Support of LDS Church and others sought for more Utah restaurant liquor licenses

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • snowman Provo, UT
    Nov. 15, 2010 3:44 p.m.

    scojos: none of the legislative issues are passed by the Quroum of the 12 before the people vote. They see the issues when we do.

  • scojos Draper, UT
    Nov. 12, 2010 9:07 a.m.

    The Theocracy issue raises it's head when Valentine states that the LDS Church has a full place at the table when it comes to this type of legislation. What about his constituents? Valentine's district is 90% Mormon already. Why does he have to make this bold declaration about the Church having a place at the table? They already do through their members.It is this type of legislation arrogance that invites the descriptive term Theocracy. Also, it begs the inevitable question. How many other legislative issues are passed on first by the Quroum of 12 before being put to the people of Utah?
    I am not against Valentine's Liquor position, just his arrogant mixture of Church and State. I wonder if he'll support removing all of the tax exemptions for all religions?

  • BSU Lehi, UT
    Nov. 12, 2010 1:39 a.m.

    The LDS Church understands that tourist dollars aren't as important as lives. Of course people should be allowed to drink if they choose. My ancestors had a still here in Utah, but, on the other hand, Utah has a very low death by drunk driving rate. I lived in Pittsburgh for a while also, and you can't even buy beer in stores there (or couldn't, don't know if it's still teh same) and they also have a very low death by auto rate. But they do sell in restaurants etc. So??

  • TheSpiker Alpine, UT
    Nov. 11, 2010 6:30 p.m.


    The great thing about this country is that we have different states and those states have the right to run themselves as the majority of the residents see fit.

    You libs would like the federal government to be in control of everything, but that's not how our country came to be.

    You can move anytime to California where you will be much more comfortable.

  • DR Hall Clearfield, UT
    Nov. 11, 2010 5:22 p.m.

    Too many liquor licenses already and too many DUI's happening. too many people drinking and making bad decisions.

  • Shawnm750 Lehi, UT
    Nov. 11, 2010 3:56 p.m.

    @Sank You, Doctor
    The church understands that more licenses will help boost that part of the economy, and that if people can get a drink at a restaurant, they're less likely to get smashed like they would a bar or club. Besides, they merely own the property at City Creek, they don't own all the restaurants that will be going in. It's up to the restaurant owners to get the liquor license. Furthermore they're advocating that businesses should be able to get liquor licenses more easily, so long as the government is doing it's part to ensure that abusers are held accountable.

  • Freedom of Speech Orem, UT
    Nov. 11, 2010 2:33 p.m.

    dave | 12:50 p.m. Nov. 11, 2010

    "There are many positive consequences. You just don't hear about them because it does not sell newspapers. Wine has been and is a positive in my life. I know I am not alone."

    There are many "positive consequences" of using drugs such as marijuana but they are still illegal. Just because something has positive consequences does not mean that it should be readily available. The negative consequences of alcohol consumption far outweigh the positive consequences.

    Society, as a whole, consisting of individuals have a right to regulate things which have more negative consequences than positive especially when one of the consequences is death. People die when someone gets drunk and either walks or drives drunk. What happens when a person who is impaired by drinking wine stumbles into a street, a father and his three kids swerve to miss them and hit a tree and die?

    So go drink your wine in your home but as soon as you leave it expect that establishments that sell it will be regulated because your right to drink alcohol does not come before society's right to protect our children from you.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    Nov. 11, 2010 1:36 p.m.

    About alcohol regulation--we need to moderate personal opinions to account for the opinions of our guests and neighbors. I know there is a variety of opinion about how far to go in this respect. Consider other examples where we must weigh personal standards against accommodations for others. Should LDS business owners hire smokers and drinkers? Where do you draw the line in both loving your child and allowing her the right to make her own choices? Would you refuse to talk to her ever again if she decided to quit going to church? Let her visit, but only if she goes to church once a month with the family? Let her live at home like the others and never indicate disapproval of her choices?

    A respected teacher of mine had the dilemma of wanting his son to come back home to live, but the son refused to do so unless he could keep his beer in the fridge. I don't remember my teacher's, but I sure understand his dilemma.

    We are fortunate to live where we can debate and choose our compromise point in order to live peacefully with each other.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    Nov. 11, 2010 1:21 p.m.

    If the LDS Church is powerful in Utah, it is because a large number of voters here respect the Church's opinion. There is nothing theocratic about that.

    Imagine the situation if some popular leader in another nation voiced an opinion about politics and 99 percent of our voters liked that opinion and voted accordingly. Would that make such a leader our dictator?

    Whether that leader were Satan, God, or a mere mortal somewhere between, the power remains in us voters. Nothing sinister in that. Ultimate power is in the ability to persuade. Freedom of conscience, speech, and the press grant all of us access to that power.

  • Freedom of Speech Orem, UT
    Nov. 11, 2010 1:00 p.m.

    I agree with GB's post at 6:35 am. In our system of government every organization of free people have a place at the table including religions and churches.

    The establishment clause should not be interpreted to infringe or limit the rights of individuals and organizations including freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. These rights are as equally, if not more, important as separation of church and state.

    No organization or individual including churches and religious people should have to shut up when the state decides public policy that impacts them as much as it does anyone else. If an organization or individual doesn't have a say in our laws or our policies then they do not have to obey them.

    Since this isn't a religious discussion I will talk about the danger of alcohol. Studies have been done that show alcohol is more deadly than drugs such as marijuana yet one is legal and the other is not. If alcohol which kills so many people is legal than it follows that drugs which are less deadly should be as well.

    So the choice should be to make alcohol illegal or legalize less dangerous drugs

  • dave Park City, UT
    Nov. 11, 2010 12:50 p.m.

    ADN | 12:28 p.m. Nov. 11, 2010

    There are many positive consequences. You just don't hear about them because it does not sell newspapers. Wine has been and is a positive in my life. I know I am not alone.

  • ADN Weiser, ID
    Nov. 11, 2010 12:28 p.m.

    One death of a loved one would change everyone's mind in this matter. Think of the positive consequences.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Nov. 11, 2010 11:20 a.m.

    Utah drinkers are NOT given free agency?. Nor the people that serve them?.

    If it's true and the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a stakeholder in liquor legislation in Utah, along with Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Utah Restaurant Association, plus other groups with an interest in how the state controls the sale of alcohol, because the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission currently has eight applicants for the dozen full-service restaurant licenses available, out of the 557 allowed under the quota system, is not a reason to toss a "hissy-fit" over this, because nine applicants for the five available restaurant licenses limited to beer and wine service, out of the 311 allowed and ya'll are worried that could lead to overconsumption, and in a restaurant is the best place to sell alcohol because you have to buy food to get a drink, you'll kill your over taxed economy in Utah, and that won't create jobs with tips, just because you have some Republican Mike Lee in your hip pocket now, fulling knowing That's not the American way, is just wrong, in my view.

  • SLC gal Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 11, 2010 10:57 a.m.

    The current situation on liquor laws is that it's hurting jobs across the board. National chains refuse to come here. National conventions refuse to come here. Just becuase the liquor is served doesn't mean you have to drink it. If you're so against booze, vote with your wallet, and don't buy it!!! In the meantime we are given free agency, so let those who choose to buy it do so!!!

  • Wally Ballou Cedar City, UT
    Nov. 11, 2010 10:56 a.m.

    Nanny nanny nanny state. If Utah would reject socialism and embrace the free market this wouldn't be an issue.

  • Sank You, Doctor Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 11, 2010 9:58 a.m.

    Oh course the LDS church wants more liquor licenses. Their new malls will have some fine dining establishments and they will need the licenses since there are no more right now.

    Totally predictable.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Nov. 11, 2010 9:47 a.m.

    The great theocratic state of Utah.

    Did they go ask the Catholics what they thought?

  • GB Silver Spring, MD
    Nov. 11, 2010 6:35 a.m.

    Religions absolutely should have a place at the table in shaping public policy, just like other organizations do. No reason to treat them worse than other organizations. The Establishment Clause in the First amendment should not be interpreted to mean that any organization has to keep its mouth shut when it comes to matters that it feels strongly about. And I agree with snowman (what a great phrase to type!), that when it comes down to it, all these organizations are really doing is voicing their opinions. The elected leaders are the only ones making the decisions, and they are free to accept or ignore the views of organizations.

  • coachcarter Cedar City, UT
    Nov. 11, 2010 6:16 a.m.

    Cedarite, you are a genius. You hit the nail right on its head. Whether we like it or not, the sale of beer and other alcohol are a huge part of what money the state earns on tourism. If we have no tourists, there is less money in this state.

    When people go to a dining establishment, you must order something to help with your alcohol, which helps your body absorb the alcohol, and the waitress/waiter is in control as far as how much you can have.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Nov. 11, 2010 1:43 a.m.

    In fact, since the right of states to regulate the use of alchohol is in an admendment more recent than the 1st (specifically the one that overturned federal prohibition) Utah could, and this is not that I am suggesting it but just stating what can be done, Utah could ban the use of alchohol by anyone in any situation, including as sacramental wine.
    I think such a ban would be unwise, and I would argue it would violate the 11th article of faith, since it would limit people's rights to worship.
    However since the constitution as it is currently written gives states absolute authority to regulate alchohol use, and since later admendments trump earlier ones, such a law could not be found to violate the 1st Admendment, because the right to include alchohol in ones worship has been overturned by the right of the government to regulate all use of alchohol, which is now in the hands of the state.
    The best way to regulate alchohol is another story, but involving all interested parties in the discussion is the only appropriate approach.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Nov. 11, 2010 1:37 a.m.

    If national chains do not want to start up where there are no liquor licenses, local enterpreneurs can start businesses that do not serve alchohol.
    Utah should realize that it is not going to get hard-core drinkers as tourists, and seek to attrack more tourists who like Utah for what it is, instead of trying to attrack tourists who really want to go to Reno.
    Also, why is it ok for groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving to be a stake holder in this discussion, but if it is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints people go balistic? The fact of the matter is that you need to be willing to discuss and dialogue with the main institutions in the community in formulating public policy.
    It is an inherent misunderstanding of the 1st admendment to exclude religios groups from public policy discussion. The seperation of Church and state is a lie that was foisted upon us by a former KKK member, and had previously been one of the sworn goals of the KKK.
    I would remind the nay sayers that legally Utah could ban all sale and use of alchohol.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Nov. 10, 2010 10:39 p.m.

    baseballmamma: The church doesn't have a say. The governorment officials who are lds (and most of them are) have the say.

  • Cedarite Cedar City, UT
    Nov. 10, 2010 10:39 p.m.

    They are talking about restaurant licenses. If none are available, restaurant chains will pass Utah by, fine dining establishments won't start up and we'll just get chicken finger emporiums, toddler oriented pizza parlors and fast food for all future restaurant openings in Utah. Allowing more restaurant licenses is a win-win. People don't go to these places to get loaded- they go to have a drink with their dinner, or they go to eat and have a non alcoholic drink. Non drinkers get the benefit of more restaurant variety and a wider choice of chains. Otherwise, be happy with Clown Time Kiddie Burgers and Sticky Chicken Fingers

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 10, 2010 8:00 p.m.

    How many people will die for each new liquor license granted?

  • dave Park City, UT
    Nov. 10, 2010 7:09 p.m.

    There is no separation of church and state in Utah. Thank goodness for the federal government..

  • Honest Abe Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 10, 2010 6:50 p.m.

    I currently live in Massachusetts where in this tight economy voters just elected to keep the sales tax where it is (instead of dropping it to 3%) but they did vote to drop tax on liquors. Sad.

    In my voting district a city official was recently found guilty of taking bribes from an under cover police agent in return for granting liquor licences. Scary.

    Utah has something that is great. I do not want to make room for additional liquor licences. We have enough problems in society already.

  • Orem Parent Orem, UT
    Nov. 10, 2010 6:50 p.m.

    Just say no to ALL liquor licenses.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 10, 2010 6:37 p.m.

    The mormon church is not a 'stakeholder'. They run interference at best. If the church wants a liquor license, fine, but otherwise it's time to separate church from state.

  • baseballmamma Alpine, UT
    Nov. 10, 2010 6:04 p.m.

    im not sure why the church should have a say in this matter. they can advise their members but advise the state? that should not be happening.