Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Irony of persecution’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, April 26 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

"and that most of those who oppose gay marriage are not motivated by blind prejudice but by deeply held religious views."

Here's the thing though... can a religious view also be prejudiced?

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

Opponents of marriage equality have failed, repeatedly, to provide a rational basis for their position. Absent any credible evidence, they now fall back on claims of "deeply held religious beliefs."

Is it really necessary to review the many compelling reasons why our nation is _not_ a theocracy?

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

How does the Lords Prayer go. It has something about trespassing in it. I think that fences are important.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Here's the irony my friend.

If you hold a deep religious view and someone vocally opposes that view, even to the extent that they exercise their first amendment rights with peaceful marches you are being "persecuted". Your word.

persecute.. to treat (someone) cruelly or unfairly especially because of race or religious or political beliefs.

Just how are you being persecuted? What unfair thing has resulted to you from the SSM folks vociferously expressing their views?

On the other hand what unfair thing has happened to the gay community because of your deeply held religious views? Ahhhhhhhh, pretty obvious.

So who is being persecuted in this debate?

Jl
Sandy, UT

How many in this forum truly believe they will be forced to enter into gay marriage when we cast the shackles of prejudice aside?

KJB1
Eugene, OR

You can hold your religious beliefs as deeply as you'd like, but you don't get to rewrite the law to force others to observe them with you.

If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't get one.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

You can keep your deeply held religious belief. Same sex marriage will triumph, and we shall all have diversity.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

The referenced statement seem to be saying that punishment shouldn't be the effect of one side winning the argument. I agree. This should never be the intent - it's neither right nor necessary. Because when society as a whole begins to see a particular view as harmful and abhorrent, disapproval and even stigmatization of those who hold the view is inevitable. It's just how things work at a societal level. How do you keep this from feeling like punishment to those being frowned upon?

The statement's message seems akin to the view that "everyone should get a trophy." It's patronizing and condescending, and it asks adults to protect other adults from their feelings. This is lowering our standards.

The standard is: Everyone has a right to believe what they choose and everyone else has a right to disagree with and criticize what others choose to believe. "Deeply held religious beliefs" are not exempt from this standard.

Re: the complaint of "persecution": What's being lost is privilege, not rights. The parallel is not going from being free to worship to being prevented from worshipping. It's more like going from leather car seats to cloth.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Interesting that all the posters decided to ignore the pleas of the SSM advocates who wrote the letter to which the author is referring. They appear to hate those who feel differently than they so much they continue with their tirades despite the pleas of the leaders of their cause.

Blue,
marriage equality has always existed. When the same rules apply to all, no one is being treated unequally. No amount of sophistry can change that.

No need to install a theocracy, just accept the religious freedoms rights guaranteed by the 1st amendment - I gather from your comments you really resent that pesky part of the bill of rights.

pragmatist,
to boycott, force resignations, sue in court, take away a business license, force someone to participate in something with which they strongly disagree - those are also forms of persecution.

Jl,
be forced into gay marriages - not yet, but having marriages performed in our churches and temples not be recognized is a very real danger.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Since she doesn't believe in same-sex marriages she shouldn't have one. That said, she has absolutely no business whatsoever using her "sincerely held religious beliefs" to violate the civil rights of other Americans who do not believe the way she does.

Persecution, ma'am, is being denied the same civil rights that the persecutor enjoys.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

"that most of those who oppose gay marriage are not motivated by blind prejudice but by deeply held religious views."

Sorry, I can't see a difference.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Schnee:
"Here's the thing though... can a religious view also be prejudiced?"

Of course it can... For example, religions preach against sinful conduct. People who sin may very well find themselves in a place called 'hell.'

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Blue:
"Opponents of marriage equality have failed, repeatedly, to provide a rational basis for their position."

Here's some rational bases... allowing SSM will mean you also must be in favor/allow any other type of arranged marriage to occur... such as polygamy, mother/son, father/daughter/ cousins, groups of people who love each other. Maybe, even a tree or radish as a bride.

@pragmatistferlife:
"So who is being persecuted in this debate?"

Polygamists, maybe?

@Jl:
"How many in this forum truly believe they will be forced to enter into gay marriage when we cast the shackles of prejudice aside?"

Perhaps kids who are taught in their youth that SSM is normal conduct... which it isn't.

nonceleb
Salt Lake City, UT

Deeply held religious beliefs are your right. There is no infringement to practice these beliefs in your own personal life. But, to impose them on society at large through a democratic political system which allegedly guarantees all citizens due process and equal protection under the law, is not your right.

gmlewis
Houston, TX

@pragmatistferlife - You make an excellent point that SSM advocates feel that they are persecuted. However, the bakery and photographer who were nearly run out of business over their SSM policies could have felt persecuted, too.

Frankly, there's persecution going around on both sides.

If a family moved away because they were offended by a SSM couple living next door, would that be deemed persecution to the SSM couple?

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@lost in DC
"They appear to hate those who feel differently than they so much they continue with their tirades despite the pleas of the leaders of their cause."

I didn't approve of the Mozilla boycott, though that is the right of people to do something like that. Throughout that whole thing I still used Firefox like I almost always do.

@wrz
"Here's some rational bases... allowing SSM will mean you also must be in favor/allow any other type of arranged marriage to occur... such as polygamy, mother/son, father/daughter/ cousins, groups of people who love each other"

By that argument I assume you (in order to be "rationally" consistent) oppose interracial marriage since it's the repeal of those bans that set up the court precedent for striking down marriage bans now being used on Prop 8/Amendment 3 etc.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"However, the bakery and photographer who were nearly run out of business over their SSM policies could have felt persecuted, too."

Difference here is the businesses were breaking the law..they committed the first act of persecution. The SSM folks only asked for their legal right.

The guy who was "forced" to resign was made to do so by his company not the SSM folks. They protested and boycotted but the company had a perfect right to say so what. The company decided that the employee had done damage to the corp.

QuercusQate
Wasatch Co., UT

wrz said: "...allowing SSM will mean you also must be in favor/allow any other type of arranged marriage to occur."

Not so. Gays and lesbians are simply desirous of having a monogamous marriage with the one they cherish, just like you. It doesn't open any doors that aren't already open to heterosexuals: the door to monogamy.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@gmlewis;

Re: the baker, florist and photographer. They are welcome to believe "sincerely" that same sex marriages are a sin. They are in business, however, to make money. If they provide cakes, flowers or photographs to/of weddings, I expect to be treated just like any other customer when I enter their place of business and request the same product they provide to everyone else.

If they can't do that, they should get into another line of work where they won't be exposed to things that are against their "sincerely held religious beliefs" (such a place doesn't exist).

Additionally, unless they submit a questionaire to ALL customers, and refuse to do business with ALL sinners, then they really can't use "sincerely held religious beliefs" as an excuse for their utterly boorish behavior of refusing to serve LGBT customers.

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

What if I want to marry my horse or perhaps the 12 year old next door and you oppose my "right" to do so, is that being prejudiced?

to comment

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