Jeff - RIGHT ON!!!!Thanks for articulating so well. You
have to realize who you are dealing with. You will never get an inch with
certain posters, who have so many accounts so they can shout down those of us
who abide the 4 post limit. Is it any surprise they think they should get carte
blanche to say and do whatever they want in the face of anyone with different
views? They think that their special label should give them all kinds of
privileges at the expense of common religious folks (which is why this bill is
needed). The screeners are extra nice to them, because they fear getting sued by
the 'minority', just like arand points out, and thus they can call
total strangers murderers and it gets posted. I have copied/pasted the exact
words back, regarding their intolerance, and it gets censored.You
make no difference with them. They will go on sinning in the face of anyone who
will look, and fighting to make us say wrong is right, to make them feel better
in their sin. But I, and others like me, are heartened by your
@Jeff --Anti-gay opinions KILL.I was living in Knoxville
just a few years ago, when a man stormed into a Unitarian church there and
**shot nine people** just because he hated "liberals, Democrats, blacks, and
gays". Gay people in the US are still **eight times** more
likely to be the victims of violent crimes than straight people.Another gay man was shot and killed in NYC in June -- **with** the shooter
shouting gay slurs at him -- in yet another obvious hate crime. Gaybashings in
NYC and elsewhere in the US are **rising**. We see continuing
violence against gays all over the world -- like those mobs in the country of
Georgia that have been **led by priests** and egged on by the government.In some countries, homosexuality is still **punishable by death**.When somebody says homosexuals are "sinning" -- or
"disgusting" -- or "perverted" -- or "anti-family" -- or
"anti-Christian" -- they're reinforcing an image of homosexuals as
"other" or "less than" or "inferior".And the
reinforcement of that subhumanized image is what makes so many people think that
it's okay or even DESIRABLE to bash gay people. Anti-gay
Ah, well, Contrarius, I suppose if "PEOPLE" are hurt because I say that
they are doing something wrong, then I will have to accept that.By
the way, RanchHand never did say if he was confessing to fascism or not. I
think fascism is bad. In fact, I think it is very bad. I think many of its
precepts ought to be banned. I am willing to allow for individual fascists to
believe in it, since this country allows for freedom of belief and expression,
but if fascists ran for public office, I would use all the influence of my
beliefs to keep them from winning. I would give money and support, if
necessary, to the cause of defeating fascism in America.I believe
that fascism is wrong. I believe that the practice of fascism is bad for the
country and the world. I will use my beliefs "against" the people who
practice fascism in every legal way available to me.I understand
that fascists are PEOPLE, and maybe I'm hurting their feelings by making a
public announcement that I am against them. I guess I'll have to live with
@Jeff --"to oppose something, to be contrary to
something."Ahhh, but Ranch didn't say that you
couldn't use your beliefs against "something". He specifically said
against PEOPLE.Anti-gay opinions hurt PEOPLE -- not things.
@ Contrariusier: I understand your interpretation of "against." It is
certainly possible to understand the word in terms of whether or not it hurts
someone, as "to slam against something." But your own screen name shows
that you must understand "against" in a similar way to my obvious
reading of it: to oppose something, to be contrary to something.In
the understanding that to be "against" something may be to hurt that
thing, and being a member of a religious minority in which people who have been
"against" us have often turned violent and even murderous, I would
agree.But RanchHand did not make any such limited statement. In
fact, he made it clear that "you can believe whatever you want," then he
made a blanket declaration that I may not use my beliefs "against other
American citizens" (apparently leaving non-citizens open for
"againsting"), "regardless" what my beliefs say on the
subject.My beliefs say, for example, that slavery is wrong, and when
someone in California was arrested recently for human trafficking, I used my
beliefs to support the law against human trafficking and to condone that
arrest.If I believe something is wrong, I will be "against"
@Jeff --"Be careful with declarations like this."Try **reading** what Ranch said.He said that you can't use
your beliefs AGAINST other American citizens. In other words, your beliefs do
not give you any right to harm others -- or to deny rights to others.
@ Ranchhand: Of course I can use my beliefs when I vote, or when I discuss, or
when I argue, or whenever in any circumstances I function within the American
democracy. Since when has it been illegal or immoral in America to allow
one's beliefs to have an influence on one's behavior?Be
careful with declarations like this. They cut both ways. If I can't allow
my beliefs to influence my democratic interactions, then how are you to justify
using yours? Are you confessing to fascism?
@Jeff;What a bunch of tripe. You can believe whatever you want but
you can't use your beliefs against other American citizens; regardless what
your beliefs say on the subject.
There are more secular reasons for opposing same-gender marriage than there are
religious reasons. The problem is that a discussion of same-gender marriage in
the context of evolution without God would gradually become something
horrific.The mere fact that most of us have religious scruples
against same-gender marriage is what moderates the conversation. Certainly
there are non-religious arguments; I just don't like them or really believe
them. My personal arguments against homosexuality as a practice (not a
"condition") or against same-gender marriage are all religious because I
believe that the religious arguments are superior to the secular ones because
the secular ones must all inevitably descend into arguments over who is the
fittest to survive.Having made that choice, and firmly believing
that the discussion is as civil and as kind as it is because of the presence of
religious believers, I think it may be necessary to protect religious beliefs in
the sinfulness of homosexual acts. We shouldn't require such a bill, but,
alas, we do.
Many of the comments on this article have stated that the Gays are being
intolerant because they won't allow people to live their religious tenets
as they see fit. I don't see wanting equal rights as intolerant. I should
have the same right that you do to walk into a business and be served, to hold
the hand of my partner and not feel threatened, and to marry the one I love.
You can believe whatever religious doctrine you want, but we live in a secular
nation not a theocracy. Can you imagine what would happen if people could be
given a personal exemption from following the law just because it is against
their religion? If that were the case people could kill you for working on
Sunday, women could be denied the right to vote, you could sell your daughters,
and murderers could say that God told them to do it, etc., etc. Therefore, I
will not tolerate your bigotry or discrimination just because your religion says
that it is okay. I will work until all have the same right to marry the one they
love."Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice" Ayaan Hirsi Ali
The First amendment section that includes religious liberty is not absolute.
While you may believe any fairy tale is true or that any deity exists ---no
matter how far out it is or extreme it is--there are limits here that restrict
all religious bodies in what they may do or believe. That said we have the
absolute right to be free of religion but not the absolute right to be a
devout member of it.--the LDS is not following Christ's teaching of
loving your neighbot as yourself even if he or she is gay or person who is
despised as Christ was. The LDS position on gay people is the same as that of
Southerners had against blacks previous to 1970. Church and State are
absolutely separate. While religious groups may agree or disagree with what the
State does --the state has the interest of all people to consider not a
particular religious group. Let the church mind its own business and stay out of
the State's business and everyone will get along just find.
jrp7sen, Yes there are limits to what a religion can do,Back to my earlier
comment I fail to see how LDS doctrine regarding plural marriage was threat to
anyone else in the country at the time the the government banned it. As I read
comments online on various sites I do feel there is an ever increasing attack on
anyone who is religious to the extent people are persecuted for having different
beliefs that go against what society is trying to portray as normal. Often this
comes from people who cry tolerance but they are the most least tolerant of all.
Religiously I do not agree with homosexuality, I don't see how it fits into
Gods plan according to my religion, However I do not condone or think they
should be treated badly or discriminated against as Americans. I feel only God
can Judge them as will the rest of us will be judged. They on the other hand
should not be calling people names for believing differently. I have gay friends
and family and we respect each others view points.
@1978 --"It is not discrimination to support the traditional
definition of marriage"You don't need to be anti-gay
marriage in order to be pro-traditional marriage."It is not
discrimination for a Catholic Priest to refuse to perform an LDS wedding
ceremony in his church and vica versa."So? Gays aren't
suing churches to perform gay weddings."Finally - I mentioned
that the "major" Christian religions in the U.S. support traditional
marriage:"LOL!!I think this is the first time
I've ever heard Episcopalians, Presbyterians, or Lutherans being called
"minor religions".Again -- supporting traditional marriage
does NOT mean opposing gay marriage. It's entirely possible to support
both.And I'll ask you again: Would you be okay with
discrimination against Mormons? After all, even using your numbers there are
still far fewer Mormons in the US than gay people. If you're not okay with
anti-Mormon discrimination, then how do you justify anti-gay discrimination?@ksampow --"This is not about stopping gays from doing
anything"Of course it is."They are domestic
patners, not spouses"Why not?What are they doing
that is any different from any other infertile married couples?
@ContrariuserIt is not discrimination to support the traditional
definition of marriage and all that means.It is not discrimination
for a Catholic Priest to refuse to perform an LDS wedding ceremony in his church
and vica versa.It is discrimination to refuse a person employment,
housing or education based on whether or not they are a member of the LGBT
community. The LDS church and you would agree on that.Finally - I
mentioned that the "major" Christian religions in the U.S. support
traditional marriage:Catholics – 57.2 millionBaptists –
36.1 millionMethodists – 11.4 millionLDS – 6.4 million
@1978I don't know how many times this must be repeated over the
years, but the reason the LDS church gets a disproportionate amount of
blame/credit for Prop 8 is because, while they are indeed a small percentage of
California, they contributed roughly half of the funds to the Prop 8 side and
the majority of volunteer hours. Turns out people give credit where credit is
due, to the people who worked hardest for it.
The gay rights activists have distorted this whole issue by claiming that they
are discriminated against if anyone holds to the centuries-old, time honored
(and divinely ordained) definition of marriage. This is not about stopping gays
from doing anything - they can live together, and do as they please. But they
have no right to force someone to adopt their definition of what it is that they
are doing. They are domestic patners, not spouses, in the traditional
definition. For example, this is similar to a hypothetical example I will
propose: a photographer claiming that taking pictures of animals is
"hunting" and saying that a hunting club must treat picture-taking the
same as hunting. A photographer has as much right to take pictures as a hunter
has to hunt, but he has no right to force the hunters to admit that taking
photographs is the same as hunting.
@1978 --"It was Protestant ministers especially in the black
community who also strongly supported Prop. 8. Therefore if you want to compare
numbers I will stick with the ones I posted. 77.3% and 3.5%. "So
you'd be okay with discrimination against Mormons? After all, even using
your numbers there are still far fewer Mormons in the US than gay people."And one more point. The major Christian religions in the U.S.
support the traditional definition of marriage - period."This is
simply not true.The Episcopal Church of the US, the Evangelical
Lutheran Church of America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Quakers, the United
Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Metropolitan
Community Church, the Reformed Jews (not Christian, obviously), and the
Conservative Jews are all happy to perform gay marriage or bless same-sex
unions, or allow each diocese or minister to decide independently. And
that's just a partial list.
@ContrariusesterThis is not an issue about Mormons and the LGBT
community in my mind and never has been. For the record it was a Catholic
Bishop who asked the LDS community to help with the Prop. 8 movement in
California. It was Protestant ministers especially in the black
community who also strongly supported Prop. 8. Therefore if you want to compare
numbers I will stick with the ones I posted. 77.3% and 3.5%. And
one more point. The major Christian religions in the U.S. support the
traditional definition of marriage - period. When the govt. slowly is beginning
to force businesses and eventually organizations to comply it is time to act.Again - Thank You Rep. Labrador and the other 61 representatives
including 2 democrats so far.
@arand --"If I did hire a gay and they kept making passes at
some of my employees do you think the ACLU would be on my side if I tried to
fire them for sexual harassment?"Why wouldn't they be?Remember, the ACLU has defended **Westboro Baptist Church** in court.
Civil rights apply to EVERYONE, not just to people we like!@Yorkshire --Sorry, but urban legends aren't the same things
as facts. Show us FACT -- names, dates, locations -- or don't expect us to
take you seriously.And even if your legends are actually fact, they
do nothing to counter the civil rights of the gay people who sued those
businesses. Discrimination in some cases does NOT excuse discrimination in other
Truthseeker said "You expect a photographer or florist to tell you that they
don't do business for LDS weddings?"Yup. Same kind of thing
happens to Mormons all the time. As an LDS family not living in
Utah, we were told that the many scholarships my children applied for would not
be granted because they were Mormons and also because those sponsoring the
scholarships did not want their $$$ to potentially go to BYU....They were free
to apply, but the councilor said to know up front that being a straight A
student and top of their class would never trump being a Mormon... A
Christian bookstore refused service to LDS Missionaries, and asked them to
please leave.A Boy Scout troop refused to let a Mormon boy join
their troop, as thy were afraid he would spread his Mormon opinions and ideas to
the other Scouts.A teen was hired and then 2 minutes later fired
after asking if he could ever have some Sundays off to go to Church. When asked
which Church, he was then told that the employer had decided this teen would not
be a good fit for his company, and was asked to leave.
arand says;"... but If I did hire a gay and they kept making
passes at some of my employees..."Are you serious? What if you
did hire a straight and they kept making passes at some of your employees? We
are NO DIFFERENT than straight people. You're comment is completely
Let me ask you this truth seeker----First off I would not ask anyone if they
were gay, but If I did hire a gay and they kept making passes at some of my
employees do you think the ACLU would be on my side if I tried to fire them for
sexual harassment? I had one heck of a time trying to fire a woman that just
did not do a good job. Try and fire a minority sometime and see what happens.
I try to be progressive, but if it meant an end to the belly aching about the
supposed loss of religious liberties, I would support it. Let people
refuse service and the gays (or whomever is denied) can use facebook and twitter
and all other forms of social media to reveal who these businesses are so that
they can get a little negative or positive publicity depending on how you roll.
Progressives like me will boycott said business owners and the same crowd that
showed up at Chick Fil A in droves a couple years ago will probably bend over
backwards to support the haters. It should all work out in the end. As
long as it isn't a government entity, I don't see the harm. I am
totally fine with people losing their tax exempt status though. Right to
discriminate doesn't mean immunity to consequences. While we're on
the subject, there are a few other corporations that I think should lose their
tax exempt status. Cough.
@HaHaHaHa (12:36pm):"Same with the flower shop or cake maker.
Gay persons were patronizing these business all the time, and receiving service,
but when gays started requesting that the business be part of their gay
lifestyle, the business owners had to draw a line."Nonsense. The
flower shop or cake maker were not asked to be part of their gay lifestyle.
They were asked to do what their business was in the practice of doing...selling
a cake or flowers. These were business transactions, not an endorsement,
participation in or otherwise engaging in the "gay lifestyle."
The Congressman is wrong to even bring this bill forward. His attempt to enact
legislation which discriminates against a certain group of people is so
UN-American. Religion does not belong in the public arena. If this was
true...which religion should we use? All of you know this is only common
sense...a very American virtue.Before you demonize me I believe and
will defend your freedom of religion in your homes and in your houses of
worship. But if you are going to get a job in the government or in the private
sector you need to leave your religious beliefs outside the door. If you
cannot..you might want to look for another job. Trust me...there are many
people waiting in line for your job.
@HutteriteRidicule, marginalization, and isolation sound a lot like
@1978 --"For the record the vast majority of the black
population in California voted for Prop. 8. "So what? They are
still a minority who "scream and shout for their rights", as PhotoSponge
put it.As for Gallup --Gallup's overall LGBT
estimate was 3.4% . However, results vary widely from poll to poll. And as the
Gallup folks themselves noted:"As a group still subject to
social stigma, many of those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or
transgender may not be forthcoming about this identity when asked about it in a
survey. Therefore, it's likely that some Americans in what is commonly
referred to as "the closet" would not be included in the estimates
derived from the Gallup interviews. Thus, the 3.4% estimate can best be
represented as adult Americans who publicly identify themselves as part of the
LGBT community when asked in a survey context."I'll stick
by my "roughly 5%" estimate, thanks.And I'll ask again:
There are many more LGBT people in the US than Mormons, not to mention members
of other minorities (like blacks, for instance). Does PhotoSponge REALLY want to
start making arguments based on population size?
The distinction needs to be made between the obligations of businesses and the
obligations of religious organizations. Most states already have
anti-discrimination laws in place that make this distinction.I
support legislation that ensures the rights of religious organizations to define
moral behavior as they see fit. As long as churches don't interfere with
anyone's individual rights, they should be allowed to preach and worship
however they want, and exclude whoever they want.Businesses are
different. Imagine you've just moved to a small town where you're an
outsider. The local grocery store owner refuses to sell goods to you, the local
dentist, optometrist and family doctor all refuse to provide services to you or
your family members. Local burger joints won't even sell you food. You
have to drive 30 minutes out of your way to the nearest city to take care of
your basic needs.Anti-discrimination laws prevent such scenarios,
and allow everyone the same basic freedoms regardless of race, gender,
ethnicity, age, disability or sexual preference. The same laws that protect the
rights of a gay person in Utah also protect a Mormon in rural Kentucky or a
black man in Connecticut.
"The 1st amendment didn't protect the LDS Church when they wanted to
practice their belief of plural marriage, even though it should have been
protected under freedom of religion."Um, there are limits.
Obviously. If a religion claimed their God commanded them to assassinate all
those who did not belong to their faith.. then I'm sorry, the first
amendment is not going to protect them.
re:HaHaHa"I don't expect to be able to go into a PRIVATE owned
business, and require them to adopt to my LDS standards"Really?First of all, they weren't private businesses. They were
public businesses, subject to state laws.You expect a photographer
or florist to tell you that they don't do business for LDS weddings?
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act currently being debated in Congress would
make private religious institutions (like BYU or Boy Scouts) adhere to federal
anti-discrimination laws concerning homosexuals. There are many out
there that can't see churches being forced to hire gay employees and
perform gay marriage ceremonies. A year ago, I would have agreed with them. I
no longer do. There IS a real effort being made to strip churches and religious
organizations of their First Amendment rights. A "Right of Association"
no longer exists. Religious practice will be severely limited if it is deemed
discriminatory or outside the scope of the mores if modern society.
"Do you REALLY want to start making arguments based on population
size?"For the record the vast majority of the black population
in California voted for Prop. 8. In terms of real numbers based on
the latest scientific polls in the U.S. from UCLA and Gallup:Gay
Population 1.7%Bisexual Population 1.8%Also from Gallup
- Poll results from December 2012 (Percentage of Christians in U.S.):Protestant 51.9%Catholic 23.3%LDS 2.1%Total
ContinuedSame with the flower shop or cake maker. Gay persons were
patronizing these business all the time, and receiving service, but when gays
started requesting that the business be part of their gay lifestyle, the
business owners had to draw a line. I believe that is their right. I don't
expect to be able to go into a PRIVATE owned business, and require them to adopt
to my LDS standards or rituals in order to provide me service. I'm not
going to go out and sue them like a crazed fanatic would, over some lame civil
rights theory. Some people need to grow up, and that's why we need this
kind of legislation.
But why would anyone support a law that protects unconstitutional behavior?
@Spider Rico;Making it legal to discriminate against gays in your
business is the very definition of "anti-gay".
Excerpted from yesterday's NYT article on this bill ------------"The measure would prevent the government from
taking any “adverse actions” based on “acts in
accordance” with a person or group’s religiously motivated
opposition to same-sex marriage.An invitation to both unfairness and
bureaucratic chaos, it could potentially allow federal employees to refuse to
process tax returns or Social Security, veterans or other benefit claims from
married same-sex couples. It could also allow businesses to deny same-sex
spouses their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, including time off
from work to care for a sick loved one.[....]Evan
Wolfson, president of the pro-marriage equality group Freedom to Marry, likened
the Act to pending legal challenges to the so-called contraception mandate:
“the new bill is part of a larger legal and propaganda effort to portray
recalcitrant opponents of fair treatment as victims and upset the successful
balance of religious liberty and non-discrimination laws that has served the
country well in many areas of civil rights over many decades.”
@StalwartSentinel and othersObviously you didn't read the article or
the bill. There is nothing anti-gay about it. It just is for the protection of
organizations that are against gay marriage.
There is a very good reason the text of the bill is not listed in the article -
as of today, there is no text in the bill.There is nothing to
support or argue against.
As a member of the LDS church, I personally feel that participating in a
marriage ceremony in which gay or lesbian individuals are married is perfectly
fine. I participate in weddings all the time that involve people who do not
adhere to my belief system because, simply, they don't share my beliefs and
that is OK. I really doubt that God/Heavenly Father feels it is our
responsibility to actively go around punishing people we love and care about
simply because they have chosen to make different decisions than we do. What
does that accomplish? Baking a cake, taking photos, providing music for
ceremonies involving gay and lesbian couples does not compromise our moral
standards, it means you respect another person's ability to choose how they
will live their life. Otherwise, we are discriminating....I don't someone
refusing to make a cake for my wedding because I am LDS or because I am white.
We need to allow others the same courtesy.
@PhotoSponge --"The majority has a right to protect themselves
AGAINST these minority groups who scream and shout for their rights. They have
no tolerance for any ideas but their own."LGBT people make up
roughly 5% of the US population.Black people make up roughly 15% of the US
population.Mormons make up less than 2% of the US population.Do you REALLY want to start making arguments based on population size?@arand --"As a business owner, I should have the right
to hire or fire anyone I chose. "The US government has disagreed
with you for decades now. Discrimination by businesses is illegal, and has been
for quite a long time."If I don't agree with the way they
dress or even their life style I should have that right."There's a difference between not agreeing with someone's personal
dress code and illegal discrimination. Educate yourself.
If your religion requires you to discriminate against someone, maybe you need a
Re:ArandBaggy pants and tattoos are not protected by any state or
federal laws that i know of. Tell me though, how would you know whether a job
applicant was gay unless you asked them? All i know is this:God commanded us to love our neighbor as ourselves and to do unto others
as we would want others to do unto us.God did not give me the authority or
reponsibility to prononuce judgment on others. Therefore, i choose to treat
people with kindness and respect regardless of race, age, religion, and sexual
Whether you are pro or con Gay marriage doesn't matter- we were ALL
instructed to "JUDGE NOT" and that is the way I prefer to live my life.
IF you believe that God, the Father, makes no mistakes then you can clearly see
that he made ALL of us- straight, Gay and all those in between. YOU do not have
a right to disagree with Father nor who or what He creates. If you think for one
moment that the Church- which many of us love and follow- does not have many,
many Gays as members then you are just sadly mistaken. You just don't know
who they are. Yet. Mind your own business; clean up your own house and humble
yourself before you make judgement on Father's sons and daughters.
I don't speak against gay marriage, but as a business owner I should have
the right to hire,fire and also work for whomever I please. I certainly would
not take a remodel job in an area that would put my workers at risk. I also
would not hire someone who walked in with baggy pants, tattoos and piercings all
over their body. If you want to call that discrimination, you are right, but we
all discriminate in one way or the other. Birds of a feather----.
I whole heartedly support the need for such a bill. Whether it goes far enough
to protect religioous institutions, business and private individuals for
speaking out/expressing public opposition to the underlying imorality and
perversion of homosexual sex, remains to be seen. I do support the notion that
such issues should be settled at the state level. However due to the terrible
ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, an amedment reaffirming first amendment
rights needs to be passed, if not a federal amendment establishing the
preeminence of traditional marriage and or the preemminence of the states to
regulate such matters, over federal intrusions which are turning the issue over
to unelected federal bureaucrats which in turn override the will of the people.
If someone sponsored a bill saying it was OK to discriminate against the
Latter-day Saints if you believe "Mormons are not Christians," I have a
funny feeling this newspaper would not see it as a legitimate protection of
religious liberty. That which is hateful to yourself don't do to someone
Where do I start? Isn't it hypocritical when people speak against gay
marriage and call it the "wrong" choice when a lot of you come from
families that had multiple wives? My great, great grandfather had three wives.
One of them was 14. His first wife wasn't too happy about it, but back
then women were not allowed to speak their minds. The bakery in Oregon was
wrong for refusing service because they had a business license and went against
that. They ended up closing their store. Gay marriage and LBGT rights are here
to stay and they deserve and should have their equal rights. This is the RIGHT
As a business owner, I should have the right to hire or fire anyone I chose. If
I don't agree with the way they dress or even their life style I should
have that right. Please someone tell me why that is discrimination. I always
try and hire people who have my same point of view to some extent, because it
makes the workplace more enjoyable and productive. Believe it or not folks, I am
in business to make a profit and feed my family. I am not in business to hire
The majority has a right to protect themselves AGAINST these minority groups who
scream and shout for their rights. They have no tolerance for any ideas but
All of the gay marriage legislation, both proposed and enacted, has to do with
the right to civil marriages and not with religious ceremonies. This has
nothing to do with churches or one's religious beliefs, any more than
someone would insist that a LDS church perform a marriage between Roman
Catholics, or that any church perform a marriage not in keeping with its beliefs
and standards. More problematic with the idea behind this
ill-conceived bill is that it is essentially no different than proposing a bill
that would permit people to violate any other civil rights that have been
enacted by law, whether it be putting up "whites only" signs,
restricting job hiring to men only, or opening "exclusive" housing
developments ("Exclusive" being the traditional way of saying "white
The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms -- though that one is falling
under attack in the light of gun control laws. Now we can argue all we want as
to ways to control violence, but the lesson is clear, current law makers have
little regard for Constitutional laws or the protection of them. Sadly, it has
become necessary to introduce and push for legislation which protects our
I also think something along these lines is needed. If freedom of religion
extends no further than what happens in the chapel on Sunday and in the privacy
of your own mind, then it is not worth much. I don't get my knickers in a
twist very easily about "the state controlling our lives," but this
would definitely fall into that category. Sexuality, marriage, and family really
are issues of conscience with very deep pre-political roots, and it is not right
for the state to play Lord over our personal understanding of these things. Our
very ability to exercise moral choice is compromised. In this case, by standing
for the idea that society should recognize the importance of a mother and father
in a child's life, you are potentially a criminal. That can't be
@Hutterite The sentiments of your post is exactly why this bill needs to pass.
In light of how the church was persecuted during Prop 8 in CA show that
attitudes like yours were harmful to others.And let's correct
@LiberalEastCoastMember statement that the congressman is using "big
government." No he's not. He's using the legislative process under
the guidelines of the constitution to protect a persecuted group. Ironically,
the group being persecuted is exercising the same rights as the proponents of
gay marriage are. And I'm not sure that the statement
"We're all Republicans until we want something. Then we all turn into
Democrats." is really complementary of Democrats.
Couples go to city hall to get a marriage license.Individuals go to city
hall to get a business license.When did city halls become churches?When did baking a cake, arranging flowers, or taking photographs become
the practice of a religion?I guess anything goes when someone calls it a
“religion.”Bet voters wish they had not given their
state the power to establish and regulate their “religion,” in
marriage law, business law, property law, tax law.Mr. Labrador seems
unaware of the First Amendment.
Well done Rep. Labrador!As Elder Maxwell stated in LDS conference in
April 1999:"Today, in place of some traditionally shared values
is a demanding conformity pushed, ironically, by those who eventually will not
tolerate those who once tolerated them."
Where is the Utah GOP on this bill?
DOMA should never have been passed, just as a host of other legislation over the
past 150 years. States should decide the issues, as our constitution originally
intended. Instead of getting involved in all these partisan federal issues,
people that really believe in self-government need to to just support God and
the Constitution. Let the Gays falter along as they want; just stay clear and
support States' rights. If California wants to allow people to marry
plants, then let them do it! Eventually the best ideas come to the fore,
including the definition of marriage. If people get uncomfortable with
States' Rights, it is because they want control, instead of choice and
freedom, which is what this country, and God always intended. Let go!
The 1st amendment didn't protect the LDS Church when they wanted to
practice their belief of plural marriage, even though it should have been
protected under freedom of religion. I suspect the court would ignore the 1st
amendment when those whose religious and moral beliefs do not want to accept
gays. So I do think this bill is needed.
"Treat others as you would want to be treated." The trouble with that
is, it is always so one sided and it is sure true in the gay issue. As with the
photographer, the bakery, the Boy Scouts and others that I have read about, the
LGBT wishes to take their rights away, even though they said that with gay
marriage passing, that would be all they wanted. However, as we see, they keep
pushing their agenda. And it will not stop. Mark my word, there will be the day
when religions will be threatened to lose their tax status over this. They have
no regard for how they treat others as long as they get their way. Don't
make it sound like they are innocent and the rest of us are the sinners.
So, the courts gave the LGBT folks special protections while we all already has
equality under the law. Gay marriage became proponents gained protected speech
(I thought we had a first amendment) to be protected while harming opponents
when we already had equality under the law. Now, gay marriage opponents need
special protections... and I'm sure we already had equality under the
law.From what I can tell; the people involved in both sides were not
disabled (who do need extra protections under the law). The law making marriage
between one man, one woman was ratified in a general election... I'm not
seeing why special protections are necessary other than people are breaking
existing law and it's not being properly enforced.There's
a lot of people who owe us an explanation as to their inability to govern.
If it's already a protected right, under the constitution, just codify it
so there is no question about being sued for discrimination. FWIW...........that is the ultimate goal of the gays.........to force the
performance of gay marriages and if not, take away your tax exempt status.
don't fall for the ruse. Pass the legislation!
So basically when the KKK claims they can discriminate against Blacks thanks to
this bill, because their religious views do not allow for the equal treatment of
African-Americans, you will be okay with that. When somebody wants
to discriminate in their business against Mormons because they feel the LDS
Church is an abomination, that will be okay, too. * * *It really isn't surprising how myopic some people are. There are
approximately 314,000 Christian congregations in the U.S., but because Gay
people want equal rights, there must be some kind of war against Christianity.
Having so few places to meet must make it very difficult for people with
theological arguments against everyone enjoying basic rights as guaranteed in
The Constitution (and various Supreme Court Decisions) to express their views.
My heart goes out to those who find it necessary to seek protection for being
bigoted. It's a rough life living in a nation which is so weakly
represented in Christian ethics.
It is a sad day when a law is needed to protect the United States Constitution.
The first amendment is clear and easy to understand. The confusion arises when
desire supersedes reason. Protection should apply to all people, not just a
small minority whose distinction is a result of choice and seeks reverse
discrimination to justify their behavior.
Since this article says little about what is actually IN this bill.... I would
find it hard to comment on it. I do, however feel this article was written
specifically to incite those who feel strongly one way or the other. I'm
disappointed that the Deseret News would run this article with no actual facts
In other words, this Congressman wants to legislate in favor of discrimination,
bigotry and the ability to break the law. Sad.
Its simple folks - don't discriminate in the public square - period. You
really want people to believe this is needed - I think not - learn to treat
others as you would want to be treated and don't throw up religion as an
excuse for legitimizing discrimination again. History is replete with examples
of what a bad idea this is.
It is so shameful that an LDS legislator would sponsor such a bill; particularly
given the way members of our own faith were treated just a few generations ago
for our Church's stance on marriage. The admirable thing for
LDS elected officials to do would be admit that while not every form of civil
marriage is akin to the LDS standard for religious marriage, we recognize that
each person should be permitted to marry the one they love and that we speak
from experience in saying that state-sanctioned discrimination is never right.
A Conservative using big government to protect us in our ignorance and
arrogance. Priceless.We're all Republicans until we want
something. Then we all turn into Democrats.
Your views on what are and are not wrong choices are not the binding rules by
which we, in the land of the free, are subject to. Should I, as a business
owner or landlord be allowed to deny service or housing to Mormons if I felt
like they were making poor life choices?
"Labrador...said there aren't any cases of religious groups or
nonprofits being subject to federal penalties based on their views or actions
against a same-sex marriage."Not yet, but it's coming. Gays
will stop at nothing in order to force every public school, university,
non-profit group and yes, every church to fall in line with their demands 100%
without flexibility and without debate.And using the IRS as a weapon
against churches and non-profits is only the start. I easily see a
time in which the gay and lesbian lobby will be so powerful, any disagreement
with them will lead to people having handcuffs put on them. If you think
I'm being paranoid, just keep in mind that this past week a man in Maryland
was arrested at a school board meeting simply because he openly opposed the
school's new Common Core curriculum. The fact is simply this.
The left loves freedom of speech and freedom of religion and will fight hard to
support both. Unless of course, you disagree with them.
This is an excellent idea and definitely needed. However, the Dear Leader will
veto this bill if it passes.
"But supporters of same-sex marriage say religious beliefs and exercise are
already protected under First Amendment"It may be protected
under the First Amendment, but in practice it isn't. And the reason for the
bill is that there are many who fear that the protection that we now have will
further erode. These days, just because something is constitutional,
doesn't mean that there are those who will ignore the constitution. You can
see that from the President on down.
Those who oppose gay marriage should not face discrimination claims. They should
experience ridicule, marginalization, and isolation, but not claims of
discrimination. That's just obvious.
"I will never condone wrong choices and I will never hide how I feel about
wrong choices." “Let each man learn to know himself;To gain that knowledge let him labor,Improve those failings in
himselfWhich he condemns so in his neighbor.How lenient our own
faults we view,And conscience’s voice adeptly smother;Yet, oh,
how harshly we reviewThe selfsame failings in another! …So
first improve yourself todayAnd then improve your friends
tomorrow.”—Hymns, no. 91
This is needed. I will never condone wrong choices and I will never
hide how I feel about wrong choices. Those who do not support these
life choices are victims more of discrimination than the people who try to claim