Comments about ‘It doesn't have to be hard for liberalism to tolerate religious freedom’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 11 2014 10:20 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
the old switcharoo
mesa, AZ

Your freedom ends where mine begins.

Don't tread on US!

Morgan Hill, CA

Religious leaders were predominant in the Civil rights movement of the 1960's (Revs. Martin Luther King, Hosea Williams, and Ralph Abernathy, to name a few). The anti-Vietnam War movement also included heavy involvement from religious leaders (Malcolm Boyd, the Barrigan brothers, and others). Curiously, I don't recall any liberals complaining about separation of church and state. It's funny how liberals suddenly "discovered" that issue when people began disagreeing with them. Similarly, the advocacy which liberals once gave for free speech has been replaced with a concern for "hate speech" when anyone voices a perspective which is different from theirs.

Liberals threw a mighty fit over Mormon involvement in California's Proposition 8 campaign, while they voiced no such objection to Unitarian or Episcopalian involvement in the No on 8 campaign. As a Mormon and former Unitarian, I found that downright laughable, not to mention blatantly hypocritical.


Abortifacients ARE NOT part of the ACA mandate.

Hobby Lobby and others falsely and inaccurately label emergency contraceptives as abortifacients despite there being NO evidence that they cause in-utero loss of a fertilized egg, Therefore they are not classed as abortifacients by scientists or medical experts.

Should we let non-science groups determine/dictate the findings of science?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

The point of the article is that when people espouse "tolerance" and "open-mindedness", they consistantly seem to exclude people or ideas that are intolerant and closed minded since they aren't about to change, and want to treat others poorly and be socially immune from their behavior.

Bleed Crimson
Sandy, Utah

@ Spangs

"The Arizona law was not about religious freedom. It was about discrimination in the public sphere. Just because you serve a gay person lunch doesn't mean you endorse their lifestyle. This is using a sacred tenet of our American culture (religious freedom) to destroy another sacred tenet (equality)"

Spangs, what do you think about the gay barber in New Mexico denying service to Governor Martinez because of her beliefs in traditional marriage? Discrimination is not a one way street which most liberals believe it is.

The Arizona Religious Freedom Law was never designed to discriminate against gays. It was designed to protect Christian businesses from lawsuits that would follow for not catering to gay weddings.

What I don't understand is why don't gay couples just take their money to another business that would cater for their wedding? Instead, they want to force the Christian businesses even if they have to sue them out of business to cater for their wedding. That is what its all about to these activists.

It's not about catering for their wedding. It's about full on assault on religious freedom.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

'It doesn't have to be hard for liberalism to tolerate religious freedom'

It never has been.

I’ll give the benefit of the doubt by presuming that the intent of the column title was to be provocative and not to give offense.

slc, UT

It's funny that in the first sentance the author acknowledges that what we are seeing is an "expansive" view of religious freedom by some in our society. Religious individuals have not had the right to discriminate period and religion have not been allowed to discriminate outside their eclisatical duties since the end of segregation. What this group of people are asking for is an expansive abity to discriminate In ways they have not been allowed to in the past.

Huntsville, UT

@Bleed Crimson;

Go read the discussions of the legislators in Arizona about their "religious freedom" bill and them come back and tell me it wasn't about allowing "religious" people to discriminate against gays.

American Fork, UT

It isn't hard for this so called liberal to tolerate religious freedom. As long as we recognise that, either it applies to us all, or the entire concept is a baldfaced lie. Religion, after all, is entirely subjective, so much so as to basically boil down to an individual interpretation equally applicable to each and every person on earth. So, let's all have religious freedom. But don't be surprised when somebody builds a monument to satan in the capitol rotunda, or throws you out of your apartment for being christian. After all, that's the kind of freedom we're seeking, isn't it?

Bleed Crimson
Sandy, Utah

@ intervention

Discrimination is not a one way street! Liberals are just as guilty of discriminating others for opposing beliefs. Example, Governor Martinez of New Mexico was just recently denied service by a gay barber because of her beliefs in traditional marriage. Do you believe that is discrimination? You bet ya! If you don't believe she was discriminated against, then you are a hypocrite! People need to quit singling out Christians as the only group that discriminates. Liberal groups are just as guilty.

slc, UT

@Bleed Crimson

The hairstylist was wrong to discriminate, no argument from me. however two wrong do not make a right and their actions only reinforce not refute the fact that discrimination should not be sanctioned by passing laws to protect such behaviors.

salt lake, UT

@chris b

I have seen you on many occasions state your support for religions that have taken stands against gay rights.

provo, Utah

Here in Az they were talking about gay wedding cakes as they passed the bill but after the Governor vetoed it and it looked like it was going to cost the state hundreds of thousands (again) in tourism and conventions they said the bill was about "no shirt no service." HA!

I thought they were religious? They shouldn't lie about their motives.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Bleed Crimson

Sandy, Utah

@ intervention

Discrimination is not a one way street! Liberals are just as guilty of discriminating others for opposing beliefs. Example, Governor Martinez of New Mexico was just recently denied service by a gay barber because of her beliefs in traditional marriage. Do you believe that is discrimination? You bet ya!


Yep, discrimination.

Do you realize that under Arizona's proposed law,
that sort of stuff would have been 1,000% perfectly legal 24/7 for any and all instances?
Including not cutting your hair for being Mormon, Jew, White, or Male?

Is that really the 1920's Jim Crow America you are proposing in 2014?

You bet ya!

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Sven: Do you by chance refer to this situation, "In 2007, the Metropolitan Airports Commission in Minneapolis unanimously voted to impose stiff penalties against taxi drivers who refuse to transport passengers carrying liquor or riding with a guide dog. The drivers, again motivated by religious beliefs, could face a two-year revocation of their taxi permits for refusing those passengers service."

Or perhaps this one, "Comfort Cabs told Sun News it took action after receiving Simmonds’ complaints and told CBC News that most of its cabs can accommodate a guide dog.

“I sent notices out on our dispatch computer…and reminded them of the rule that anybody with a service animal, don’t even question it, ” Comfort Cabs operations manager Cliff Kowbel said."

Since the issues were resolved mandating service to all customers, it doesn't really seem as if there is much for liberals to complain about.

Salt Lake City, UT

" Liberals are just as guilty of discriminating others for opposing beliefs. Example, Governor Martinez of New Mexico was just recently denied service by a gay barber because of her beliefs in traditional marriage. Do you believe that is discrimination? You bet ya!"

Uh. . . So you see what the barber did was discrimination, right? And it sure sounds like you think discrimination is a bad thing, right? So then you are against business owners discriminating against gays, and you were against the law in Arizona that would have made it legal for businesses to discriminate, right? You bet ya!

For the person that worries rather liberals will speak out about the way Muslims treat women, I, for one, think it is horrendous the way women are treated by that religion. Of course, I think it is wrong how women are treated by religion in general.

It's strange, I wonder if some of you people have ever actually met a liberal in the flesh, or do you create your idea of what a liberal is based on what you hear on talk radio?

A Man's Perspective
Salt Lake City, UT

@Open Minded Mormon

Truth be told,
tolerance and religous freedom can ONLY exist under liberalism.

Conservatives would have us all;
praying to the same God,
attending the same churches,
wearing the same clothes,
eating the same foods,
drining the same drinks,
listening to the same music,
going to the same schools,
studying the same subjects,
shunning Science.

Ridiculous nonsense.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

This article only makes any sense if you believe that liberalism and religion are diametrical opposites. While that may be true of some conservative, hierarchical, patriarchal religions, it's not true of all branches of Christianity, let alone all religions.

Take my religion, for example. Starting from a very early version of the Christian church, the Religious Society of Friends has powerful beliefs centered on Equality, from which its other Testimonies of Peace, Integrity, Community, and Simplicity derive. The manifestations of our egalitarian faith align very strongly with liberal values.

Women have led us equally with men from the start. Our experiences with imprisonment led us to minister to the imprisoned and push for their humane treatment. Our conflict with slavery led us to man the Underground Railroad. Our belief in equality led us into a leadership role in the Women's Suffrage movement.

We did all this BECAUSE of religious freedom. There is no conflict between being a strong liberal and being a strong proponent of religious freedom. Where you err is in trying to justify limiting secular freedoms in the name of your religion. That's theocratic tyranny, not freedom.

Hank Pym

to Craig Clark

"The 17th century Puritans fled intolerance... There must be a lesson..."

Like how they could not get along with themselves & some fled to what is now RI?

Or, Massachusetts was quite conservative and now... not so much.

Morgan, UT

Okay, I'll ask again:

Why is it Liberals only seem to muster up enough courage to go after Christians and their faith, but not Muslims? You were outraged at the baker in Colorado who refused to make homosexual couples their wedding cakes. You demanded that these Christians be forced to make these wedding cakes. Liberals were apoplectic at this blatant religious intolerance!

Okay, so why is it we never hear of Liberals taking on Islam (Sharia Law), and the intolerance of Muslims to both homosexuals and women? I mean, if you get worked up over a cake, wouldn't the Muslim view and treatment of women, homosexuals, and others really be something that would merit your outrage?

America certainly has a large number of Muslims living here that you express your outrage at.

“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world...” -Barak Obama

Can we look forward to Liberal activists vocally protesting any Muslim businesses in the near future for their religious beliefs?


to comment

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