Comments about ‘In our opinion: Federal contracting executive order needs provisions protecting religious freedom’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, July 31 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Bob K
Davis, CA

A-- the President only had to issue the order after giving up on Congress to pass a fair piece of legislation.

B-- this quote from a GW Bush order, by the DN is heinous " faith-based contractors may restrict hiring to members of their own faith."
---Taxpayer money should never go to groups that only hire their own faith.

C-- what is the DN doing by printing a ridiculous fear-based, gay-baiting quote: “The problem with their executive order is that it paves the way for the next one, which could withhold the tax-exempt status or broadcast status or broadcast licenses for the religious organizations holding biblical believes with which the administration disagrees.”

Do you really have such animus toward President Obama that you believe he would withhold broadcast licences for religious groups, no matter how nutty and far out they are?

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

"Pastor Robert Jeffress of Dallas’ First Baptist Church told Fox News his fears of where lies the next battlefield: “The problem with their executive order is that it paves the way for the next one, which could withhold the tax-exempt status or broadcast status or broadcast licenses for the religious organizations holding biblical believes with which the administration disagrees.”

Ah, the slippery slope again. No matter that this nonsense has been going around the internet for at least twelve years so far, with dire warnings about the end of the republic. It's still being used to rally the masses whose attention span is as long as the sound bite.

And did he really say "believes", not "beliefs"?

The Deseret News operates in the bubble that is Utah. You have forgotten that many of the evangelical Christians in this country loathe Mormons and will not hire them if they have a legal right to not do so.

seattle, WA

Malarkey. Baloney. Nonsense.

Discrimination is wrong, no matter what cloth your wrap it in.

If the fundamentalists are so set on ridding themselves of the burden of dealing with "sinners" on the payroll of a government contract, then why don't they start with those who violate one of the Ten Commandments. Do you really think that is going to happen? No (you know the bad word) way.

Fundamentalists want only one thing. The power to demand that the majority of us accept their "values" and put them into law. That works out real well in Iran doesn't it (sarcasm intended).

Here, UT

Who would your god discriminate against?

South Jordan, UT

Why should "faith-based" entities get a loophole to be able to discriminate against LGBT citizens protected by the order, but you're not advocating that anybody else get a loophole to be able to discriminate on the basis of religion which is also protected in the order?

Why? Because you're hypocrites.

Springville, UT

This is troubling. Running a business is not a religious activity. Employers should not impose their religious beliefs on people they hire. Your position is about the imposition of religious beliefs of the people in power over the people with little or no power. This isn't religious freedom at all. I wonder if you would change your tune if you were in the minority.

salt lake city, UT

Religous discrimination is discrimination. A strong, American leader would always take a stand against discrimination no matter how one tries to disguise it.

American Fork, UT

Religion is blatantly standing before us and saying it wants to discriminate. The president, and the government, are right to oppose this.

San Diego, CA

I wish the article had provided a real example. I'm confused about what types of jobs this actually affects. A quote from the article: “With a recent executive order, President Obama prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in the hiring of those working under federal contract without clearly including protections for the free exercise of religion.”

What does religion have to do with government contracts? What is a faith-based government contractor do? Why does our government need to hire religious contractors? What type of job exists that is a federal contract and which also requires a specific religion—and which religion?

I’m not being snarky…I really can not get my brain around this problem. Perhaps someone can clarify.

Ogden, UT

@FT 8:09 a.m. July 31, 2014

Religous discrimination is discrimination. A strong, American leader would always take a stand against discrimination no matter how one tries to disguise it.


Since it is the religions that are trying to claim the right to discriminate, even when they take federal funds (part of which being contributed by the people against whom they wish to discriminate) it is entirely proper that there is no "religious exception" in the ban on distrimination included in this executive order.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The President has no authority to legislate. Article 1, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

It's time that the Court sent Obama the message that he needs to hear. He is not a king. He cannot dictate policy or legislate anything. He job is to enforce laws passed by Congress.

university place, WA

It's real simple DNews. If faith-based entities desire to dine at Caesar's table and on Caesar's dime they must do do so under Caesar's rules. Jesus was pretty clear about that.

seattle, WA


You are right. Religious discrimination is still discrimination.

So why do conservative religionists attempt to codify into law their prejudices? Many mainstream religions accept women as leaders, gay marriage and a host of other hot button issues. Yet the fundamentalist crowd insist that these "liberal" religions have to follow their rules and enshrine discrimination into the law.

You can not have your cake and eat it too

university place, WA

@Mike Richards,

Issuing orders to the federal agencies over which he is the CEO is not legislating, it is directing and he has constitutional authority to do so (Article 2, Section 1, clause 1).

I must note, however, how strangely silent the religious right was when George W. Bush was issuing his 291 executive orders and his 700+ signing statements.

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

The Deseret News is actually quoting Robert Jeffress? Seriously? I'm thinking that whoever wrote this piece didn't run that particular name by the DN Religion Editor.

The DN quoting Robert Jeffress is like Ebony magazine quoting David Duke. Laughing in disbelief here.


@ Mike: Executive orders are issued by the President to give instruction to departments which are part of the executive branch, and therefore under his purview as the head of the executive branch per the Constitution, or when Congress has delegated legislative power to the executive branch.

George Washington issued 8 executive orders, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued 3,522, Ronald Reagan issued 381, George W. Bush issued 291, and Barack Obama has issued 183 as of 7/20/2014.

The Constitutionality of specific executive orders can be (and have been) challenged in Court. It is possible this one will also be challenged - not on the grounds that Ovama did not have authority to issue it, but on the grounds that it violates RFRA.

Hyrum, UT

The feds should get out of the construction business. Then we'd only need to be concerned with corruption in state capitols.

Howard Beal
Provo, UT

I guess I'm not getting all this restrictions on Freedom of Religion stuff. I worship when I want and where I want. I don't feel any pressure by the government to be of any religion, go to church, not go to church etc. I pray in my own home anytime I want. I associate with other members of my own faith in public whenever I want. Not getting the paranoia...

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Have we become a nation of illiterates who can no longer read and understand English?

Obama ADDED legislation. He decided that he would determine who could receive business from the Federal Government. That authority resides in Congress, not in the executive branch. The President cannot legislate. He can only enforce laws passed by Congress. Any 1st year lawyer could explain that to you. Any judge could clearly see that Obama wrote legislation. He does not have that authority.

If Congress restricted government contracts to only those approved by Obama, Congress would have clearly stated that fact. Congress did not legislate any law requiring anything about "sexual discrimination". Obama legislated. Period.

99352, WA

“That is a mainstream view, that Mormonism is a cult,” Jeffress told reporters here. “Every true, born again follower of Christ ought to embrace a Christian over a non-Christian.”

Seriously? The DN thinks anything this man has to say is worth quoting and repeating in their editorials?

to comment

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