Quantcast

Comments about ‘Bill would protect gay marriage opponents from discrimination claims’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Sept. 24 2013 9:35 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
1978
Salt Lake City, UT

Well done Rep. Labrador!

As Elder Maxwell stated in LDS conference in April 1999:

"Today, in place of some traditionally shared values is a demanding conformity pushed, ironically, by those who eventually will not tolerate those who once tolerated them."

LeslieDF
Alameda, CA

Couples go to city hall to get a marriage license.
Individuals go to city hall to get a business license.
When did city halls become churches?

When did baking a cake, arranging flowers, or taking photographs become the practice of a religion?
I guess anything goes when someone calls it a “religion.”

Bet voters wish they had not given their state the power to establish and regulate their “religion,” in marriage law, business law, property law, tax law.

Mr. Labrador seems unaware of the First Amendment.

bw00ds
Tucson, AZ

@Hutterite The sentiments of your post is exactly why this bill needs to pass. In light of how the church was persecuted during Prop 8 in CA show that attitudes like yours were harmful to others.

And let's correct @LiberalEastCoastMember statement that the congressman is using "big government." No he's not. He's using the legislative process under the guidelines of the constitution to protect a persecuted group. Ironically, the group being persecuted is exercising the same rights as the proponents of gay marriage are.

And I'm not sure that the statement "We're all Republicans until we want something. Then we all turn into Democrats." is really complementary of Democrats.

slow down
Provo, UT

I also think something along these lines is needed. If freedom of religion extends no further than what happens in the chapel on Sunday and in the privacy of your own mind, then it is not worth much. I don't get my knickers in a twist very easily about "the state controlling our lives," but this would definitely fall into that category. Sexuality, marriage, and family really are issues of conscience with very deep pre-political roots, and it is not right for the state to play Lord over our personal understanding of these things. Our very ability to exercise moral choice is compromised. In this case, by standing for the idea that society should recognize the importance of a mother and father in a child's life, you are potentially a criminal. That can't be right.

ulvegaard
Medical Lake, Washington

The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms -- though that one is falling under attack in the light of gun control laws. Now we can argue all we want as to ways to control violence, but the lesson is clear, current law makers have little regard for Constitutional laws or the protection of them. Sadly, it has become necessary to introduce and push for legislation which protects our constitutional rights.

Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

All of the gay marriage legislation, both proposed and enacted, has to do with the right to civil marriages and not with religious ceremonies. This has nothing to do with churches or one's religious beliefs, any more than someone would insist that a LDS church perform a marriage between Roman Catholics, or that any church perform a marriage not in keeping with its beliefs and standards.

More problematic with the idea behind this ill-conceived bill is that it is essentially no different than proposing a bill that would permit people to violate any other civil rights that have been enacted by law, whether it be putting up "whites only" signs, restricting job hiring to men only, or opening "exclusive" housing developments ("Exclusive" being the traditional way of saying "white Protestants only".)

PhotoSponge
nampa, ID

The majority has a right to protect themselves AGAINST these minority groups who scream and shout for their rights. They have no tolerance for any ideas but their own.

arand
Huntsville, u

As a business owner, I should have the right to hire or fire anyone I chose. If I don't agree with the way they dress or even their life style I should have that right. Please someone tell me why that is discrimination. I always try and hire people who have my same point of view to some extent, because it makes the workplace more enjoyable and productive. Believe it or not folks, I am in business to make a profit and feed my family. I am not in business to hire people.

postaledith
Freeland, WA

Where do I start? Isn't it hypocritical when people speak against gay marriage and call it the "wrong" choice when a lot of you come from families that had multiple wives? My great, great grandfather had three wives. One of them was 14. His first wife wasn't too happy about it, but back then women were not allowed to speak their minds. The bakery in Oregon was wrong for refusing service because they had a business license and went against that. They ended up closing their store. Gay marriage and LBGT rights are here to stay and they deserve and should have their equal rights. This is the RIGHT choice.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

If someone sponsored a bill saying it was OK to discriminate against the Latter-day Saints if you believe "Mormons are not Christians," I have a funny feeling this newspaper would not see it as a legitimate protection of religious liberty. That which is hateful to yourself don't do to someone else.

Sundriver
West Jordan, UT

I whole heartedly support the need for such a bill. Whether it goes far enough to protect religioous institutions, business and private individuals for speaking out/expressing public opposition to the underlying imorality and perversion of homosexual sex, remains to be seen. I do support the notion that such issues should be settled at the state level. However due to the terrible ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, an amedment reaffirming first amendment rights needs to be passed, if not a federal amendment establishing the preeminence of traditional marriage and or the preemminence of the states to regulate such matters, over federal intrusions which are turning the issue over to unelected federal bureaucrats which in turn override the will of the people.

arand
Huntsville, u

I don't speak against gay marriage, but as a business owner I should have the right to hire,fire and also work for whomever I please. I certainly would not take a remodel job in an area that would put my workers at risk. I also would not hire someone who walked in with baggy pants, tattoos and piercings all over their body. If you want to call that discrimination, you are right, but we all discriminate in one way or the other. Birds of a feather----.

Confused in AZ
Chandler, AZ

Whether you are pro or con Gay marriage doesn't matter- we were ALL instructed to "JUDGE NOT" and that is the way I prefer to live my life. IF you believe that God, the Father, makes no mistakes then you can clearly see that he made ALL of us- straight, Gay and all those in between. YOU do not have a right to disagree with Father nor who or what He creates. If you think for one moment that the Church- which many of us love and follow- does not have many, many Gays as members then you are just sadly mistaken. You just don't know who they are. Yet. Mind your own business; clean up your own house and humble yourself before you make judgement on Father's sons and daughters.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:Arand

Baggy pants and tattoos are not protected by any state or federal laws that i know of. Tell me though, how would you know whether a job applicant was gay unless you asked them?

All i know is this:

God commanded us to love our neighbor as ourselves and to do unto others as we would want others to do unto us.
God did not give me the authority or reponsibility to prononuce judgment on others. Therefore, i choose to treat people with kindness and respect regardless of race, age, religion, and sexual orientation.

mcclark
Salt Lake City, UT

If your religion requires you to discriminate against someone, maybe you need a new religion.

Contrariusester
mid-state, TN

@PhotoSponge --

"The majority has a right to protect themselves AGAINST these minority groups who scream and shout for their rights. They have no tolerance for any ideas but their own."

LGBT people make up roughly 5% of the US population.
Black people make up roughly 15% of the US population.
Mormons make up less than 2% of the US population.

Do you REALLY want to start making arguments based on population size?

@arand --

"As a business owner, I should have the right to hire or fire anyone I chose. "

The US government has disagreed with you for decades now. Discrimination by businesses is illegal, and has been for quite a long time.

"If I don't agree with the way they dress or even their life style I should have that right."

There's a difference between not agreeing with someone's personal dress code and illegal discrimination. Educate yourself.

Aephelps14
San Luis Obispo, CA

As a member of the LDS church, I personally feel that participating in a marriage ceremony in which gay or lesbian individuals are married is perfectly fine. I participate in weddings all the time that involve people who do not adhere to my belief system because, simply, they don't share my beliefs and that is OK. I really doubt that God/Heavenly Father feels it is our responsibility to actively go around punishing people we love and care about simply because they have chosen to make different decisions than we do. What does that accomplish? Baking a cake, taking photos, providing music for ceremonies involving gay and lesbian couples does not compromise our moral standards, it means you respect another person's ability to choose how they will live their life. Otherwise, we are discriminating....I don't someone refusing to make a cake for my wedding because I am LDS or because I am white. We need to allow others the same courtesy.

Maudine
SLC, UT

There is a very good reason the text of the bill is not listed in the article - as of today, there is no text in the bill.

There is nothing to support or argue against.

Spider Rico
Greeley, CO

@StalwartSentinel and others
Obviously you didn't read the article or the bill. There is nothing anti-gay about it. It just is for the protection of organizations that are against gay marriage.

Contrariusester
mid-state, TN

Excerpted from yesterday's NYT article on this bill --

----------

"The measure would prevent the government from taking any “adverse actions” based on “acts in accordance” with a person or group’s religiously motivated opposition to same-sex marriage.

An invitation to both unfairness and bureaucratic chaos, it could potentially allow federal employees to refuse to process tax returns or Social Security, veterans or other benefit claims from married same-sex couples. It could also allow businesses to deny same-sex spouses their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, including time off from work to care for a sick loved one.

[....]

Evan Wolfson, president of the pro-marriage equality group Freedom to Marry, likened the Act to pending legal challenges to the so-called contraception mandate: “the new bill is part of a larger legal and propaganda effort to portray recalcitrant opponents of fair treatment as victims and upset the successful balance of religious liberty and non-discrimination laws that has served the country well in many areas of civil rights over many decades.”

to comment

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