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
Bakersfield, CA

125 years ago no LDS leader would have fought for "traditional" marriage, but they sure would have fought for religious freedom...
My how times change. Who can predict what will be debated and legislated a century from today?

Bob K
portland, OR

KIC- Keep It Constitutional
Salt Lake City, UT

--- Thanks for the rest of what you wrote, but there is a flaw in this:

"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."

--- There is a huge difference between telling others what to do and denying a public accommodation. Businesses open to the public in States with laws enforcing equal treatment do not get to pick which group they will not serve. This seems wrong to some, but the greater wrong is to turn away a fellow citizen who has done nothing but be himself. In fact, it seems completely against Christ to do so.

The reason for the laws against discrimination is that people did not stop doing it on their own. Yes, sometimes one might have to sell to folks he does not like, but the seller is harmed less than the person turned away in shame and humiliation.

This is America. Citizens ought not to be turned away for who they are.


The only problem with not being willing to sell a cake to an adulterer or a Sabbath breaker or whatever else, is that they won't openly come out and say they do those things.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

When it comes to religious liberty, the virulently religious are their own worst enemy.

Leesburg, VA

>>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...

But all laws are society's determination of what is moral behavior. They are negotiated, compromised decisions about what behaviors society considers right and wrong. So demanding that laws never be based on morality is to demand an impossibility. And because we live in a democratic republic, the values of the majority will always be the dominant influence shaping those laws. You can't pass a law without making a moral judgment, the law will always reflect the values of the majority that passed it, and a judge can't overturn a law without making a moral judgment that runs counter to the majority's values (barring cases involving legal technicalities).

Sugar City, ID

I am opposed to gay marriage because I am convinced that it will lead to social chaos and misery and poverty. My opposition doesn't have anything to do with religious beliefs. If we deviate from one man and one woman in marriage, then where will it stop? How will society legally prevent 3 women and 2 men from getting married if the criteria is that they love each other and want to get married? Or what about 3 or more men or 3 or more women? Imagine the messed up children, the poverty, the spread of venereal disease, the legal chaos if someone wants a divorce. One man and one woman marriage isn't perfect but it is better than changing the definition of marriage to anyone who wants to get married can get married for any reason.

Hey It's Me
Salt Lake City, UT

@KIC I think you can have it both ways. I'm LDS and believe that they should have their choice to be united and to get rights of married people, however, they can be united under the new word "Pairage" a pair of people united. Problem solved! How easy. then everyone can be happy being united with their own term and God will take care of everything else.

London, 00

If Utah were to introduce a law that equates to allowing a shop keeper to hang a No-Gays-Allowed sign in their window... It would not only be the laughing stock of the civilised world, but pretty rapidly dragged back to the S.C.O.T.U.S. to have it's knuckles wrapped, again.

Mitt Romney did not win the last election. Treating your fellow human beings in such a way is simply not acceptable.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Christopher B
"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.
Didn't society discriminate against polygamy? Does that discrimination make polygamy objectively immoral? I guess it matters whose ox is being gored.

(A)ll laws are society's determination of what is moral behavior. They are negotiated, compromised decisions about what behaviors society considers right and wrong. So demanding that laws never be based on morality is to demand an impossibility.
Laws, especially in a pluralistic society, should punish those who inflict OBJECTIVE harm on others. Murder, rape, robbery, fraud, etc... inflict OBJECTIVE harm. Worshiping a different god does not. Neither does shopping on another's Sabbath. Neither does SSM. It may offend others, but no one has a right to not be offended. 1 Cor. 10:29 condemns the idea that the rights of others can be limited by the morals of others. See also D&C 134:4.

empathic heart
West Jordan, UT

If a person has not felt the sting of being told in little ways and in large ways that they, as a human being, are sinful, unnatural or worthless, it must be very difficult to understand the perspective of those who have. A dear friend of mine and her wife have decided to leave the state in the face of persecution they have seen and felt here.

Either we are free to live according to the dictates of our own conscience[s] and allow all [people] the same privilege, or we are not and do not. It would hurt to be refused a service because of who I am, but if I ask to have the right to BE who I am, and live as the spirit directs my life, I must allow that service provider to choose not to serve me. Isn't unconditional love of all Jesus' doctrine? As I understand, the two great commandments are love God and love our neighbors. Working on those, I don't have time to judge people's relationships to determine if they love their spouse/partner as much as I love mine.

Woods Cross, UT

I want NO anti-discrimination law for LGBT for the state of Utah. Such laws have been turned on their heads in other states to persecute and prosecute those who seek to live their religions. You can be pro-religious freedom or pro-LGBT. You can't be both.

Layton, UT


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.

I probably wouldn't want to do most of these others things you mention either, although I have no idea how an eater of shellfish would apply. If the adulterer had repented, I'd be okay with it, but people living together? It would depend on the case. They have obvious decided to change their lifestyle, so I would be thrilled spitless to make a cake or whatever for them. I just believe I shouldn't be forced to do something that I was uncomfortable with. If I bake a cake on the Sabbath, I would not be keeping the Sabbath Day holy, so that is probably out also.

I just believe that I have a religious right to not do anything against my beliefs, although, if you tried hard enough, you could probably beat me on sophistry. (Again, sorry if my spelling is off.)

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

If the Democrats oppose the right of individuals to practice their religion, as their state chairman seems to, they deserve to loose every single seat in the state legislature. I used to think there was some middle ground, but now that their state head has declared war on religious freedom, it is time for them to be totally trounced and shown that attacking people on a religious ground is not acceptable.

Photographers are engaging in speech, and should have multiple 1st amendment protections.

I am sick and tired of the Democrats fighting against individuals freedom to practice their religion. The government can not force people to recognize things that go against their religion.

Provo, UT

Counter Intelligence,

"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?"

First, a feminist owned bookstore and every other business has a right to choose what they offer. The argument he's trying to make doesn't make sense. Many men are interested in products offered from a feminist owned bookstores and straight people do patronize the Utah Pride Center.

There are even male scholars who write feminist literature. It isn't anti-men to offer a feminist book to male and females alike. The analogy would only work if a male walked into a feminist book store to purchase a book and he was told "we don't sell those to men."

Second, his example about the Utah Pride Center is an indication of a defective mind. No one has ever tried to suggest that businesses should be forced to purchase things they don't offer. Only that they are required by public accommodation to offer their current products to all.

If you don't want to serve certain groups don't offer your services.

to comment encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments