Quantcast

Comments about ‘Why America's long history of protecting religion is at the center of gay marriage debate’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Nov. 14 2013 5:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

Discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation and laws that attempt to prevent same sex marriage are NOT conscience rights. Any argument to equate them as such is fraudulent, deceptive and just a passive aggressive form of bigotry.

TA1
Alexandria, VA

This discussion should be over by now but it all comes down to whether or not you run a business that operates in the "public square". If you do than you are subject to the laws governing those business. You can't discriminate and should not be allowed to discriminate in a business that caters to the general public. Hopefully we figured that out in the last 100 + years in America.

Ranch
Here, UT

"Defending individual conscience rights has often been divisive,..." "Today, the battleground is the legalization of same-sex marriage, which is testing the limits of exemptions to balance personal religious freedom and equal rights for gays and lesbians."

--- Specifically, how does serving a gay customer violate one's "conscience"? How does marriage for GLBT couples violate one's "conscience"? If you don't marry a same-sex person yourself, you haven't done anything against your religion, right?

This whole nonsense about "religious freedom" is nothing but another attack on the rights of LGBT couples. Your religious freedoms are guaranteed but you can't use "religious freedom" as an excuse for bigotry.

"Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in that opinion that letting individual conscience become a law unto itself contradicted common sense and could lead to anarchy."

This is one case where I agree with Scalia.

"But no one has been able to sell an individual exemption to a legislature."
--- Because it's wrong to allow someone to use religion as an excuse of bigotry.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Years ago I was active in diversity issues at the UofU. There was this one gay rights activist who had these really right wing views about Christians. He thought that their should be a quota on how many Mormons who could be admitted to the UofU. At one point he said that Jews and Christians have a collective guilt because the Old Testament condemns same gender relations. Then he added, but he didn't hold a grudge against Jews because of the Holocaust they had sort of paid off their guilt.

A couple of years ago in this forum I pointed out that there are people with some scary right wing views on the margins who would use same sex marriage as a tool to persecute.

Freedom of religion is the Human Rights issue of our time.

atrulson
cohoes, NY

There is a pending decision in a legal dispute in upstate NY between a lesbian couple who wanted to get married at a farm. The owners of the farm are Catholic and refused to accommodate same-sex wedding. The plaintiffs called the owners "mean and vindictive, and discriminatory"
Interestingly, the farm employs openly gay staff members and has hosted a birthday party for a boy with "two moms".
Because of the anti-discrimination laws, the owners of the farm are forced to make a decision between going against their beliefs, or accommodating weddings at all.

The lesbian couple has since been married in another venue.

Church member
North Salt Lake, UT

I'm interested in people's opinion on this: what is going to stop people from starting "religions" so that they can do things they want to do under the banner of "religious freedom". If you want to smoke cannabis, start a religion. Want to discriminate against black people, tell people God is commanding you to do so. Isn't religious freedom a slippery slope?

Since when did believing in religion give you the ability to act anyway that you want to?

SCfan
clearfield, UT

I hope this is hammered out in the legislatures, and not the courtrooms. I trust the elected officials who have to be accountable to their constituents every few years to be the best judges of what the law should be, rather than the unaccountable judges, sometimes only one or two, to make permanent law. Making law is not what judges were supposed to do in the first place, but is seems the judiciary has acquired that power these days at the expense of legislatures, who are elected to do so. Legislative made laws can be changed much more easily than judicial ruling laws, which set precident.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Legalizing same-sex marriage forces nothing onto anyone. Keeping it illegal does.

Ranch
Here, UT

@SCfan;

It is the judicial branch's RESPONSIBILITY to determine the Constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative branch. Just because you don't like their rulings doesn't mean they're being "activist" and making laws.

@Tekakaromatagi;

"Freedom of religion is the Human Rights issue of our time."

--- Nonsense. The human rights issue of our time is how religious people are treating others in a negative manner (i.e., look at what Orthodox Christians are doing to LGBT people in Russia these days).

@atrulson;

You left out critical details in your story. Was the "farm" offering their location as a marriage venue? No? Yes? If so, then they should accomodate all forms of marriage. If not, the lesbian couple had no cause to complain. (I find it hard to believe your story w/o the requisite details).

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

Bigotry in the name of freedom of religion is still bigotry. And the attempt to apply conscientious objection to bigotry doesn't change it either.

liberty or ...?
Ogden, UT

I usually don't comment on these topics but the level of ignorance dispalyed here in these comments is both hypocritical and biased. I will agree first with part of Craig Clarks comment only so far as I don't believe the government should have any say in who you mary. However there are 2 problems with this. That is not how the supreme court or the law was set up. All marriages performed by religion or government representative are technicaly civil unions on the books and the states under the constitution were given the power to decide through the voice of the peoplewhat forms of marriage are accepted and not this is why New York can legalize gay marriage.However, that being said Gay community members cannot use the law when it is in their favor and cry discrimination when it is not. If New york can vote yea for gay marriage then according to law California can say nay to gay marriage. Other wise you have discrimination in favor of homosexuality and the law is biased.

Pat
Salt Lake , UT

To Craig Clark, in the case of the farm couple mentioned above it appears that is not true.

liberty or ...?
Ogden, UT

Continued from previous post-...If however the LGBT community wants to say marriage is an inalianable right then you have a problem because the supreme court has already said on 2 sperate occasions that marriage is not a right. See DOMA and edmund tucker acts. Other individual cases exist as well. Since this has already been ruled on then you must propose an amendment to the constitution which must be voted on by the voice of the people and ratified by 2/3 of the states.IF you want to do it non oppressively and justly. But forcing adoption through judicial litigation is only another form of opression.However I disagree whole heartedly with TA1 & bob bohey. I would agree with you on publicly traded companies but in regards to sole proprietorship or property rights where the business or property is not distuinguished seperately from the private individualbut is an extension of themselves tax wise or legally then you cannnot force these people to check their beliefs at the door.I might as well ask you because I have a right to worship you must recognize and support my church even if your atheist otherwise you are discriminating.

atrulson
cohoes, NY

@Church member:
you can worry about slipping down that slope if you want, but it appears to me we are slipping down the opposite side of the slope.

atrulson
cohoes, NY

@Ranch:

Yes, they were offering their location as a marriage venue, which is why I said they are now forced to decide between going against their beliefs, or ceasing marriage accommodation all together.
I'm not sure what more detail you needed.

liberty or ...?
Ogden, UT

EDM just because your morrality standards are different doesn't make them bigoted you not. To say that your definition of morality is superior just because you say so only shows that you suffer fromthe same symptom you accuse them of. At least religious people claim external authority for their morals. If you take an atheist stand point then you have no leg to stand on because morality is all relative and yours is no better than mine.Gay activity may be okay morally to you whilepedophilia is okay with other peoples and cultures or arrange marriages

atrulson
cohoes, NY

@Ranch:
google "Liberty Ridge Farm NY" and you'll find more info.

David Cary Hart
Miami Beach, FL

Justice Scalia writing for the majority in Employment Division v Smith seemingly settled this issue. According to Scalia, religious exemptions to otherwise valid laws made those laws entirely unenforceable.

Moreover, smearing butter-cream on sponge cake isn't exactly God's work. Some of these people need to get over themselves. We must remember that the real victims of discrimination are not the business owners who discriminate. Rather, it is the people who are told "we don't serve your kind here."

SCfan
clearfield, UT

Ranch

When courts rule on law, that IS making law. Look at Roe/Wade. And it is activist when courts rule politically. There is a reason that the most liberal federal court, the 9th circuit, based in San Francisco, is the most overturned court by the Supreme Court. Courts and judges today have taken on themselves the mantle of creating law where none exists, or changing law to suit a political agenda. When Justice Suter was asked about that in his confirmation hearings he admitted that the courts will fill the void if a legislature has not made a law pertaining to a particular issue.

David Cary Hart
Miami Beach, FL

@atrulson

Refusing to rent your public accommodation out for a same-sex wedding is not an article of faith. It's a statement as a defender of the faith and an act of martyrdom. These are self-manufactured "victims." Are they asking prospective customers if they have been divorced? Can they turn away a Hindu or Jewish wedding? How about an atheist wedding? After all, those are at least equally insulting to their faith. Suppose the owners belong to the Christian Identity Church. Can they legally turn away Blacks and Jews?

to comment

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