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
Paddycakes
South Jordan, UT

Christians should band en masse to protect the rights of Christians and tell politically correct advocates 'you have gone to far, and no further'. We, as Christians have a duty to object and reject such anti-Christ behavior.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@RW123 --

You said: " I submit that participating in homosexual behavior is not equal to having a dark skin color."

Martin Luther King III supports a boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi because of their anti-gay 'propaganda' law. He has said, referring to his father, that "I think that as he worked to advocate for civil and human rights, he was talking for everyone, not just for people of color."

One of the chief architects of MLK Jr's March on Washington was an openly gay man, Bayard Rustin.

Rev. Bernice King. MLK's daughter, said in 2012 that civil rights included those who are "heterosexual or homosexual, or gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender."

Coretta Scott King said in 1998: "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people".

Candide
Salt Lake City, UT

@IsaacsTM So are you saying that any public business/service provider should be able refuse providing a product or service because they don't agree with someone's religious beliefs, race, orientation, etc.? What kind of country would that be? Let's look at some examples of what might happen. You are in a car accident and the EMT that arrives to help you doesn't like the fact that you are LDS(he knows because of the CTR sticker on the bumper) and refuses to give you CPR. Or, you call the police to your house because someone is breaking in and the police refuse to come because you sound gay on the phone. Or, you need a medical procedure in a small town and the only doctor doesn't serve your kind. Or, you want to buy your significant other a present, but the only store in town that sells what you are looking for doesn't like the look of you. If you operate a public business in this country you must abide by the laws of United States of America. If you discriminate, which is against the law, you should not be operating a business.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The Boy Scouts is one of many groups that seek to mold the character and morals of young people into the desired shape of the sponsoring entity. While religion is always present, Patriotism, Honesty and Fairness along with other good and desirable attributes are on the program. I think the greatest lesson learned is that all can be winners regardless of color, creed, religion, or physical or mental ability.

I would fault sports when they promote the winner-take-all mentality which is probably necessary for successful adults but not really necessary for the progress of human beings.

Mexican Ute
mexico, 00

@LAGOMORPH

You can get the alternate character set simply by going to your language bar, looking at Configurations, adding the desired language set (in my case that was Russian), and typing up what you wanted to do in that language.

@ISAACSTM

Your last sentence nailed it. For that reason, I put Obama's health care whopper and compared it with the current whoppers told by the opponents of the legislation.

Fender Bender
Saint George, UT

@ Sasha & IsaacsTM

You claim that people should be free to refuse to do business with you if they object to your LDS faith. I gather that both of you live in Utah. Consider how you might feel if you lived in, say, a small, isolated town in rural Mississippi, where you were the only LDS person, and 99% or your neighbors were Baptist. If the people in your community refused to do business with Mormons, would you mind being forced to travel half an hour to the nearest town to get your car fixed, see an eye doctor, or buy groceries?

Thankfully we have laws in place that prohibit businesses from discriminating against people based on race, religion, ethnicity, disability, age, or sexual orientation. Providing goods and/or services to a diverse group of people is simply a necessary part of doing business in the United States. If you'd rather not associate with people who don't share your opinions, beliefs or background, then don't go into business.

Here
Sandy, UT

The Book of Mormon teaches us we are in big trouble as a nation when the voice of the people (in other words, the majority) chooses the wrong. I believe this (same-sex marriage) is a classic case of misunderstood rights, making good seem bad (and vice versa), and anti-religious sentiment and actions being exercised in the guise of civil rights.

The GLBT community is demanding “tolerance”. Yet they seem to be the least tolerant of all groups involved. What I see with the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is that, with quiet diligence and dignity, it is opposing what it views to be one of the most significant anti-religious issues of the day.

And the fact that taking away tax-exempt status is even being discussed, as several posts and politicians have mentioned, means to me that it is a possibility in a democracy/republic such as ours. I would suggest that anyone who doesn't see that possibility may not be paying attention.

1aggie
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

I can't find the part in the scriptures where it tells me to judge others and not bake cakes, not take pictures for those I deem to be sinners.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ SammyB

You wrote: "And for every example given, excuses are made that make it abundantly clear that few Gay advocates sincerely want freedom for both sides."

Have you notice that the only people who divide society in this issue are religious people?
You are talking about "sides", there are no sides. We are one society and the struggle is not to take anything from you to give to somebody else. There are no sides.

If your LGBT friends get married, how their action has an impact in your life? Does your life change in any way shape or form?

Are LGBT against you? If they are not against you now, why they will be against you after they get married? What kind of logic is that?

@ Paddycakes:
O.K. you should get together and then what?

It seems that we should all get on our knees and pray to God to protect us from his followers. Christiasn should talk about peace, love, community, justice and salvation ....
you rhetoric implies hate and violence.

LGBT are not against you. You are against those who don't see the world as you see it.

May God forgive you.

Here
Sandy, UT

With due respect to the King family, I'll say this. We SHOULD love all our brother and sisters as human beings and children of God. We all deserve the inalienable rights proposed by the constitution, by conscience, and by decency. I just don't believe that same-sex marriage is one of them. But, I believe that, whatever our persuasion, we have the ability to live in peace over these issues, even with our differences.

I just feel the GLBT community asking for the rights and privileges of marriage is not appropriate. Marriage was and is always intended by God as an institution of a man and a woman to raise and nurture children and learn to love and respect each other within such an institution.

There is no mystery on where I stand. I say, let us love our fellow man, but not approve of his, or our own, sins. Especially when those actions will monumentally affect society, religion, and religious people. Knowing the courts, a pro-marriage ruling for the GLBT community will shift the paradigm to unfairly burden religion and the individual of religion.

Here
Sandy, UT

I don't intend to cause pain. I am not the judge of individuals or groups. But I - and everyone else - can judge for themselves what they think is right. I just know what this will do to harm to people and their religions. To marriage itself. I believe there have been enough stories and discussions in this very newspaper that document the intended and unintended consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage.

With all due respect to the King family, I think I understand where they are coming from, but still stick with my assertion that gay activities are immoral and do not, by any stretch of the imagination, warrant changing the marriage laws.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

SammyB: "And for every example given, excuses are made that make it abundantly clear that few Gay advocates sincerely want freedom for both sides."

On double standards and freedom for both sides-- The Catholic Church and others have taken a strong stand in favor of employers accommodating the religious convictions of employees, namely demanding that pharmacists not be required to dispense birth control and doctors and nurses not be required to participate in abortions. Principle established: employers must accommodate the religious tenets of their employees, even if (especially if) they differ from those of the employer. Fair enough. Yet yesterday this paper reported on a gay teacher at a Catholic school who was fired for announcing his engagement to another man. The employer refused to accommodate the religious tenets of its employee. How is this equitable application of the principle? Religious conservatives want the law to force their employers to protect their own religious practice, but they want to reserve the right not to respect the religious practice of employees when they are the employer. It seems abundantly clear that few faith advocates sincerely want freedom for both sides either.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

If you're using tax exempt money to fight the civil rights of *some* American Tax-payers, then that money should be taxed. If you want to play politics, then you should also pay.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

rw123 says:

"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."

-- And what if your "right" to pass such laws violates the religious freedom of someone else? Have you thought about that?

SammyB says:

"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. "

-- That is not true. We said that *churches* won't be required to perform gay marriages if they don't want. We never said you could discriminate against us to your heart's (if you have one) content.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

Paddycakes wrote:

"Christians should band en masse to protect the rights of Christians and tell politically correct advocates 'you have gone to far, and no further'. We, as Christians have a duty to object and reject such anti-Christ behavior."

I'm sorry, but how is that militant attitude any different than what has been going on for the last two thousand years, and always at the expense of human rights, equality, democracy, and truth?

Charles S
Freedomville, AZ

Under what principle or value should anyone be forced to provide a service to someone else if they choose otherwise?

Unfortunately a law like this is needed because some people cannot read the Constitution and/or understand the 1st Amendment.

I find it even hard to believe that homosexuals continue to claim they have no agenda. That claim is in the same arena as Obama claiming if you like your insurance, you can keep it.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@Charles S --

"Unfortunately a law like this is needed because some people cannot read the Constitution and/or understand the 1st Amendment. "

Yeah. Like all those evil old SCOTUS justices who have consistently affirmed and reaffirmed anti-discrimination laws. Too bad those SCOTUS judges can't read the Constitution.

;-)

Charles S
Freedomville, AZ

oh Contrary: I am so sorry that you do not understand the concept of freedom of choice. The Constitution has been so twisted by SCOTUS it is hard to recognize. And just because SCOTUS says something is constitutional does not really mean it is. Just like Obama usurping power to himself, SCOTUS has done the same thing.

Anyone has the right to refuse service to anyone else for whatever reason they choose, regardless of your insensitivity to freedom and choice. No law will ever stop it nor should it.

Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare are all against the COTUS. Doling out money to foreign countries is against COTUS.

Homosexuals state they do not have an agenda. If that is true, then why the constant push to have their behavior pushed and accepted by society? It should never be accepted, and this law will go a long way to state that religious bodies can continue to preach the gospel of Christ without worrying about the homosexual agenda.

Marriage always has been and always will be a man and a woman. Nothing you can post will change that fact.

;-)

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@Charles S --

"The Constitution has been so twisted by SCOTUS it is hard to recognize."

And, of course, you know more about the Constitution than many decades-worth of SCOTUS justices.

What law schools did you study at, Charles? What courses in Constitutional law did you take?

"Anyone has the right to refuse service to anyone else for whatever reason they choose"

Not legally, they don't.

"If that is true, then why the constant push to have their behavior pushed and accepted by society? "

Why do blacks constantly push to be accepted by society? Why do women?

Because equality is a foundational value of our society -- and our Constitution -- of course.

"Marriage always has been and always will be a man and a woman. "

Never let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of your nice fantasy, right?

2 tell the truth
Clearwater, FL

Most "religious opponents" of equal marriage are not tax exempt to begin with. The vast majority of them are secular businessmen - bakers, and florists, etc. And, it is they who refuse to accept that their chosen secular profession is NOT the priesthood.

to comment

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