Comments about ‘Religious freedom and anti-bias bills announced at pro-traditional marriage gathering’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 23 2014 10:30 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Castle Valley, Utah

Holy cow. Things are getting really twisted as the conservative right squirms in agony.

Provo, UT

If I were a business owner I would have no problem renting to, selling to, or serving gay couples. If they were my neighbors I would be their friend. However, if I had to photograph a gay wedding I couldn't do it. I could not take pictures of two men or two women kissing. That would be an open violation of God's laws. Even the LDS Church invites all people to worship in their churches, AS LONG AS THE CHURCH'S STANDARDS ARE MAINTAINED.

Good luck crafting a bill that protects religious and gay rights.

Laura Ann
Layton, UT

I think that an individual should have the right to refuse services for something that they have religious objections to. It's not fair to the person who has to do it and it also isn't fair to the people who are asking for the service. How can you take good pictures when your heart just isn't into it? Why should someone make a cake representing something they are opposed to? After all, I believe you have a right to not serve in the military, at least on the battle front, if you are a conscious objector. (If my spelling is off, please forgive me.) I know many people who do not have a problem with serving anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. I just know that I couldn't do it. I have relatives who are gay, and I love them. I have no desire to hurt them, but what if something someone wants hurts me?

Christopher B
Ogden, UT

"As a member of the committee, I voted against the legislation because I believe that homosexual activity is immoral," Reid said, acknowledging that his decision was discriminatory.

But he explained that society has always discriminated against immoral behavior"

Well said.

The Mormons have taken the correct approach here. Its possible to love the person but not support the sin.

St. George, UT

Utah's uber-conservatives are fighting for their right to force their own cherry-picked views of morality on every citizen in the state.......kinda like they have always done. I guess they don't like the fact that a growing number of people in this state are tired of it. Thus, they resort to the straw man argument that "religious freedom" is threatened.

We are free-thinking, empathetic Mormons and non-Mormons who love our families, friends, and neighbors (including the LGBT ones) more than we love any church. That isn't anti-religion, it is Christ-like.

Sandy, UT

It all amounts to an issue of Freedom. I want the freedom to do what I want, but you should not have the freedom to do what you want. Let people sleep with whomever they want, but likewise allow people to elect not to participate in any way with conduct they find objectionable. Should I have the right to insist that a corner deli violate kosher just because I like bacon? Freedom. You have it or you don't. Right now we don't because people want to regulate what everyone else is doing.

Salt Lake City, UT

"they would protect individual religious conscience rights"

I assume this is the cake type stuff, right? If so, I'm really not surprised that Utah's the one that wants to encode the right to discriminate into law.

Provo, UT

@EDM Rather, things are getting twisted as a tiny minority tries to overthrow representative government in favor of a dictatorship where unelected judicial and a lying president assume all legislative power and the citizenry has no power.

Attempting to deny a supermajority of citizens the ability to participate in determining what kind of community we will live in is the real civil rights issue here.

Potsdam, 00

Morality should not and ever cannot be the base on which laws are made.
Even if you consider them to be derived from historical moral interpretations,
in our day we are shifting from a Utah based society to an international formed living,
that cannot include morals or religion to rule the people.

We must come up with accurate definitions on marriage, that will last the next century, and people can relate to.

You can preach repentance as in the days of Noah fine, but for laws of the land, we must get ready to include a whole lot more than just Utahns, we must define what is good for our children and future generations by using secular mentality.
After all these are just words, but words can be powerfull, morality is good but not to be imposed on others.

San Antonio, TX


Somewhere, IL

Why is all this neccesary? Did someone repeal the first amendment while I wasn't looking?

Listening Ears
Provo, UT

To deny services to others is an interesting choice. Having grown up in a Seventh Day Adventist community, we were never denied service because we pertained to a different belief system - grateful there was no prejudicial bias to servicing us. Having lived and traveled in many countries, I have never been denied service to eat in restaurants, prepare parties, etc. I am hoping this type of disservice will not happen in our state that has had a reputation of peacefulness to others.

Logan, UT

Seems hetero privilege is the new white privilege – to be protected at all costs.

You can't expect us to treat "those people" the same as every body else, can you?!?

Bountiful, UT

"As a member of the committee, I voted against the legislation because I believe that homosexual activity is immoral," Reid said, acknowledging that his decision was discriminatory.

But he explained that society has always discriminated against immoral behavior,


Moslems believe it is immoral for women not to wear head coverings or berkas. Catholics believe birth control is immoral. How would any of us like it if some religion became a majority and began to enforce their own particular religious view on others because they claimed they were doing it for moral reasons? It is wrong to try to force your own religious view on others.

Here, UT

Basically they're saying this bill will allow you to put up: "NO GAYS SERVED HERE" signs.

What about the religious freedoms of those you are oppressing Senator Reid? Mr. Mero? Do those people not deserve "religious freedom" as well? Does the fact that their beliefs differ from yours make them less relevant?

If someone doesn't want to serve all customers then they should choose to not open a business.

Los Angeles, CA

"But he explained that society has always discriminated against immoral behavior."

The only persons that are being discriminated and denigrated are the gay and lesbian community in Utah.

Here, UT

@Laura Ann;

I suppose that as long as the business owner refusing to bake a cake for an LGBT couple also refused to bake a cake for an adulterer getting re-married, or a pair who has been living together (fornicating) or a Sabbath breaker, or an eater of shellfish, then I could be on board.

However, your business owner is not refusing to bake cakes for serial adulterers. He/she is not refusing to provide flowers to the fornicators. He/she is not refusing to photograph the marriages of Sabbath breakers.

What that tells us, is that it is NOT about "religious conscience". It is about bigotry against a single group of people.

And you say you think this is okay.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

Schnee - Ranch

So if a feminist owned bookstore does not sell playboy based upon principle - are they anti-men?
If the Utah Pride Center wont special order ex-gay ministry pamphlets - are they anti-straight?

Strident left wing reactionary politics are the biggest source of intolerance in America

KIC- Keep It Constitutional
Salt Lake City, UT

So let me understand this correctly. The LGBT march with banners of equality preaching that individuals should have free-will and not be controlled by government. But at the same time, want the government to tell business owners they can not make their own decisions.

Seems a little ironic to me. I think the LGBT community need to get together and revaluate their wishes and their stance.

Not speaking for the church nor the LGBT community, seems like the fight is just about a fight now and no longer about the issue.

On the other hand I see a church with over 100,000 missionaries in the field preaching free will, but want laws to make sure that the government punishes those who don't choose their ways. It has been a while since I've been to church but sounds like a sunday school lesson.

I see a LGBT community saying, I don't want the government telling me how to run my life but I want them to dictate mandates on others.

To both: can you have it both ways. For those that say Yes, good luck.. For those that hesitate a moment in reason, I applaud you.

orem, UT

Two thoughts:

First, society has to draw a line somewhere when it comes to giving the stamp of approval for unions. Some believe it needs to be kept between one man and one woman. Some believe it should be drawn with two consenting adults regardless of gender. Some want it between more than two consenting adults as long as only one man is involved. And so it goes. All of these opinions are based on what people think is morally right. You cannot seperate morality from marriage laws.

Second, no matter where the line is drawn someone will feel their civil rights are being trampled on. It is hypocritical to call those who support traditional marriage haters and bigots, disrespecting and mocking their reasoning. The same terms could be applied to those who support same gender unions but do not support polygamy or any other combinations of unions. They would then rightly be accused of imposing their own "cherry picked" morality on others they disagree with.

Take care that a standard you set isn't incriminating you too. Every person has a right to lobby for what they believe and whatever laws are created someone will feel discriminated against.

to comment

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