Quantcast

Comments about ‘Senators introduce bill to protect religious opponents to gay marriage from losing tax-exempt status’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Dec. 12 2013 5:35 p.m. MST

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

@Schnee: No this country was not founded on the freedom of religion. It was founded on the premise that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights. Just 1 of those rights was to worship, or not, as one pleases. The founding fathers intended that the government does not endorse or suppress any religion. They were more concerned about other personal liberties and ensuring minority rights do not get trampled by the majority. The herd mentality of so "Christians" has been trampling other peoples rights in this country for far too long. People aren't taking it any more and this is the attack the so called "Christians" refer to when trying to justify their bigotry.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Government of the people should not favor private organizations.

Government of the people should not favor private beliefs.

Government of the people should not allow any organization to force its belief on non-believers.

Government of the people should not allow any organization or any individual to change to rule of government by the people.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

Are you sure this is such a good idea? This Bill would also allows non-profits to discriminate against Mormons. You can't have it both ways.

Groups that receive taxpayer funding or other taxpayer subsidized benefits should follow the rules the rest of us have to follow.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

So basically, these religious conservatives are asking for a law to keep them immune from prosecution when they violate a person's right to equal treatment under the law.

It boils down to this - they're asking for a law to shield them from the legal consequences of violating other people's basic civil rights.

No.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@DR73 --

"Yes, Democrats in California are pushing for a law to strip any entity specifically aiming at the Boy Scouts of America"

The BSA is neither a church nor a religious organization.

Esquire, Stalwart, and others are correct. This legislation would only be the gateway to ever-widening swaths of legally permitted discrimination in many stripes. Can you see a tax-exempt KKK on the horizon?

LeslieDF
Alameda, CA

These representatives do not know about the first and second amendments to the Constitution?!
There are no shotgun weddings for same-sex couples, in a church, or at city hall. And married couples, all married couples, can now file their federal tax returns jointly in every state in the Union.

Can they read?

LeslieDF
Alameda, CA

@ New to Utah - "This is much needed legislation in light of Christian cake makers and florists..."

None of the cases involve anyone in a business that advertises or advises customers the business is a "Christian" bakery, or a "Christian" photography studio, or that the baker or photographer is clergy, or that they solemnize marriage.

The first amendment does not say: Anything goes, if you call it a religion.

Sasha Pachev
Provo, UT

I am OK being discriminated for being Mormon by a business. If they are so unhappy with my religion to the point of making a big deal of it, I do not want to give them business anyway. If they do not give me a job for the same reason, I do not want to work for them anyway. If it gets to that point, I'd rather go hungry than force a private business to do something that is against the conscience of the owner.

I think our problem, though, is that we as a society are starting to lose the grasp of the whole concept of moral conscience. My Russian literature teacher in the USSR complained that the youth were "devoid of spirit" and I sincerely had no clue of what she was talking about - they had taught us there was no spirit. I learned later from the LDS missionaries that there was, but I am wondering if the reason we argue conscience the way we do is that we are on the path of digressing to what I experienced in the Soviet Union.

J-TX
Allen, TX

Well, a little paranoid, but OK.

The mere fact that Obama chimed in, and that we can't trust him to ever tell the truth, is reason enough to consider this.

J-TX
Allen, TX

@ Ultra Bob:

Government of and by the PEOPLE doesn't exist any more. Or have you not been looking around?

Yes, it's still in the books, but not in practice. Congress does not do what the people want, and neither does their President. So all your triteness is dissolved.

Mexican Ute
mexico, 00

"If you like your doctor, you can keep him"--Barack Obama, 2009.

"If you like your doctrine, you can keep it"--Today's opponents to this legislation.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@Sascha --

"but I am wondering if the reason we argue conscience the way we do is that we are on the path of digressing to what I experienced in the Soviet Union."

Ummmm. Putin is the one squelching what we would consider to be First Amendment rights, remember? He's the one muzzling the press and criminalizing public protests, remember?

Mexican Ute
mexico, 00

I think our problem, though, is that we as a society are starting to lose the grasp of the whole concept of moral conscience. My Russian literature teacher in the USSR complained that the youth were "devoid of spirit" and I sincerely had no clue of what she was talking about - they had taught us there was no spirit. I learned later from the LDS missionaries that there was, but I am wondering if the reason we argue conscience the way we do is that we are on the path of digressing to what I experienced in the Soviet Union.

You nailed it, Саша Пачев. This is a big danger that the United States has, falling towards a type of government experienced in Drittesreich on one side or CCCP on the other. And I understand perfectly what is going on in the United States of America and what is going on in Mat Rossiya, and they are headed in two different directions very quickly.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

This Bill was introduced by Mr. Raul Labrador (R) from ID on September 19, 2013. The Washington Post reported on it on September 25. It has an uphill battle in the Democrat controlled Senate.
Why is DN only now reporting about it. Is this jus a "plan" to mobilize the masses?

The WAPO reported:"The bill signifies a shift in strategy for gay marriage opponents: Increasingly resigned to the reality that they’re unlikely to stop gay marriage, they’re now trying to blunt its impact by carving out explicit protections for dissenters."

Basically, opponents to SSM are giving up and are trying to protect or provide political coverage to any organization - religious or not- that stands against SSM. Of course, they give it a positive spin by saying that the reason behind "is to protect traditional marriage".

Have news for you people, most of us LGBT people are the product of "a traditional marriage", we don't want to destroy our parents marriage, nor our brothers and sisters marriages. We just want to have one as they do. Go it? Really, guys is NOT that complicated....

ebur
Charlotte, NC

Totally against this bill, I hope it won't pass. It will be another tool of discrimination that could be used against anyone who believes different from other.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Christians routinely used scriptures to justify slavery before the Civil War. Does this legislation mean that groups working to repeal the 13th Amendment would have their tax exempt status protected? Can we keep slaves if we claim it's part of our religion?

The tax exemption protection seems pretty narrow in scope and limited in benefit to the traditional values cause. It would have no effect whatsoever on the wedding cake bakers and wedding photographers (private, for profit businesses) that are so often touted in these comments.

@Mexican Ute: How do you get the alternate character set? This forum doesn't support HTML.

Larry Chandler
CEDAR CITY, UT

@DR73: The Boy Scouts are not a church. And even churches should not be allowed to discriminate in any secular businesses or services they provide. A church that owns a grocery store, for example, should not be allowed to refuse service to any group if it sells to the public generally. It could limit products to no alcohol, no pork, etc. if it chose.

Religious services and functions are a different matter and they can follow their own beliefs here.

rw123
Sandy, UT

Has anyone read the first amendment lately? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." For those of us who firmly believe same-sex marriage is a threat to society, we have a right to speak up. It is not a matter of civil rights to have same-sex marriage. To us, it is a matter of right and wrong, and we feel strongly about it. We may not have the right to break the law, but surely we have the right to influence law-making and speak our minds.

"Rights" to same-sex marriage are not in the same ball park as civil rights for African Americans or other similar groups. I submit that participating in homosexual behavior is not equal to having a dark skin color. I have sympathy for those who struggle with same-sex attraction, who are trying to overcome such urges. To me, it (same–sex attraction) could be biologically understandable. But that understanding is a far cry from justifying extending the rights of marriage. I don’t believe the behavior itself is desirable or uncontrollable.

IsaacsTM
Huntingtown, MD

The underlying problem here is that we think the government should get involved in our personal interactions with one another. We ask the question how can we let someone not serve a Mormon or a gay, etc? The answer is that the government, under a traditional view of the constitution, is so limited that it does not have the power to prevent us from being rude to or offending each other. I am Mormon and was kicked out of protestant church's soccer league as a coach precisely because of my faith. Was it wrong? Of course. Are my kids in the league any more? Of course not. But the last thing I would ever think to do is to legislate that they be nice to me. The Boys Scouts, churches, business owners, should be free to do things that might offend other people. That is freedom. Government power is simply to easy to abuse because humans pass laws and get offended, and that is exactly what is going on now which is why this legislation Mike Lee is proposing is unfortunately very necessary.

SammyB
Provo, UT

In so many comments over the past few years, Gay supporters have claimed that there would never be infringement of any kind of people who disagreed with them. There are hundreds of examples of this happening and now legislation that could give that very protection to those with a different opinion is seen as bad? Not surprised. And for every example given, excuses are made that make it abundantly clear that few Gay advocates sincerely want freedom for both sides.

to comment

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