
Once the government has taken away all individual rights guaranteed under the constitution by the subversion of a Christian nations morality.. the government then takes total control and 'gay rights' will be the first thing terminated.*

*from history of socialist/Marxist governments of world.

Ranch
Here, UT

@wwookie;

Exactly HOW does baking a cake, providing flowers for, photographing a same sex marriage "go against one's religion"? Is the baker getting same-sex married? Is the florist getting same-sex married? Is the photographer getting same-sex married? Is the religous organization taking the contraceptive? No? Then they ARE NOT going against their religious beliefs.

By not "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you", you ARE going against your religious beliefs.

Catholic Charities was using TAX money to run. LGBT couples ARE citizens and taxpayers.

@VST;

"No shirt/shoes/service" can easily be rectified by donning said attire.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Coach Biff
New Hampshire has the lowest crime rate and the highest rate of atheists. That wouldn't be accurate if your thinking was correct.

@VST
"What about the phrase posted by some businesses that state “No shirts, no shoes, no service?” Is that considered unconstitutional?"

No, because the shirtless isn't a protected class. These lawsuits are happening in states in which sexual orientation is a protected class (or the lawsuit is to try and make the court address whether it should be one). By the way, it goes both ways, if someone refused to serve a heterosexual or a white person on the basis of sexual orientation or skin color they would be protected as well... it's just well... as a white straight male Christian I can't really think of any time I've ever faced any discrimination so it just doesn't really ever come up.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Coach Biff
New Hampshire has the lowest crime rate and the highest rate of atheists. That wouldn't be accurate if your thinking was correct.

@VST
"What about the phrase posted by some businesses that state “No shirts, no shoes, no service?” Is that considered unconstitutional?"

No, because the shirtless isn't a protected class. These lawsuits are happening in states in which sexual orientation is a protected class (or the lawsuit is to try and make the court address whether it should be one). By the way, it goes both ways, if someone refused to serve a heterosexual or a white person on the basis of sexual orientation or skin color they would be protected as well... it's just well... as a white straight male Christian I can't really think of any time I've ever faced any discrimination so it just doesn't really ever come up.

marathonman
Heber City, UT

Those who will not learn from (Prop 8) history are doomed to repeat it.
This bogus battle is bound to backfire.
Again.

RedShirtMIT
Cambridge, MA

To "atl134" so then you admit that discrimination is allowed, as long as you discrimnate in favor of a protected group.

For example, when seeking government contracts you can use discrimination in your favor if you have a minority owner, female owner, or veteran status. Even within the minority owner category you can use discrimination in your favor by having an eskimo own your business instead of a black or latino.

The government discriminates, but they do it in a way that promotes one group over all others. Is that good? If discriminating to promote one group over all others is good, then why is discriminating against a group bad?

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@VST – “What about the phrase posted by some businesses that state “No shirts, no shoes, no service?” Is that considered unconstitutional?”

That has nothing to do with discrimination but is simply about a patron’s real-time behavior within a business establishment.

If a gay person wants a table at your restaurant and is not wearing a shirt, or wishes to engage in a gay makeout session, the business owner has every right to ask them to leave.

If that same person is being civil and behaving like every other customer, and the business owner says to him “you cannot eat at my place because I think you’re gay,” that is discrimination.

See the difference?

Allowing discrimination for anything other than real-time behavior & decorum (and if business owners were stupid enough to run their enterprise based on prejudice rather than profit… which 99.99% are not) would create a country so fragmented it would make the Balkans look like the Borg.

to comment

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