Comments about ‘Same-sex marriage debate could impact proposed Utah nondiscrimination bill’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Jan. 13 2014 5:40 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Vanceone
Provo, UT

It's openly admitted in this thread: the gay rights supporters here state that you can practice your religion in your home and inside your church--but nowhere else. That you do not have the right to practice your religious beliefs in business dealings, or in public discourse. You MUST bow to their demands otherwise.

Should a Jewish Restaurant be forced to serve pork and non-kosher food? According to the gay rights people on here, yes. If they don't want to, they shouldn't be in business. Should the Little Sisters of the Poor be forced to pay to abort children? The liberals say, YES! It's business, after all.

Tell me, what freedom of religion do we have if all our activities are judged to be "business" or in "the public square?"

What about this? Jenny and Jane, a lesbian couple, apply to work custodial at the Salt Lake Temple, midnight shift. Should the Church be able to turn them down? The liberals say no.

In the gay rights era, there's not much left of the freedom of religion.

SoCalChris
Riverside, CA

Quaker,

The most basic of all LDS beliefs is liberty. God gave us to the opportunity to choose to be good of our own free will. Satan's plan was to force us to do good. The US Constitution enshrines those rights. Tyrannies use force. Contrary to your post, the LDS Church believes in gentle persuasion and free will.

I'd bet the vast majority of those on this thread who have a differing view from yours, believe that gay people should be treated with kindness and respect and that it is wrong to discriminate against them. The question is how much government force should be brought into the equation. Given the way the judiciary has a tendency to overstep its bounds, I understand the reluctance to give it more ammo.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Meckofahess
"I would ony add that I think both the gay and straight communities should see if there is some "middle ground" which respects the needs, concerns and rights of both sides. "

Being able to be fired or booted out of an apartment just because of sexual orientation is not really compromisable (other than I suppose church owned positions/housing). By the way, they wouldn't have "special rights" non-discrimination ordinances on sexual orientation apply to straight people too, if somehow a person would ever be fired from a job just because they're straight.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@NewToUtah 11:33 a.m. Jan. 14, 2014

The cake bakers in New Mexico and Portland Oregon did not lose their business by having "conscience issues" -- they lost their business because they broke the nondiscrimination laws in place and which they agreed to follow when they obtained their business licenses. If they in fact had "conscience issues" then they would have problems with serving fornicators or adulterers or thieves, or profaners, or divorced people . . . fill in any other sin -- and would not provide cakes for them too. The bakers in question just wanted to discriminate based on sexual orientation -- something they had agreed not to do -- and were held accountable.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Meckofahess: "I believe the silent majority of Utahns agree with your assessment."

Perhaps not. Another paper is reporting new polling today showing support for SSM in Utah at 48% (equal to the opposition), support for any legal recognition of SS relationships at 55%, and support for SS civil unions at 72%. That's not national polling, that's right here in Utah. The handwriting is on the wall. The trend is towards increasing support for LGBT concerns.

Meckofahess: "I would ony add that I think both the gay and straight communities should see if there is some 'middle ground' which respects the needs, concerns and rights of both sides."

The middle ground for both sides is that the nondiscrimination bills are worded in terms of characteristics that all of us have (age, race, sexual orientation, ability, etc.). They do not give anyone "special" rights, they only guarantee equal rights for groups that historically have been discriminated against assymmetrically. SB100 is a gay bill only in that gays have taken the brunt of employment and housing discrimination relative to straights and stand to benefit more, but it protects both gays and straights.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

It is funny how we have people on the left denouncing discrimination like it is a bad thing. Discrimination can be a good thing too.

Imagine you have a teenage daughter who needs help in math. There is person in you neighborhood that offers to tutor her for a reasonable price, however he is on the sex offender registry for molesting several teenage daughter. If you are a liberal that says discrimination is bad then you are a hypocrite if you say that you would not send your daughter to this man for help in math.

Discrimination can be a good thing when used to protect.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Vanceone: "Should a Jewish Restaurant be forced to serve pork and non-kosher food? According to the gay rights people on here, yes. If they don't want to, they shouldn't be in business. "

-----------

If the Jewish restaurant has served pork to one of its customers, it needs to serve any all all customers that ask for it -

The law does not make a business do something it has never done before, it just makes it do the same for all people. Why is that so hard to understand?

The LDS church and all churches have always been exempt - as they would be with this law.

I think you have convoluted this issue when it is pretty simple: The golden rule.

Willem
Los Angeles, CA

Anything to denigrate the gay and lesbian community just like they used to do to us African Americans.

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

DeepShirt, no one is talking about abridging the rights of the consumer. Your example doesn't fit.

How about this one? I disagree with Mormon doctrine. I shouldn't be forced to hire Mormons. How's that? But guess what. Religion is a protected class, tho already protected by laws like this. This isn't creating special rules only for LGBT people, it's including them in the protections you already enjoy.

nycut
New York, NY

@A Quaker illuminates the heart of the matter: the tension between the dominant religious/political culture's desire to rule without restriction, based on a religiously-fueled majority will, versus the fact that Utah is indeed part of the United States and subject to Constitutional principles and decades of jurisprudence protecting individual freedom and equality.

There's a poignancy in the confusion on display. People who consider themselves good-hearted (who obviously are in many ways) find themselves characterized as small-minded and bigoted, not recognizing they've behaved in small-minded, bigoted ways-- expressing ignorance and prejudice, rushing to enshrine their religious views in exclusionary laws targeting the object of their prejudice-- are hurt by charges of mean-spiritedness.

While arguing the *right to their beliefs* exempts them from charges of bigotry, they fail to see that those *beliefs* are the REASON for their bigotry. This creates pathos. Like fish that do not know what water is.

A self-centered worldview infrequently challenged causes empathy to atrophy.

Peace of mind requires the humility to recognize that one's own religious choices, however strongly felt, are one's own, and do not rule the day in a pluralistic society.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Vanceone
"Should a Jewish Restaurant be forced to serve pork and non-kosher food? According to the gay rights people on here, yes."

No. The issue is whether a business can provide a service to some poeple but not all people. A Jewish restaurant not serving pork at all is not an equivalent situation.

"Should the Little Sisters of the Poor be forced to pay to abort children? The liberals say, YES! It's business, after all. "

Actually they have a religious exemption in the healthcare bill. Their lawsuit is because they feel having to file the paperwork to claim it is too much of a burden.

"Jenny and Jane, a lesbian couple, apply to work custodial at the Salt Lake Temple, midnight shift. Should the Church be able to turn them down? The liberals say no. "

It's a church-specific position (rather than a church owned business) so yeah the Church can turn them down.

Vanceone
Provo, UT

Lane Meyer: But the LDS church has married millions of people. Why wouldn't a judge tell them that they have to marry gays too? Because "1st Amendment?" It hasn't protected anyone else so far, why would some liberal gay judge let it interfere here? We already saw a lawsuit against the LDS church for "depriving gays of their rights to marry" in the first couple of days after Shelby's ruling.

Look, this state is UNIQUELY experienced with what it means to be on the "wrong" side of the marriage debate in this country. I have ancestors who spent time in jail because they disagreed with the culture of marriage that the Feds imposed on them. And right now gay marriage is the culture of marriage that the Feds are trying to impose on the country. And if you think groups like GLAAD will ever rest until Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, and any other Christian who refuses to sanction gay marriage are stripped of all their rights (as indeed happened in the territory of Idaho to Mormons)-then you are indeed Naive. Look what they tried to do to Phil Robertson, the most popular reality star.

Jeffsfla
Glendale, CA

People...people...Gays and lesbians are not asking for any special status. They are just asking for a seat at the table. We all are entitled to our religious freedoms but when those freedoms relegate good tax-paying citizens who are not hurting anyone to a second class status then a line must be drawn. We are protected by law to have our religious beliefs in our homes and in our houses of worship. But when we enter the public arena and demand our beliefs to be the law of land we are asking for trouble. Please stop this nonsense and understand our lives will not change. The only thing that will change is our further acceptance of our fellow citizens.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Vanceone

"But the LDS church has married millions of people. Why wouldn't a judge tell them that they have to marry gays too? Because "1st Amendment?" It hasn't protected anyone else so far, why would some liberal gay judge let it interfere here? We already saw a lawsuit against the LDS church for "depriving gays of their rights to marry" in the first couple of days after Shelby's ruling."
-------------

Has the LDS church ever had to marry someone from another religion in their temples? Why not? Because they have that freedom to discriminate. Not only no one from another religion has been married in there, but they are abole to say No to people of their own faith! Look to MA - no gay couple has filed to marry in the Boston temple yet and it has been about 10 years.

If you had been reading the paper, you would have noted that the law suit was a hoax--it was not entered into by the gay couple who wed, but by a lawyer who is going to be brought before the bar for filing a law suit without the knowledge of those whom he filed for. Very unscruplous.

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

Vanceone, all we have to do is look at the case of Hosana Tabor vs EEOC to see that yes, the First Amendment does give religions wide exceptions to the laws which businesses must follow. In this case SCOTUS unanimously said that churches have full control over their doctrinal beliefs.

Vanceone
Provo, UT

Lane: I read about the case, yes. Unscrupulous lawyer or no, the next one will be filed with all the requirements filled. I don't think that anyone else, like a Catholic, has ever wanted to be married in an LDS temple and tried. Can you point to a case where the LDS (or any other church, for that matter), has been sued for not providing a religious ceremony? Most people get it. It's only the SSM advocates who are on record as saying the 1st Amendment freedoms are overruled by gay rights.

You want to know how I know the gays have designs on our religious freedoms? Because in several states that have tried to work out compromises--legalized gay marriage in exchange for statutory exemptions for churches ensuring they won't be forced to marry gays--the gay lobby has turned it down unless the exemption is removed. New Jersey, Vermont stand out. Why do they hate the idea of churches being legally exempt from marrying gays unless they had plans to force churches?

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

Vanceone, Redshirt,

How can we communicate when you are not stating facts?

You are acting under "the presumption" that LGBT are after destruction of religion and businesses.

Unless you can provide irrefutable facts, which you have not, we have to take your statements as emotional outburst produced perhaps by fear, bigotry, misunderstanding or a myriad of other possible reasons.

Most LGBT in the western world identify themselves with a religion, Catholic, LDS, Episcopal, or other. Why anybody would like to destroy something they consider sacred? or Why anybody would like to marry in a church that doesn't want to bless his/her union?

Have you ever asked or known somebody who have asked for pork in a Jewish/Kosher Restaurant? Why would LGBT people many of whom run "fabulous" eating places would like to do something that may come back and hurt them?

The DN published an article about being "civil". Part of that civility requires that in order to communicate we discuss issues bringing to the table facts, laws, history and any other verifiable tool. Is that too much to ask?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

From Vermont’s Same Sex Marriage law:

Statutory provisions on who may solemnize marriages were amended to include this provision:
[18 VAA Sec. 5144(b): ] This section does not require a member of the clergy ... to solemnize any marriage, and any refusal to do so shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.


NJ does not have a religious exemption, but they still must live by the constitution and part of the constitution is freedom of religion.

Can you show me where any state or country that has gay marriage has had a gay couple sue to be married in a temple there? London? Alberta? Boston? Los Angeles? Hawaii? Buenos Aires? DC? Copenhagen? South Africa? New Zealand? CT? Madrid? Manhattan? Mexico City? Paris? Sweden? The Netherlands? Etc.?

I think you may be fear-mongering. There is no reason to have this fear and especially to pass it on.

gmlewis
Houston, TX

VanceOne wrote: "Why do they hate the idea of churches being legally exempt from marrying gays unless they had plans to force churches?"

That is a good question. I believe that very few gays harbor desires to "force churches," but I know that Satan very much desires to weaken churches.

Gays deserve this employment and residence protection, and their cause is just. The law should be passed, hopefully with a few appropriate amendments.

However, this law will add to other laws, past and future, and their combined weight will make religion and religious people very vulnerable.

One day when the time is right, Satan will entice anti-religious groups to use this combination of laws as a weapon against the First Amendment, and the damage to all of us will be enormous.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@Vanceone, your "the sky is falling" routine is getting old and more desperate. There is no such thing as a "lawless liberal judge," unless he lives out back in your "Jewish pork restaurant."

Any time in its history, can you point to a Mormon Temple being ordered to marry anyone? Can you point to any major or minor religion in the United States ever being ordered to give baptismal, confirmation, marriage or funeral rites to anyone? Ever? No, never. Go reread the First Amendment, slowly.

Back in the secular world for a second: Public accommodations law is about who can sit at the lunch counter, not what's on the menu.

Having solved Utah's homophobia problem, let's work on that transphobia one, although it's not at issue here. Do you know how many MtF and even FtM trans folk have been raped and/or murdered because of who they are? It's in the thousands. The reverse is not true. When it comes to public safety discussions, let's please take into account who the victims are here.

to comment

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