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

Return to article »

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

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

I don't know how many times this must be repeated over the years, but the reason the LDS church gets a disproportionate amount of blame/credit for Prop 8 is because, while they are indeed a small percentage of California, they contributed roughly half of the funds to the Prop 8 side and the majority of volunteer hours. Turns out people give credit where credit is due, to the people who worked hardest for it.

Salt Lake City, UT


It is not discrimination to support the traditional definition of marriage and all that means.

It is not discrimination for a Catholic Priest to refuse to perform an LDS wedding ceremony in his church and vica versa.

It is discrimination to refuse a person employment, housing or education based on whether or not they are a member of the LGBT community. The LDS church and you would agree on that.

Finally - I mentioned that the "major" Christian religions in the U.S. support traditional marriage:
Catholics – 57.2 million
Baptists – 36.1 million
Methodists – 11.4 million
LDS – 6.4 million

mid-state, TN

@1978 --

"It is not discrimination to support the traditional definition of marriage"

You don't need to be anti-gay marriage in order to be pro-traditional marriage.

"It is not discrimination for a Catholic Priest to refuse to perform an LDS wedding ceremony in his church and vica versa."

So? Gays aren't suing churches to perform gay weddings.

"Finally - I mentioned that the "major" Christian religions in the U.S. support traditional marriage:"


I think this is the first time I've ever heard Episcopalians, Presbyterians, or Lutherans being called "minor religions".

Again -- supporting traditional marriage does NOT mean opposing gay marriage. It's entirely possible to support both.

And I'll ask you again: Would you be okay with discrimination against Mormons? After all, even using your numbers there are still far fewer Mormons in the US than gay people. If you're not okay with anti-Mormon discrimination, then how do you justify anti-gay discrimination?

@ksampow --

"This is not about stopping gays from doing anything"

Of course it is.

"They are domestic patners, not spouses"

Why not?

What are they doing that is any different from any other infertile married couples?

Salt Lake, UT

jrp7sen, Yes there are limits to what a religion can do,Back to my earlier comment I fail to see how LDS doctrine regarding plural marriage was threat to anyone else in the country at the time the the government banned it. As I read comments online on various sites I do feel there is an ever increasing attack on anyone who is religious to the extent people are persecuted for having different beliefs that go against what society is trying to portray as normal. Often this comes from people who cry tolerance but they are the most least tolerant of all. Religiously I do not agree with homosexuality, I don't see how it fits into Gods plan according to my religion, However I do not condone or think they should be treated badly or discriminated against as Americans. I feel only God can Judge them as will the rest of us will be judged. They on the other hand should not be calling people names for believing differently. I have gay friends and family and we respect each others view points.


The First amendment section that includes religious liberty is not absolute. While you may believe any fairy tale is true or that any deity exists ---no matter how far out it is or extreme it is--there are limits here that restrict all religious bodies in what they may do or believe. That said we have the absolute right to be free of religion but not the absolute right to be a devout member of it.
--the LDS is not following Christ's teaching of loving your neighbot as yourself even if he or she is gay or person who is despised as Christ was. The LDS position on gay people is the same as that of Southerners had against blacks previous to 1970.
Church and State are absolutely separate. While religious groups may agree or disagree with what the State does --the state has the interest of all people to consider not a particular religious group. Let the church mind its own business and stay out of the State's business and everyone will get along just find.

Salt Lake City, UT

Many of the comments on this article have stated that the Gays are being intolerant because they won't allow people to live their religious tenets as they see fit. I don't see wanting equal rights as intolerant. I should have the same right that you do to walk into a business and be served, to hold the hand of my partner and not feel threatened, and to marry the one I love. You can believe whatever religious doctrine you want, but we live in a secular nation not a theocracy. Can you imagine what would happen if people could be given a personal exemption from following the law just because it is against their religion? If that were the case people could kill you for working on Sunday, women could be denied the right to vote, you could sell your daughters, and murderers could say that God told them to do it, etc., etc. Therefore, I will not tolerate your bigotry or discrimination just because your religion says that it is okay. I will work until all have the same right to marry the one they love.
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"
Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Temple City, CA

There are more secular reasons for opposing same-gender marriage than there are religious reasons. The problem is that a discussion of same-gender marriage in the context of evolution without God would gradually become something horrific.

The mere fact that most of us have religious scruples against same-gender marriage is what moderates the conversation. Certainly there are non-religious arguments; I just don't like them or really believe them. My personal arguments against homosexuality as a practice (not a "condition") or against same-gender marriage are all religious because I believe that the religious arguments are superior to the secular ones because the secular ones must all inevitably descend into arguments over who is the fittest to survive.

Having made that choice, and firmly believing that the discussion is as civil and as kind as it is because of the presence of religious believers, I think it may be necessary to protect religious beliefs in the sinfulness of homosexual acts. We shouldn't require such a bill, but, alas, we do.

Huntsville, UT


What a bunch of tripe. You can believe whatever you want but you can't use your beliefs against other American citizens; regardless what your beliefs say on the subject.

Temple City, CA

@ Ranchhand: Of course I can use my beliefs when I vote, or when I discuss, or when I argue, or whenever in any circumstances I function within the American democracy. Since when has it been illegal or immoral in America to allow one's beliefs to have an influence on one's behavior?

Be careful with declarations like this. They cut both ways. If I can't allow my beliefs to influence my democratic interactions, then how are you to justify using yours? Are you confessing to fascism?

mid-state, TN

@Jeff --

"Be careful with declarations like this."

Try **reading** what Ranch said.

He said that you can't use your beliefs AGAINST other American citizens. In other words, your beliefs do not give you any right to harm others -- or to deny rights to others.

Temple City, CA

@ Contrariusier: I understand your interpretation of "against." It is certainly possible to understand the word in terms of whether or not it hurts someone, as "to slam against something." But your own screen name shows that you must understand "against" in a similar way to my obvious reading of it: to oppose something, to be contrary to something.

In the understanding that to be "against" something may be to hurt that thing, and being a member of a religious minority in which people who have been "against" us have often turned violent and even murderous, I would agree.

But RanchHand did not make any such limited statement. In fact, he made it clear that "you can believe whatever you want," then he made a blanket declaration that I may not use my beliefs "against other American citizens" (apparently leaving non-citizens open for "againsting"), "regardless" what my beliefs say on the subject.

My beliefs say, for example, that slavery is wrong, and when someone in California was arrested recently for human trafficking, I used my beliefs to support the law against human trafficking and to condone that arrest.

If I believe something is wrong, I will be "against" it.

mid-state, TN

@Jeff --

"to oppose something, to be contrary to something."

Ahhh, but Ranch didn't say that you couldn't use your beliefs against "something". He specifically said against PEOPLE.

Anti-gay opinions hurt PEOPLE -- not things.

Temple City, CA

Ah, well, Contrarius, I suppose if "PEOPLE" are hurt because I say that they are doing something wrong, then I will have to accept that.

By the way, RanchHand never did say if he was confessing to fascism or not. I think fascism is bad. In fact, I think it is very bad. I think many of its precepts ought to be banned. I am willing to allow for individual fascists to believe in it, since this country allows for freedom of belief and expression, but if fascists ran for public office, I would use all the influence of my beliefs to keep them from winning. I would give money and support, if necessary, to the cause of defeating fascism in America.

I believe that fascism is wrong. I believe that the practice of fascism is bad for the country and the world. I will use my beliefs "against" the people who practice fascism in every legal way available to me.

I understand that fascists are PEOPLE, and maybe I'm hurting their feelings by making a public announcement that I am against them. I guess I'll have to live with it.

mid-state, TN

@Jeff --

Anti-gay opinions KILL.

I was living in Knoxville just a few years ago, when a man stormed into a Unitarian church there and **shot nine people** just because he hated "liberals, Democrats, blacks, and gays".

Gay people in the US are still **eight times** more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than straight people.

Another gay man was shot and killed in NYC in June -- **with** the shooter shouting gay slurs at him -- in yet another obvious hate crime. Gaybashings in NYC and elsewhere in the US are **rising**.

We see continuing violence against gays all over the world -- like those mobs in the country of Georgia that have been **led by priests** and egged on by the government.

In some countries, homosexuality is still **punishable by death**.

When somebody says homosexuals are "sinning" -- or "disgusting" -- or "perverted" -- or "anti-family" -- or "anti-Christian" -- they're reinforcing an image of homosexuals as "other" or "less than" or "inferior".

And the reinforcement of that subhumanized image is what makes so many people think that it's okay or even DESIRABLE to bash gay people.

Anti-gay opinions KILL.

Murray, UT

Jeff - RIGHT ON!!!!

Thanks for articulating so well.

You have to realize who you are dealing with. You will never get an inch with certain posters, who have so many accounts so they can shout down those of us who abide the 4 post limit. Is it any surprise they think they should get carte blanche to say and do whatever they want in the face of anyone with different views? They think that their special label should give them all kinds of privileges at the expense of common religious folks (which is why this bill is needed). The screeners are extra nice to them, because they fear getting sued by the 'minority', just like arand points out, and thus they can call total strangers murderers and it gets posted. I have copied/pasted the exact words back, regarding their intolerance, and it gets censored.

You make no difference with them. They will go on sinning in the face of anyone who will look, and fighting to make us say wrong is right, to make them feel better in their sin.

But I, and others like me, are heartened by your words!!!

to comment

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