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
Ranch
Here, UT

@Spider Rico;

Making it legal to discriminate against gays in your business is the very definition of "anti-gay".

Archie1954
Vancouver, BC

But why would anyone support a law that protects unconstitutional behavior?

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

Continued

Same with the flower shop or cake maker. Gay persons were patronizing these business all the time, and receiving service, but when gays started requesting that the business be part of their gay lifestyle, the business owners had to draw a line. I believe that is their right. I don't expect to be able to go into a PRIVATE owned business, and require them to adopt to my LDS standards or rituals in order to provide me service. I'm not going to go out and sue them like a crazed fanatic would, over some lame civil rights theory. Some people need to grow up, and that's why we need this kind of legislation.

1978
Salt Lake City, UT

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

For the record the vast majority of the black population in California voted for Prop. 8.

In terms of real numbers based on the latest scientific polls in the U.S. from UCLA and Gallup:
Gay Population 1.7%
Bisexual Population 1.8%

Also from Gallup - Poll results from December 2012 (Percentage of Christians in U.S.):
Protestant 51.9%
Catholic 23.3%
LDS 2.1%
Total 77.3%

Oatmeal
Woods Cross, UT

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act currently being debated in Congress would make private religious institutions (like BYU or Boy Scouts) adhere to federal anti-discrimination laws concerning homosexuals.

There are many out there that can't see churches being forced to hire gay employees and perform gay marriage ceremonies. A year ago, I would have agreed with them. I no longer do. There IS a real effort being made to strip churches and religious organizations of their First Amendment rights. A "Right of Association" no longer exists. Religious practice will be severely limited if it is deemed discriminatory or outside the scope of the mores if modern society.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

re:HaHaHa
"I don't expect to be able to go into a PRIVATE owned business, and require them to adopt to my LDS standards"

Really?
First of all, they weren't private businesses. They were public businesses, subject to state laws.

You expect a photographer or florist to tell you that they don't do business for LDS weddings?

jrp7sen
Logan, UT

"The 1st amendment didn't protect the LDS Church when they wanted to practice their belief of plural marriage, even though it should have been protected under freedom of religion."

Um, there are limits. Obviously. If a religion claimed their God commanded them to assassinate all those who did not belong to their faith.. then I'm sorry, the first amendment is not going to protect them.

Fender Bender
Saint George, UT

The distinction needs to be made between the obligations of businesses and the obligations of religious organizations. Most states already have anti-discrimination laws in place that make this distinction.

I support legislation that ensures the rights of religious organizations to define moral behavior as they see fit. As long as churches don't interfere with anyone's individual rights, they should be allowed to preach and worship however they want, and exclude whoever they want.

Businesses are different. Imagine you've just moved to a small town where you're an outsider. The local grocery store owner refuses to sell goods to you, the local dentist, optometrist and family doctor all refuse to provide services to you or your family members. Local burger joints won't even sell you food. You have to drive 30 minutes out of your way to the nearest city to take care of your basic needs.

Anti-discrimination laws prevent such scenarios, and allow everyone the same basic freedoms regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, age, disability or sexual preference. The same laws that protect the rights of a gay person in Utah also protect a Mormon in rural Kentucky or a black man in Connecticut.

Contrariusester
mid-state, TN

@1978 --

"For the record the vast majority of the black population in California voted for Prop. 8. "

So what? They are still a minority who "scream and shout for their rights", as PhotoSponge put it.

As for Gallup --

Gallup's overall LGBT estimate was 3.4% . However, results vary widely from poll to poll. And as the Gallup folks themselves noted:

"As a group still subject to social stigma, many of those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender may not be forthcoming about this identity when asked about it in a survey. Therefore, it's likely that some Americans in what is commonly referred to as "the closet" would not be included in the estimates derived from the Gallup interviews. Thus, the 3.4% estimate can best be represented as adult Americans who publicly identify themselves as part of the LGBT community when asked in a survey context."

I'll stick by my "roughly 5%" estimate, thanks.

And I'll ask again: There are many more LGBT people in the US than Mormons, not to mention members of other minorities (like blacks, for instance). Does PhotoSponge REALLY want to start making arguments based on population size?

Luke Nelson
West Valley City, UT

@Hutterite

Ridicule, marginalization, and isolation sound a lot like discrimination.

Jeffsfla
Glendale, CA

The Congressman is wrong to even bring this bill forward. His attempt to enact legislation which discriminates against a certain group of people is so UN-American. Religion does not belong in the public arena. If this was true...which religion should we use? All of you know this is only common sense...a very American virtue.

Before you demonize me I believe and will defend your freedom of religion in your homes and in your houses of worship. But if you are going to get a job in the government or in the private sector you need to leave your religious beliefs outside the door. If you cannot..you might want to look for another job. Trust me...there are many people waiting in line for your job.

LiveLongAndProsper
Eagle Mountain, UT

@HaHaHaHa (12:36pm):

"Same with the flower shop or cake maker. Gay persons were patronizing these business all the time, and receiving service, but when gays started requesting that the business be part of their gay lifestyle, the business owners had to draw a line."

Nonsense. The flower shop or cake maker were not asked to be part of their gay lifestyle. They were asked to do what their business was in the practice of doing...selling a cake or flowers. These were business transactions, not an endorsement, participation in or otherwise engaging in the "gay lifestyle."

moniker lewinsky
Taylorsville, UT

I try to be progressive, but if it meant an end to the belly aching about the supposed loss of religious liberties, I would support it.
Let people refuse service and the gays (or whomever is denied) can use facebook and twitter and all other forms of social media to reveal who these businesses are so that they can get a little negative or positive publicity depending on how you roll. Progressives like me will boycott said business owners and the same crowd that showed up at Chick Fil A in droves a couple years ago will probably bend over backwards to support the haters. It should all work out in the end.
As long as it isn't a government entity, I don't see the harm. I am totally fine with people losing their tax exempt status though. Right to discriminate doesn't mean immunity to consequences. While we're on the subject, there are a few other corporations that I think should lose their tax exempt status. Cough.

arand
Huntsville, u

Let me ask you this truth seeker----First off I would not ask anyone if they were gay, but If I did hire a gay and they kept making passes at some of my employees do you think the ACLU would be on my side if I tried to fire them for sexual harassment? I had one heck of a time trying to fire a woman that just did not do a good job. Try and fire a minority sometime and see what happens.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

arand says;

"... but If I did hire a gay and they kept making passes at some of my employees..."

Are you serious? What if you did hire a straight and they kept making passes at some of your employees? We are NO DIFFERENT than straight people. You're comment is completely clueless.

Yorkshire
City, Ut

Truthseeker said "You expect a photographer or florist to tell you that they don't do business for LDS weddings?"

Yup. Same kind of thing happens to Mormons all the time.

As an LDS family not living in Utah, we were told that the many scholarships my children applied for would not be granted because they were Mormons and also because those sponsoring the scholarships did not want their $$$ to potentially go to BYU....They were free to apply, but the councilor said to know up front that being a straight A student and top of their class would never trump being a Mormon...

A Christian bookstore refused service to LDS Missionaries, and asked them to please leave.

A Boy Scout troop refused to let a Mormon boy join their troop, as thy were afraid he would spread his Mormon opinions and ideas to the other Scouts.

A teen was hired and then 2 minutes later fired after asking if he could ever have some Sundays off to go to Church. When asked which Church, he was then told that the employer had decided this teen would not be a good fit for his company, and was asked to leave.

Contrariusester
mid-state, TN

@arand --

"If I did hire a gay and they kept making passes at some of my employees do you think the ACLU would be on my side if I tried to fire them for sexual harassment?"

Why wouldn't they be?

Remember, the ACLU has defended **Westboro Baptist Church** in court. Civil rights apply to EVERYONE, not just to people we like!

@Yorkshire --

Sorry, but urban legends aren't the same things as facts. Show us FACT -- names, dates, locations -- or don't expect us to take you seriously.

And even if your legends are actually fact, they do nothing to counter the civil rights of the gay people who sued those businesses. Discrimination in some cases does NOT excuse discrimination in other cases.

1978
Salt Lake City, UT

@Contrariusester

This is not an issue about Mormons and the LGBT community in my mind and never has been. For the record it was a Catholic Bishop who asked the LDS community to help with the Prop. 8 movement in California.

It was Protestant ministers especially in the black community who also strongly supported Prop. 8. Therefore if you want to compare numbers I will stick with the ones I posted. 77.3% and 3.5%.

And one more point. The major Christian religions in the U.S. support the traditional definition of marriage - period. When the govt. slowly is beginning to force businesses and eventually organizations to comply it is time to act.

Again - Thank You Rep. Labrador and the other 61 representatives including 2 democrats so far.

Contrariuser
mid-state, TN

@1978 --

"It was Protestant ministers especially in the black community who also strongly supported Prop. 8. Therefore if you want to compare numbers I will stick with the ones I posted. 77.3% and 3.5%. "

So you'd be okay with discrimination against Mormons? After all, even using your numbers there are still far fewer Mormons in the US than gay people.

"And one more point. The major Christian religions in the U.S. support the traditional definition of marriage - period."

This is simply not true.

The Episcopal Church of the US, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Quakers, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Metropolitan Community Church, the Reformed Jews (not Christian, obviously), and the Conservative Jews are all happy to perform gay marriage or bless same-sex unions, or allow each diocese or minister to decide independently. And that's just a partial list.

ksampow
Farr West, Utah

The gay rights activists have distorted this whole issue by claiming that they are discriminated against if anyone holds to the centuries-old, time honored (and divinely ordained) definition of marriage. This is not about stopping gays from doing anything - they can live together, and do as they please. But they have no right to force someone to adopt their definition of what it is that they are doing. They are domestic patners, not spouses, in the traditional definition. For example, this is similar to a hypothetical example I will propose: a photographer claiming that taking pictures of animals is "hunting" and saying that a hunting club must treat picture-taking the same as hunting. A photographer has as much right to take pictures as a hunter has to hunt, but he has no right to force the hunters to admit that taking photographs is the same as hunting.

to comment

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