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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
jeclar2006
Oceanside, CA

One can wonder how such a definition of 'religious freedom' would benefit the White Separatist in the country, since they base their belief that races should not 'mix' on various, perhaps idiosyncratic interpretations of biblical passages.

Just sounds like Jim Crow in a new suite of black feathers.

On the other hand, perhaps 'religious freedom' is interpreted to be 'freedom to impose a specific religious belief on others, as long as the majority approves'…

Fortunately for protestants, Vatican II declared protestant marriages to be 'valid'. (I'm sure the protestant world breathed a sigh of relief knowing that they were no longer living in sin according to the holy see…).

The reason for this diversion, is that if these forms of 'religiously protected forms of discrimination' are to be come in effect, a 'catholic' could well not 'serve' a protestant married couple, as until Vatican II, that protestant couple would be classed as 'fornicating'.

Of course in Utah, with the low number of catholics, perhaps it would be the other way around, where the believers who think that the Roman Church is some 'dragon'… would not serve those who follow the 'dragon'…

jeclar2006
Oceanside, CA

To: Listening Ears:…

As a Seventh-Day Adventist (if you still are…) you should be aware of the 'fight', supported in some instances by the 'horrid' ACLU, that has been fought in the past to prevent the State, as well as Employers, to legally discriminate against you in regard to 2 areas…

Seventh-Day worship which requires that you not perform 'work'…
and
Prevents you from working because of the church's stand on 'union membership'.

Both of these issues were 'solved' by court action, and then later included in reworked laws.

It is also ironic in regard to 'religious liberty' that the Downtown LDS church filed 'amicus curiae' briefs on behalf of 'native american' workers who were fired from their state employment due to their use of 'controlled substances(Peyote)' in native american religious rituals. That case went to the Supreme Court and the court found in the state's favor.

jsf
Centerville, UT

But the argument is a business that will not provide services on Sunday is discriminating against a class of people, those that by a religious choice do not honor the Sabbath and are violating the rights of those people that do not honor the Sabbath. It is the same concept of SB100, we will carve out a special protection for one group of people not all people. It could just as easily be we will pass a new law that says if a business is licensed in our country, state, and cities, they must provide services to all at any time and cannot discriminate against Sunday Sabbath Breakers.

And yes as a business owner, I can decide to pick and chose who I will serve. The concept otherwise is a totalitarian state run society.

Dominique*
SLC, UT

Dear Extremist Religious Right of Utah:

Please be careful, and sure of, what you ask. That whole "religious freedom" think???

I'll remind you of four things:

1. Palmayra, NY
2. Kirtland, OH
3. Nauvoo, IL
4. Gov. Lilburn Boggs of MO

For those who are no longer taught (or who don't remember) LDS history, religious freedom is precisely why your lot was forcefully evicted from cities and states; and why there was an extermination order for you.

Please, think before you speak.

Sincerely,
Love and light of Christ

dalefarr
South Jordan, Utah

Amendment 3 was equivalent to placing a chip on our shoulder and daring others to knock it off via a law suit. Not surprisingly, they did. The proposed laws are additional chips which will lead to the same results. Legislative hysteria is not a reasonable substitute for sound, deliberate judgment.

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

Dear Dominique,

You seem to have religious freedom confused with religious persecution.

mcclark
Salt Lake City, UT

Once again people complaining that their religious liberty is being trampled on because they cant trample on other peoples rights.

desert
Potsdam, 00

Once I didn't care about this, then I thought it would go away, now I am pleased people are waking up and discussing the issue. We should be all happy to have such ability.

We need to get through this since there will be more coming, society is at a turn around not because of LGBT but the world is moving in on each other.

Dictatorship has been there in history and we still see it around the world, but now we see the use of smart deception to bring in a lie, and call it freedom.
That brings religious people up to defend their cause, however what is the truth does only matter to the believer, not the democratic process.

We need to learn, Utah as well, that a different opinion cannot be struck down just by religious truth, it needs explanations and sometimes the translation of different feelings into understood language.

Come on , is it that hard to change your attitude in missionary work to reach out for those who do not understand ? Do people in the LGBT community understand Mormons ??

Jeneva_Ray
SLC, UT

It's disappointing that this kind of non-civility is becoming the norm, simply because of a difference in opinion. Seeing both sides (being raised Mormon while being transgendered myself), I can only say that I'm not surprised.

I respect the stability of the nuclear family. I also experience the severe instability of having a hard time finding work and finding a place to live. This isn't a marriage issue for me, or even a sex issue (I'm celibate). It's only "legal discrimination" because there's no legal defense for me to stand on.

I can see why Senator Reid could think it is a "sexual strategem". I don't understand why religious conscience is an issue, if I can be thrown under the bus year after year in the name of "doing what's right". By avoiding an issue and pretending it doesn't exist (as I've experienced), only injustice can be done.

glendenbg
Salt Lake City, UT

Philosopher John Rawls challenged people to think about public policy without knowing how to whom it would apply. How would it be if the law you support applied to you? It's easy to support it a law allowing religiously motivated discrimination (which is what Reid is proposing) if you think it would allow you to refuse to do business with someone. What if you were the person being denied?

When looking at law, we have to ask, who is harmed and in what ways?

Jim Crow was intolerable because it was a daily attack on the human dignity of African-Americans. It was a daily reminder by businesses and persons that some people were not, in their eyes, equal and it was supported by the force of law.

Sen. Reid is proposing a form of Jim Crow, targeting gay and lesbian persons.

Ask yourself who suffers more – the person who does business with someone they’d rather not do business with or the person treated as a second class citizen?

It’s not about ignoring or trampling religious persons. It’s asking them to recognize that their preferred behaviors demean the human dignity of some of their fellow citizens.

jcobabe
Provo, UT

This bill is a solution in search of a problem.

Just how many "No Gays Served Here" signs have you seen posted in Utah businesses?

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

Segregation is back in style? History does repeat.

Dominique*
SLC, UT

Dear Badgerbadger..

In this proposed law, they are one and the same.

Religious persecution arose from religious belief. And now the persecuted have become the persecutors... again, with religious hubris and self-righteous indignation, feigning religious belief.

My Mormon pioneer ancestors were kicked out because of the same religious hubris. And if laws like this pass, count on Mormons being denied service at places of business because of someone else's religious hubris.

What would Jesus do?

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Dominique: Extermination order versus not allowed to call something 'marriage'. I fail to see the equivalence!

koseighty
Logan, UT

I only wish that those whose religion taught them to that homosexuality is a sin also taught them not to judge their neighbors. Then, a businessman (or woman) who thought homosexuality is a sin would see no reason not to serve their (sinful) neighbors.

Perhaps adding something like the following to their "profoundly held religious beliefs" would help:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2, see also 3 Nephi 14:1-2)

curtisjunk
San Francisco, CA

This entire notion of "religious liberty" is a craven attempt to pervert the constitution and religion. It is predicated on the notion that religion requires as a matter of doctrine that members actively discriminate against those that do not share their religion and that are considered sinners by their religion. This idea violates the founding principles of this nation, and is the very reason that the Establishment Clause prohibiting the establishment of an official religion exists in the Bill of Rights. Conservatives only interest is to preserve their ability to discriminate, not to guarantee anyone's actual "liberty". They will sew seeds of fear and spread false stories about how religious people are forced to actually treat other people as equal human beings and rile up vulnerable people who will not think too carefully about the issue. Shameful.

LiberalJimmy
Salt Lake City, UT

@Christopher B. (A.K.A. Chris B) The religious right continue living in The Utah County bubble. Change and equality are arriving even here on Planet Utah! "Mark it down!"

UTSU
Logan, UT

@jsf
"If a photographer refuses to photograph a wedding on Sunday, or a baker refuses to deliver a cake on Sunday...."

That is legal if they do not provide service to ANYBODY on Sunday. because they don't single out a specific group of customers and deny service.

Singling out gay couples and deny service to them is discrimination。

Bob K
portland, OR

....sponsored by the conservative Sutherland Institute and First Freedoms Coalition... largest of three similar First Freedom Forums held in St. George and Logan to rally support for the bills.

--- I used to think the church controlled Utah, but it seems the Sutherland, etc, have stepped in, probably to help the church to appear not to be messing in politics.

--- As far as these bills go:

1-- The preposterous idea that Gay folks or the ACLU, etc is going to sue to make churches marry people is a mean spirited diversion. No court and no legislature would ever go for that.

2-- As far as "Don't want to participate in Gay weddings": Someone will have to work out a compromise for photographers, I suppose, but a POLITE refusal would be taken well by almost anyone.
"I can't do it because I am a Christian (implying that the Gay folks are not Christians) t is offensive. As far as cakes go, the baker is simply filling an order, not participating in the wedding.

3-- If you can't realize that people want to ADD to traditional marriage by joining in, and keep calling it "ruining or changing", yes, those names apply to you.

brotherJonathan
SLC, UT

Is a civil union a biblical marriage? Not in my opinion. To allow other citizens the right to chose for themselves what lifestyle they would embrace is not the same as teaching their choice as a recommended way of life to your children. So we walk a delicate path of protecting individual rights of choice and defending our own right of choice in our schools and other places of gathering.
Tolerance for others rights with respect for our choice when it comes to teaching our own children the principles of a happy fulfilled life, obeying the commands of our conscience. Because of the fact that children are impressionable and do not have founded psychological beliefs in experience and outcomes, we who have the responsibility to nurture and guide belief structure have the ultimate say in what should be and not be taught as a viable lifestyle for them until they are adults. Homosexual partnerships without science intervention cannot produce offspring, this is the facts. So nature has female and male as a parent structure and is the natural means of raising young humans to adulthood. Beyond those facts this is fairly new territory, protecting freedom of choice for both.

to comment

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