Government policies on conscience are little more than bigotry

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • laurel crown Pittsburgh, PA
    Oct. 9, 2012 10:28 a.m.

    To sum it up: The photographer thinks homosexuality is wrong, and the happy couple think that thinking-homosexuality-is-wrong is wrong. If both sides are “wrong,” who gets to be the tie-breaker? Couldn’t both respect each other’s beliefs?

    My friends – religious and atheist, gay and straight -- kindly don’t ask me to do things they know will conflict with my values. I don’t want to think that tolerance means forcing a person to act against his conscience. For me, tolerance is a world where inevitable disagreements are approached with both sides respecting and trying to understand the other to work out a solution.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 24, 2012 6:51 a.m.

    This form of tolerance works pretty well. The merchant or vendor doesn't have to violate his conscience. Most likely, the customer can find waffle fries, a BLT or a painting somewhere else."

    This thinking wasn't suitable for blacks, why should it be suitable for gays and women? Why should they have to patronize another business as a result of the bigotry (that is what it is) of the business owner? I just don't get it. If it isn't a good idea for one American, why should it be applied to other Americans?

    Sure, there is another diner around the corner that will serve them. Sure there is another water fountain right next to this one they can use. Sure there is another pharmacy - in the next county where they can purchase their contraceptive, sure there might be another photographer (who isn't as good, perhaps) who will photograph their "comittment ceremony". Why? Why not serve all your customers without regard - how does that violate your conscience?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Aug. 24, 2012 6:27 a.m.


    The duties of the President are clearly defined. Anyone running for office knows that there are three branches of government, the Legislature which makes the Laws, the Court which determines whether those laws are Constitutional and the Presidency which executes the laws.

    The DOMA was signed by Clinton. It is not a new law. It has been in effect for more than a decade. If Obama has qualms about DOMA, he should not have run for the Presidency. He knew that he would be required to take an oath of office and he knew that one of the laws he would have uphold was DOMA.

    Only a person without morals would take a job that he did not intend to do.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 23, 2012 9:19 p.m.

    "Obama swore an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, but he has decided to enforce only those laws that bring him votes."


    No, the President swore to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of United States. If the President feels a particular law runs contrary to the Constitution, wouldn't he be duty bound to do what he has done? Either seeking to change the law, or simply refusing to defend it, which he has done with DOMA?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 23, 2012 7:03 p.m.

    This article's argument is along the same lines as "we don't want to you here, you have a restaurant right down the road where you can purchase the same exact meal that we serve here". or this one: "they don't need to drink out of our fountain, they have one right next to it and the water is from the same source". Sound familiar?

    @J Thompson;

    Either all Americans are free to enter into the contracts of their choice (marriage is a contract) or Americans are hypocrites.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Aug. 23, 2012 5:50 p.m.

    "The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state."

    How can a photographer be prosecuted for refusing to acknowledge a "marriage" that the United States has declared to be something other than marriage?

    Obama swore an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, but he has decided to enforce only those laws that bring him votes. He wants the votes of the gay/lesbian community, no matter that they defy the DOMA and demand special privileges, not because of their race, not because of their nation of origin, but simply because they consider themselves to be "different".

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 23, 2012 4:13 p.m.

    "In New Mexico, a Christian photographer was ordered to pay more than $6,000 by the state's Human Rights Commission because, based on her religious convictions, she didn't want to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony."

    "In New Mexico, a Christian photographer ...didn't want to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony."

    --What is truly sad here is that the couple was required to have a "commitment ceremony" instead of being allowed to marry just like every other adult American couple. People like the "Christian photographer" actually VOTED to restrict the rights of the couple in question and then they have the nerve to cry "persecution".

    "It smacks of state-enforced purity: Agree with us or you're intolerant."

    --No, it smacks of equal treatment of all American Citizens by other American Citizens. They receive tax benefits and utilize public services for their business, as such, even glbt citizens help subsidize that business.

    "Moving in that direction will trample liberty and increase strife. "

    --As if voting away the rights of your fellow citizens already doesn't?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 23, 2012 10:32 a.m.

    This argument is going to come around and bite the first time someone is denied a product or service because the are not gay. Ultra bob had a pretty good post, too.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 23, 2012 9:58 a.m.

    Religion is a business. It’s imaginary product plays to the fear of death that exists as a primary drive in all of life forms, humans included. Having an extremely desired product, the business of religion has been able to claim special favors and conditions for itself.

    Since the imaginary product exists only in the minds of people, there is no way to compare, evaluate or prove whether or not it really exists. If you discount the words of it’s salesmen, it appears and operates in much the same way as any other business operation. With the same goal as other businesses, the redistribution of wealth into it’s coffers.

    History has shown us and the current world examples of government by religion is the most tyrannical of all forms of government. So in America where we thought we had safety for religion and from religion we find the giant corporations straining at the chains that give us that safety.

    Perhaps it is time for us to realize the true nature of religion and withdraw the special favors afforded to churches and their commercial businesses in order to save freedom of religion for all.