Here’s why your state may be expanding religious freedom protections this year

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Lyn52 Saint George, UT
    Jan. 26, 2015 6:42 a.m.

    Passing these bill is nothing more then giving folks the right to discriminate.

  • Publius nota bene Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 25, 2015 3:38 p.m.

    "After a year of court rulings that strengthened and weakened religious freedom protections for individuals and businesses..."

    Religious freedoms have never been weakened in the United States. You are, and always have been, free to practice your religion.

    You are not free to shove your religion down the throats of other citizens. That is called "religious hegemony" and you should be ashamed for thinking that you have a right to do so.

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Jan. 24, 2015 6:54 p.m.

    Religious liberty laws are the most discriminating laws on the books. Religion is all about discriminating. How many religions preach "one and only" doctrines? Religious right organizations are making real money today by screaming discrimination. It's like Jason Chaffetz sending me a anti government message with the standard "call to money" blather. It's not about discrimination, it's about money! Real religious freedom is freedom from spiritual coercion. It is about the freedom to believe without a law telling us how to do so. It's about a society where an atheist is just as moral a person as a religious guru. Laws themselves are not about freedom. The religious right better stick to their pulpits rather than the legislatures. The Hobby Lobby law is the worst religious freedom law ever decided. It is starting to erode the First Amendment. Laws can never be spiritual unless they try to force a person to believe in a particular religion, like they do in the Arab countries. Is that what we really want ?

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    Jan. 24, 2015 11:29 a.m.

    For a right-winger to claim the need for the 'expansion of religious freedom' as a response to the court's legalization of marriage equality is the same thing the Nazis did in pre-war Europe when they blamed the Jews for the economic woes in Germany. What did the Nazis do? They enacted laws to get rid of the jews. It is no different today with the religious right. I beg anyone out there to explain to me how allowing a gay couple to marry takes away their religious freedom.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Jan. 23, 2015 1:58 p.m.

    @RedShirtUofU --

    "Why do you support state sanctioned slavery?"

    Red, that question makes as much sense as if I asked you why haven't you stopped beating your wife.

    Both questions are nonsensical red herrings.

    "If I don't want to work for a person for whatever reason, political, racial, cultural, they smell funny, have red hair, or any other reason I want, I am not allowed to do so."

    Sure you are.

    Nobody is forcing you to work.

    You willingly decided that you want to work -- to run a business. In order to do so, you willingly agreed to taking out a business license. As one of the requirements of acquiring a business license, you willingly agreed to abide by the laws of the jurisdiction in which you conduct business.

    There is no slavery going on here, Red. You willingly agreed to these conditions. If you no longer wish to abide by the laws of your local jurisdiction, you are free to stop doing business -- or to do business elsewhere.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    Jan. 23, 2015 12:25 p.m.

    To "Contrariusester" still not answering the question. Why do you support state sanctioned slavery?

    If I don't want to work for a person for whatever reason, political, racial, cultural, they smell funny, have red hair, or any other reason I want, I am not allowed to do so.

    You have shown that you support the state sanctioned slavery that exists because of the Anti-Discrimination laws. It doesn't matter if that is part of doing business, the fact remains that thanks to well intentioned politicians we now have government sanctioned slavery.

    So again, if I use the law to force you to work for me despite your objections, using whatever laws are necessary, would you consider that slavery?

    If that too difficult for you to answer, can you tell us why you believe that legalized slavery is ok?

    Why do you believe that having the "Thought Police" forcing people to act correctly is a good thing?

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Jan. 23, 2015 10:57 a.m.

    @RedShirtUofU --

    "If I use the law to force you to work for me despite your objections, using whatever laws are necessary, would you consider that slavery?"

    It's an irrelevant question, Red -- a red herring. In terms of logical argumentation, it is one of the relevance fallacies. Look em up -- there are lots and lots of web pages that will describe logical fallacies for you.

    Nobody is forcing you to work. Therefore your question is irrelevant in regards to questions of discrimination. It is no more relevant to this discussion than it would be to ask me if I've stopped beating my husband lately.

    Nobody is forcing you to do business -- nobody is forcing you to work. But when you WILLINGLY start a business and obtain that business license, you then must uphold ALL the laws that you agreed to obey when you got that business license.

    You WILLINGLY started a business and agreed to the terms of your business license. You WILLINGLY set up your business in that particular jurisdiction.

    Therefore, how is fulfilling the requirements of a business license that you WILLINGLY agreed to comparable to slavery?

    Keep trying, Red.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    Jan. 23, 2015 10:21 a.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" the the question remains that you refuse to answer.

    If I use the law to force you to work for me despite your objections, using whatever laws are necessary, would you consider that slavery?

    Why won't you answer that simple question. Is it because for you to answer honestly you would have to admit that using the law to force somebody to work for you is slavery.

    Keep dancing around the issue, but we know the truth about you and your ilk.

  • Hagoth Hayden, ID
    Jan. 23, 2015 10:17 a.m.

    As a Mormon and business owner my view on this is… if you run a business and you are serving the public then you need to serve all of the public… not pick and choose who to serve, black or white, gay or not, etc.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Jan. 23, 2015 8:12 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "I have never brought up a business license."

    It's a necessary part of your argument, Red. If you are going to do business as a public accommodation, you must first have a business license. And when you get that license, you WILLINGLY agree to obey the business laws of your jurisdiction.

    "I have stated that the anti-discrimination laws are nothing more than legalized slavery."

    And you are wrong. Nobody is forcing you to do business in the first place. But when you WILLINGLY start a business and obtain that business license, you then must uphold ALL the laws that you agreed to obey when you got that business license.

    "If I use the law to force you to work for me"

    Nobody is forcing you to work, Red. You WILLINGLY started a business and agreed to the terms of your business license. You WILLINGLY set up your business in that particular jurisdiction.

    Therefore, how is fulfilling the requirements of a business license that you WILLINGLY agreed to slavery?

    Keep trying, Red.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 22, 2015 3:37 p.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" you still like to twist things around to make yourself feel good.

    I have never brought up a business license. I have stated that the anti-discrimination laws are nothing more than legalized slavery. Slavery, as I have shown, is defined as forcing others to work for you.

    If I use the law to force you to work for me despite your objections, using whatever laws are necessary, would you consider that slavery?

    You ask questions but never answer them. Why don't you try to answer the questions this time.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Jan. 22, 2015 2:06 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "so sad that you still don't understand slavery, and are willing to force people into slavery for political correctness."

    LOL.

    When you went into business, you entered into an agreement with the municipality in which your business operates. You willingly took out a business license and agreed to abide by the laws of your jurisdiction. You WILLINGLY did this. Nobody forced you to take out that business license, and nobody forced you to do business within that particular jurisdiction.

    Therefore, how is fulfilling the requirements of a business license slavery?

    Try to answer the question, Red.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 22, 2015 1:49 p.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" so sad that you still don't understand slavery, and are willing to force people into slavery for political correctness.

    To "TheTrueVoice" those are just a few recent incidences where people were forced to serve others against their own desires.

    You are straying from the topic. Would you think it is right to force a Gay Photographer to work at a wedding at the Westboro Church? How about forcing a minority owned catering business to cater a KKK event? Would you support laws that caused those to happen?

    You even admit that anti-discrimination laws remove freedom. Is that what you want so that you can force others to act correctly?

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 22, 2015 12:11 p.m.

    "if I am a baker, photographer, reception center, fertility doctor, or other service provider there is a legal precedence for forcing them to serve gays."

    "forcing them to serve gays..." I wonder if you realize how this reads? It suggests there is something wrong to "serve gays", which of course is nonsense.

    If someone is not able (or, not willing), to follow the law when it comes to public accommodation, another profession is indicated. If one desires to establish a business in our secular society, there are specific laws that must be be followed: business licenses to be procured, food service inspections, and anti-discrimination laws that must be followed.

    If one's animus against a minority consumes them to the point they can not meet the bare minimum requirements for public business, then they can pursue a private venture where they are free to pursue their bigotry without the law impacting them.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Jan. 22, 2015 12:10 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "You entered a contract with your landlord where he provides shelter, and you pay him rent. That is a legal contract that you willingly signed."

    YES!! Exactly.

    And when you went into business, you entered into an agreement with the municipality in which your business operates. You willingly took out a business license and agreed to abide by the laws of your jurisdiction. You WILLINGLY did this. Nobody forced you to take out that business license, and nobody forced you to do business within that particular jurisdiction.

    Therefore, how is fulfilling the requirements of a business license slavery?

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 22, 2015 11:59 a.m.

    This is really great news because I've been waking up lately just really seriously feeling that my religious freedoms are being trampled and needed more protection.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 22, 2015 11:34 a.m.

    To "Contrarius" actually I am not being forced to serve my landlord, nor am I being forced to work.

    You entered a contract with your landlord where he provides shelter, and you pay him rent. That is a legal contract that you willingly signed. Plus, your landlord doesn't care if you work for your rent money, get it from your parents, or just have a large trust fund that pays the rent. Does your landlord require you to do non-contractual labor for him?

    How is a contract slavery?

    Nice try. Wanna try again?

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Jan. 22, 2015 11:12 a.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "Please name any other law that forces you to serve another. How many laws do we have that force you to sever another?"

    You are being forced to serve your landlord whenever you pay him rent, Red. You have to work in order to earn that rent money -- therefore you are being forced to work. And the benefit of that work goes to the landlord in the form of cash. Is the landlord therefore a slaveowner?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 22, 2015 10:41 a.m.

    To "TheTrueVoice" but if I am a baker, photographer, reception center, fertility doctor, or other service provider there is a legal precedence for forcing them to serve gays.

    If I used every legal means available to me to force you to come to my house and mow my lawn, would you consider yourself a slave? Would you accept it? Even if I am a rich black man who has never lived in poverty or lived under Jim Crowe laws?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 22, 2015 10:21 a.m.

    To "Contrariuser" forcing you to serve another is slavery. It is legalized slavery, but slavery none the less.

    Please name any other law that forces you to serve another. How many laws do we have that force you to sever another?

    The Collins English Dictionary has a great definition of slavery that only proves you wrong:

    " 1. the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
    2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work"

    So, legally, a gay person can force a baker who refuses to make a cake for their wedding. According to the dictionary, that is slavery.

    So again, tell us how many laws force you to serve another or force you to work? The primary laws that force you to work for another person have to do with discrimination laws. Abiding traffic laws are not slavery, nor are most laws. There are some laws that apply to physicians that state they must help if they come across the scene of an accident where there are injuries, and that is slavery.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 22, 2015 10:18 a.m.

    "Tell us, how is forcing people to do your will not slavery?"

    You have jumped from binary thinking to a non sequitur fallacy (when the conclusion does not follow from the premise.)

    To wit: there is no "forcing people to do your will" here. Are you being forced to be gay married? No? Is your church being forced to perform SSM? No?

    Perhaps you are referring to the exhausted cases of "bakeries not making a cake"? Have you ever heard of the legal construct called "public accommodation laws"?

    The only thing being "forced" here is that state-sponsored bigotry is no longer acceptable in 36 states, and this June, SCOTUS will invalidate the remaining bans on marriage equality throughout the country. This upsets you. We understand that. Cultural change can be daunting to some folks.

    Here is how you can effectively deal with this cultural change:

    If you don't like something, don't pay attention to it. Simple, and effective.

    You need to realize that not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringement on your religious freedoms.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Jan. 22, 2015 9:41 a.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "If it is so obvious, why can't you explain it either?"

    I already did, Red. According to your argument, forcing you to obey ANY law is slavery. Forcing you to pay taxes is slavery. Forcing you to pay rent is slavery (after all, you have to work to earn money to pay that rent, so your landlord has forced you to work -- oh no!).

    You insult all the people who have actually had to live through slavery when you make such silly claims.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 22, 2015 9:30 a.m.

    To "Contrariuser" sad, you don't realize that forcing people to work for you is slavery.

    If it is so obvious, why can't you explain it either? Logically, what I have posted is right since it has been explained in a simple logical manner using facts. You and "The True Voice" use an argument that consists of opinion only, not facts.

    Go and look up the definition of slavery, think about it (that may be hard for you), then let me know what your thoughts are.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Jan. 22, 2015 9:10 a.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "To "TheTrueVoice" that is a nice rant, but you still don't explain why it is false."

    It's very obvious, Red.

    According to your argument, being forced to obey ANY law is slavery.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 22, 2015 8:49 a.m.

    To "TheTrueVoice" that is a nice rant, but you still don't explain why it is false.

    However, despite what you think that is what you have.

    You can either allow discrimination or you can enslave people through political correctness. Yes that is binary, but that is how this situation is.

    Tell us, how is forcing people to do your will not slavery? Tell us how allowing discrimination takes away from your freedom? (it may cut back on shops, but shopping is not freedom.)

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 21, 2015 3:09 p.m.

    "If you don't allow discrimination then you give us slavery. Which is the greater evil? Which one represents freedom?"

    This sentence is an example of a "false dilemma" fallacy (otherwise known as "binary thinking"), and represents a prime example why the opponents of marriage equality have been tossed out of one court after another in the past year.

    The "false dilemma" fallacy is an insidious tactic that has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny, it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented.

    Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Jan. 21, 2015 12:00 p.m.

    @antodav --

    "You fail to explain why ..."

    I don't really need to explain anything. The fact is that they DO exist.

    But if you want reasons, here's a couple:

    Marriages promote societal stability by creating stable family units. This stability encourages financial growth as well as societal cohesion, and is therefore worth rewarding.

    Also, marriage indicates a long-term intimate commitment between two people. People who have made such commitments both need and deserve the recognition of their bond in protections like hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and so on.

    "...a special legal arrangement with a strong religious connotation"

    Millions of people marry in civil ceremonies with no religious participation whatsoever.

    "as opposed to just anyone who signs a contract so that they can acquire such benefits"

    That contract is called a MARRIAGE contract. There is no other single contract that can convey so many rights and privileges at one time.

    "What I do with my wife and our bishop or in the temple ought to have no more legal significance than my baptism."

    And it doesn't. Only the MARRIAGE CONTRACT conveys the rights -- not the ceremony you hold in the church.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 21, 2015 11:29 a.m.

    To "TheTrueVoice" which would you rather have, legalized discrimination (discrimination already exists in government contracting, scholarship, and many other areas involving the government) or legalized slavery?

    If you don't allow discrimination then you give us slavery. Which is the greater evil? Which one represents freedom?

  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    Jan. 21, 2015 10:04 a.m.

    @Contrariuser,

    You fail to explain why any such benefits ought to exist for people who are "married" in the first place--certainly, why they should exist for people who enter into a special legal arrangement with a strong religious connotation, as opposed to just anyone who signs a contract so that they can acquire such benefits, which need not be called "marriage" and need not be recognized as such. What I do with my wife and our bishop or in the temple ought to have no more legal significance than my baptism. Neither should corresponding activities by anyone else; that is the very nature of separation of church and state.

    The Jim Crow argument is a straw man. There's no reason to believe that sort of system would voluntarily arise again anywhere in absence of government coercion (that was how it arose the first time, after all). And if any business owner were foolish enough to turn away paying customers because of race, he'd quickly find his business failing due to competiton from other more sensible business owners, not to mention boycotts. The market works just fine if you let it.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Jan. 21, 2015 9:11 a.m.

    @Aurelius maximus --

    "It really isn't too hard to imagine how deeply uncomfortable it might make someone who is deeply religious to essentially be forced to attend a same-sex wedding."

    It takes an incredible stretch of credulity to equate baking a cake with attending a wedding.

    @antodav --

    "These kinds of laws wouldn't be necessary if government wasn't trying to legislate, regulate, or license personal relationships in the first place."

    More than 1000 legal benefits are contingent on marital status. If you want to forego all these benefits, then by all means stay single. But don't expect the rest of society to live without them.

    "And let private businesses choose to serve and/or employ whomever they choose, or not, as is their right--if you don't like it, work or shop somewhere else."

    Oh, sure. The good ol' days of "whites only" and "we don't serve your kind". Good times, good times....

  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    Jan. 21, 2015 8:35 a.m.

    These kinds of laws wouldn't be necessary if government wasn't trying to legislate, regulate, or license personal relationships in the first place. Compounding a problem caused initially by unwarranted government intrusion into the private sector through unnecessary and unconstitutional laws with even more unnecessary and, frankly, redundant laws (given that religious freedom is already guaranteed in the First Amendment and that that guarantee is already binding upon the states as well by the 14th Amendment) is not the solution to the problem. Strike marriage from law books. Stop trying to force people to accept any one definition of what it should or shouldn't be. Stop trying to dictate who can or cannot enter into legal contracts with others, and leave marriage to churches to carry out as they see fit. And let private businesses choose to serve and/or employ whomever they choose, or not, as is their right--if you don't like it, work or shop somewhere else. That is the beauty of a free market, in a society which actually allows one to function the way it is supposed to: there is no compulsion or coercion anywhere, and total freedom of choice.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 21, 2015 7:39 a.m.

    CI says:

    "I find it ironic that many of the posters on this site who decry the imposition of religion onto them, have no problem forcing others to violate their religious beliefs."

    --- Where in your scriptures does it say that providing a product or service to a sinner is against your "religious beliefs"?

    @Gildas;

    So now you're judging business owners who are FOR equality and claiming they have "no conscience"? And again, where in your scriptures does it say that providing a product or service to a sinner is against your "religious conscience"?
    @Sqweebie;

    Your experience is exactly what we oppose happening. I hope you can empathize with those who experience this kind of situation pretty much everywhere they go. I hope you would oppose legislation allowing this kind of action.

    @Aurelius maximus;

    It isn't really too hard to imagine how deeply uncomfortable it might make someone to walk into a business establishment and be told "Sorry, we don't serve your kind here".

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 21, 2015 6:59 a.m.

    "It is not a front for bigotry or prejudice".

    A specious claim that is intellectually dishonest.

    These recent attempts to legalize discrimination by hiding behind the skirts of dogma has only come about since the Windsor decision. It was clear then (to those possessing critical thinking skills) that the handwriting was on the wall, and marriage equality will soon be the law of the land.

    So the detractors had to find another way to express their moral disapproval of their fellow citizens who do not behave as they wish them to behave. Where were all these attempts to discriminate through legislation prior to the Windsor decision?

  • Aurelius maximus Berryville, VA
    Jan. 21, 2015 5:27 a.m.

    @ The Wraith

    "I simply do not understand how taking pictures or baking a cake for a same sex wedding violates a persons deeply help" religious beliefs."

    It really isn't too hard to imagine how deeply uncomfortable it might make someone who is deeply religious to essentially be forced to attend a same-sex wedding.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Jan. 20, 2015 8:12 a.m.

    To "The Wraith" you are confusinig. You say that you don't want to force people to serve others, then the next sentence you state that you want to force businesses to serve everybody. Can you make up your mind?

    Either you allow people to exhibit their biases and let them decline to serve some people or your force them to serve others (slavery).

    You may not like slavery, but you sure are pushing for it.

  • Sqweebie Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2015 4:30 p.m.

    @Ranchhand "Why don't we go find someone else? Let me ask you. Have you ever walked into a business and had them tell you "we don't serve your kind here"?

    I was actually evicted from an apartment on the east coast over 30 years ago except they said "We don't want your kind here" I'm straight, was married at the time and LDS. I asked what kind? They refused to give me an answer. But they did have a lot of JWs living in the complex so I'm assuming it was because of my being LDS.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2015 12:29 p.m.

    @mufasta
    "It is not a front for bigotry or prejudice"

    These laws seek to give permission to business owners to discriminate against certain customers based on religious reasons (mostly sexual orientation).

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Jan. 18, 2015 11:30 a.m.

    @Gildas --

    "It is the denial of the free exercise of religion to force someone to act against his or her conscience. It is a denial of freedom to so closely control people as so many laws now do. "

    Sorry, but religious belief does not trump civil law.

    Even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a devoutly religious Catholic, has recognized this simple principle.

    In the Employment Division v. Smith decision, 1990, he said that to allow anyone to excuse their actions solely because of religious belief "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself," something which could not be allowed.

    Later Supreme Court decisions, said Justice Scalia, "have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

    Even religious people must obey the law.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Jan. 18, 2015 9:46 a.m.

    The problem we have is with business-owners that do NOT have a conscience not with those who do.

    It is the denial of the free exercise of religion to force someone to act against his or her conscience. It is a denial of freedom to so closely control people as so many laws now do.

    As Martin Luther once said: It is neither wise nor safe to act against conscience.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Jan. 17, 2015 3:35 p.m.

    @mufasta
    "If a youth wants to do a report on a biblical figure or biblical story in school he/she should be allowed to do that."

    Are you implying current system does not allow that?

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Jan. 16, 2015 9:20 p.m.

    Counter Intelligence

    It is against my moral principles that the non worship activities of church organizations escape taxation. I believe we should equally share in the revenue burdens of our society. My moral principles are as important to me as are yours regarding birth control. However, I acknowledge we live in a diverse society in which at present it is perfectly legal for churches to avoid taxes in their extra-worshipful enterprises. In other words, I can live with, but don't like it.

    Why is it suddenly a newly discovered right of yours to claim objection to something like birth control or gay marriage? No one is coercing you into having abortions or becoming married to someone of the same sex. No one is asking your church to marry a same sex couple. Yet you seem to insist that the rest of us follow your sensibilities.

    Why can not you accommodate yourself to a diverse culture as I have? Is it that hard to do?

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 8:52 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech

    I'm sorry Red but it's a terrible analogy. It doesn't "hit me hard" what is says is that your side is so desperate to maintain their ability to discriminate that they are willing to stretch reality beyond reason and logic. When I advised not to use the analogy again I was trying to help you not look silly. Instead you decided to double down.

    I think your side is seeing this wrong. In reality I do not want to force you to serve gays. Instead I want to make sure that all businesses are required to serve the public on equal terms. That would include gays yes, but it also includes Blacks, Hispanics, Mormons, Anti-Mormons, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Hindus, Vietnamese, Chinese, French, English, Native Americans, Peruvians, Egyptians, Scandinavians, old people, young people, middle-aged people, people with blue eyes, people with brown eyes, people with red hair, people with brown hair, Japanese, Lebanese, Russians, alcoholics, teetotalers, Norwegians, Serbs, Wiccans, Jazz lovers, rock lovers, baseball fans, football fans, soccer fans, soccer hooligans, police officers, teachers, grocery store clerks, movie stars, sanitation workers, etc. etc. etc.

  • Utah_Happyman Orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 6:55 p.m.

    The greatest Christian Commandment ever given was when Jesus replied: “'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” These words now have the nation divided over what is acceptable and what is not. Why not live the words that were spoken Love your neighbor as yourself.
    In todays society there must be a very large number of people that dislike themselves very, very much.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Jan. 16, 2015 5:09 p.m.

    @mufasta

    "This has nothing to do with anti-gay legislation"

    It sure does and a lot more. It's unconstitutional legislation to give Christians--I guarantee that no one proposing such legislation had Muslims, Jews, Hindu's, or Buddhists in mind when they drafted it--special rights to refuse to honor the rights, in the public square, of those who do not kowtow to their dogma.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 4:58 p.m.

    Bigotry is usually nothing more than a good idea combined with a zealot. Yet I find it ironic that those who decry intolerance in the name of God, motherhood or patriotism, often cannot comprehend that they can also be intolerant in the name of gay, civil or women's rights. They are all worthy causes, but they are all also great smokescreens for hate in the hands of a zealot. Except the latter group is more socially acceptable and therefore more insidious.

    The concept of tolerance means that sometimes people need to accept that others will do things that they themselves find distasteful. I find it ironic that many of the posters on this site who decry the imposition of religion onto them, have no problem forcing others to violate their religious beliefs. I.e "Don't expect me to tolerate a Christian image on public property because that is a government imposition of religion, but its ok for me to have government force you to pay for birth control against your religious beliefs (even though it is cheap, widely available and I can do it myself)". Ironically, the latter is a far more direct impostion than the former.

  • mufasta American Fork, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 3:47 p.m.

    I agree with the legislation. It is not a front for bigotry or prejudice. It is for much needed protections of religious liberties. If a youth wants to do a report on a biblical figure or biblical story in school he/she should be allowed to do that. This has nothing to do with anti-gay legislation, it has everything to do with pro-religious legislation.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 3:14 p.m.

    @Liberty for All
    "The GOP is already taking steps to with hold the pay of judges who fail to honor the will of the people."

    That'd be an unconstitutional bill and something more emblematic of a fascist state to take away pay from judges just because they don't agree with you. Judges have the authority to strike down laws that have majority support if they are unconstitutional, otherwise what would be the point of ever bringing a lawsuit against any bill since everything had majority support either amongst the people or Congress?

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 2:14 p.m.

    Thought exercise inspired by recent headlines: You belong to a well-established religion whose tradition holds that printed depictions of your faith's prophet are blasphemous. Your scriptures teach that blasphemers should be killed. Do you have legal protection under the RFRAs if you:
    1. kill the blasphemer
    2. flog the blasphemer
    3. destroy the blasphemer's artwork
    4. refuse to sell pens to the blaspheming artist
    5. picket the blasphemer's workplace

    Are these the exercise of religion?

    Obviously, the need to preserve civil order overrides the unfettered exercise of religion at some point and the secular government is rightfully allowed to interfere with religious practice. The question is where to draw the line. What exactly is an exercise of religious belief? What is the difference between being offended and being sinned against? At what point does doing business with a sinner amount to endorsing, facilitating, or participating in the sin? When a faith's founder teaches to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile when wronged, how is refusing to serve a business client an exercise of that same religion and not a repudiation of it?

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Jan. 16, 2015 2:00 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech

    "The owners that wanted to discriminate would quickly let their views be known."

    Funny you should say that. When businesses in Mississippi began to post stickers in their establishments stating “We don’t discriminate – If you’re buying, we’re selling!” in response to the State's religious freedom law, the American Family Association cried fowl. They claimed posting the sticker was tantamount to bullying "Christians." In other words, some "Christians" want the right to selectively discriminate when it suits their fancy but don't want anyone else to know about it should it cut into their bottom line. So, if you mandate they wear their bigotry on their sleves, their bigotry will go away, IMHO.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    Jan. 16, 2015 1:52 p.m.

    Correction - SCOTUS will be dealing with just two issues:

    "The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:

    1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

    2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?"

  • Blue Bolshevik Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 1:41 p.m.

    Ach, if only the Nuremburg laws had been crafted as religious freedom.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    Jan. 16, 2015 1:38 p.m.

    So -- All of the remaining marriage cases have just been granted cert by SCOTUS. They've been consolidated so SCOTUS will be dealing with not only the merits, but a few side issues such as recognition of out of state marriages.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Jan. 16, 2015 1:28 p.m.

    To "The Wraith" actually, slavery is a very appropriate term. The fact that it hits you so hard is actually a good thing. According to the Webster Dictionary, slavery is "submission to a dominating influence". A Slave is "a person who is strongly influenced and controlled by something". When a person is forced to serve another, the state is forcing them into submission and is controlling them.

    While you may not like the term slave, that is what forcing a person or a business to serve you is.

    Right now it is acceptable to force some people serve gays. Now think of something you find objectionable, would you like to be forced to do what you think is objectionable? Wouldn't you fight back if you were forced to go against or support an event that is contrary your core beliefs?

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Jan. 16, 2015 1:21 p.m.

    To "Contrarius" but the Jim Crowe laws were just as bad as the laws that force you to serve people. Jim Crowe laws forced people that didn't care about race to abide by racist codes of conduct. The Civil Rights Act did not force others to serve others, that came after.

    Why is it ok to force others to act against their nature? If it was bad under the Jim Crowe laws, why is it good now?

    Would you eat a restaurant where you knew that the cook or servers hated you, even if they put on a happy face whenever you came in?

    To "my_two_cents_worth" I wouldn't worry about that. The owners that wanted to discriminate would quickly let their views be known. Laws would not be necessary since their reputations would spread faster than any law could get going.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Jan. 16, 2015 1:15 p.m.

    Woops, Maudine, sorry for the duplicate!

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Jan. 16, 2015 1:13 p.m.

    @rhappahannock --

    "There was a case where a man asked 13 different gay bakeries to make cakes with a pro-traditional marriage message. "

    Okay, I checked -- and no, this guy was NOT asking for a "pro-traditional marriage message".

    He was specifically asking for cakes that read "Gay Marriage is Wrong."

    Again -- this is a difference in WHAT is being baked, rather than WHO it is being baked for. When a business refuses to provide a product that they never normally provide (cakes with hateful messages), that is not discrimination. But when a business refuses to provide a product that they DO normally provide (wedding cakes) just because of the identity of the client, that IS discrimination.

    Why is this simple principle so hard for some people to understand?

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 12:44 p.m.

    @ Rapp: The message he requested was "Gay marriage is wrong." Several of the bakeries stayed they would make the cake, but he would have to put the writing on himself. Many of them stated the message is, or is similar to, hate speech or pornography, and since they don't make cakes like that for anyone, they are not required to make a cake like that for him.

    (With the SSM cakes objected to by "Christian" bakers, they refused to make the cake at all, even if the objectional topper &/or words were added later.)

    If he would like to sue any of the bakers involved, he certainly has that right - but as part of the suit he would need to prove an actual harm occurred (he really did want the cake) and that it was not just a publicity stunt. His own blog works against him on that one.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Jan. 16, 2015 12:40 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech

    " Let business owners show their prejudices and biases. "

    I'd support that so long as the business owners make "their prejudices and biases" publicly known as to prevent confusion and disappointment on the part of consumers when deciding who they should and should not avoid when making purchase decisions. Require, by law, disclaimers by business owners indicating who they will not serve and why on all business advertising and on their virtual and brick & mortar store fronts. Are you willing to support that?

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 12:31 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech

    You must not be aware of the fact that this country did in fact have a system in place once where business owners could discriminate. As it turns out they did just fine and stayed in business quite a while. If you think they wouldn’t fare as well today then you have a lot to learn about human nature.

    I fail to see how saying that the law should apply to everyone equally is somehow hypocritical. A business should serve the public that is my belief. I can only speak for me but I can tell you that if a gay business turned away a christian I would be against that too.

    Finally slavery is being forced to work without compensation. Having a bakery bake a cake and get paid for it is not slavery. It’s a horrible analogy and should not be brought up again.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 12:20 p.m.

    On another thread about homosexuality, it was suggested that readers check the Bible to see what Paul has to say about homosexuality.

    So I did.

    Now, of course, Paul never uses the word "homosexuality" - that word wasn't invented until relatively recently. He uses "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" - which have been taken to mean homosexuality, but further reading of that chapter implies the "abusers" comment refers to prostitution.

    I digress.

    Paul not only speaks against "homosexuality," he speaks against fornication, adultery, theft, idolaters, the covetous, extortionists, revilers, and drunkards. He speaks against all of them equally - he does not condemn one above another.

    As has been mentioned earlier, if the objection truly is on religious grounds, you must treat all these the same.

    If you don't turn away all sinners, than it is bigotry - not religious belief.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 12:16 p.m.

    @RanchHand
    I think it goes even further, in the sense that you can ban a specific behavior, ie some bars and restaurants have a dress code, and they won't admit anyone who doesn't follow the dress code. But it has to be applied equally to everyone, regardless of race or (in some places) sexual orientation.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Jan. 16, 2015 12:11 p.m.

    @rhappahannock --

    "If people of conscience (or scientific reasoning) are force to support gay marriage, shouldn't the gay bakers be forced to make cakes with a religious or scientific message?"

    First, I don't believe it for a second -- unless the messages were hateful. If the guy actually had a case, he'd take it to court.

    And second, that's the difference -- THE MESSAGE. The anti-gay baker refused to BAKE A CAKE. The pro-gay baker, in Values Voter's example, AGREED to bake the cake.

    I could no more force someone to write a hateful message than I could force someone to bake a pornographic cake. That is a material difference in the PRODUCT rather than a difference in the client being served. In contrast, the anti-gay baker was baking exactly the same cake for everyone -- it was a difference in the CLIENT rather than the product.

    And discriminating against CLIENTS is against the law.

    @Redshirt --

    "I say we get rid of laws that force you to serve people that you do not agree with or like."

    Sorry, but that attitude went out with Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Act.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 11:54 a.m.

    @rhappahannock;

    What was the message being asked of the gay bakers? "We support traditional marriage"? Any gay baker would have provided that cake as they also, with almost 100% certainty, support "traditional marriage" as the baking of "traditional wedding cakes" is probably a large percentage of their income.

    Was it perhaps "Gay marriages are counterfeit marriages" (as we see here on the DN so often)? Or perhaps "Do not allow SSM to destroy tradional marriage"? These are not "pro-traditional marriage" messages, rather they're anti-gay.

    Your comment is ridiculous and needs further clarification for any degree of credibility.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Jan. 16, 2015 11:49 a.m.

    I say we get rid of laws that force you to serve people that you do not agree with or like. Let business owners show their prejudices and biases. Can you imagine how long most of those businesses would last once we could see the prejudices of the owners? How long do you think a photographer would last in New York that didn't go to black or gay weddings?

    You liberals show your hypocrisy about claiming to promote freedom when you insist that people act and conform to your desires. If a person is a bigot, who are you to force them to act contrary to their character? Unless the bigot is injuring somebody or is taking away somebody's rights, why force them into temporary slavery?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 11:46 a.m.

    This is fantastic and sorely needed economic stimulus for the legal profession!

    A very warm and heartfelt thanks to all Utah taxpayers for the new family yacht and Mercedes for the wife.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 16, 2015 11:12 a.m.

    It is so very telling that this "newspaper" chose to characterize almost 250 yrs. of bigotry ,discrimination and hatred as a "rush" to ensure equality for all.

  • rhappahannock Washington, DC
    Jan. 16, 2015 11:11 a.m.

    There was a case where a man asked 13 different gay bakeries to make cakes with a pro-traditional marriage message. All 13 refused. He posted his experience on youtube. If people of conscience (or scientific reasoning) are force to support gay marriage, shouldn't the gay bakers be forced to make cakes with a religious or scientific message?

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    Jan. 16, 2015 11:00 a.m.

    I suppose sorting through these issues is all going to get very convoluted. In an attempt to turn the tables (I guess), there's this stunt out of Colorado:

    "PRO-LGBT COLORADO BAKER SLAPPED WITH RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT"

    In a nutshell - A "professional-looking" gentleman walks into a Colorado bakery and requests a "Bible Cake" decorated with anti-gay slurs.

    From the news story:

    "However uncomfortable the request made the pair, both maintain that he was never refused service.

    “I told him that I would bake the cake in the shape of a Bible,” says Marjorie. “Then I told him I’d sell him a [decorating] bag with the right tip and the right icing so he could write those things himself.”

    Apparently that was not enough, lawyers were contacted, and a complaint (which will go nowhere) has been filed.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Jan. 16, 2015 10:58 a.m.

    @Liberty For All

    "I'm sure glad I live in Utah where these protections will most likely pass."

    I'm sure glad I left Utah where the people of "Faith" are wanting to hide behind their "faith" to institutionalize bigotry and discrimination all in Jesus' name. I'm surprise thare has not been a groundswell of support form the "Christian" community to rewrite Matthew 22:39 to read "And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself' except for the gays, the Muslims, the Democrats, Women, non-Christians, and Barrack Obama" Nice, albeit less than truthful, moniker, by-the-way.

    @Tami

    "Whatever happened to the good old "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.""

    These laws highlight the hypocrisy of the argument. Take the case of the florist in Washington. They admitted that they knew the couple was gay long before their services were requested and had, in fact been selling to them on a regular basis without issue. They were all for taking "gay" money so long as they could pretend they didn't know it was "gay."

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 10:43 a.m.

    @ Shane333 "It won't matter what laws are passed. All it will take is an activist judge to legislate from the bench and make the legislative branch inconsequential...all in the name of political correctness."

    Activist judges are against the democratic process. The GOP is already taking steps to with hold the pay of judges who fail to honor the will of the people.

  • Larry Chandler CEDAR CITY, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 10:38 a.m.

    @Tami: The phrase "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is not actually law. No one ever had the right to refuse service to protected groups that included race, religion, national origin, etc. You can't merely put up a sign and it therefore exempts you from the law. It would be as if someone posted "We reserve the right to refuse to clear our sidewalk of snow and ice." Or "We reserve the right to drive 100 mph on the Interstate and all roads."

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Jan. 16, 2015 10:36 a.m.

    These bakers and photographers and hall rental places---why do you think they don't post a prominent notice in their advertising that says, "We will not do business with a gay couple who wants to buy our services for their wedding"?

    Answer: Because, in a heartbeat, at least half of their straight customers would go elsewhere.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 10:34 a.m.

    @Tami;

    "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is not legal unless you have a *valid* reason to refuse service; like no shoes or shirt, which violate health code requirements.

    Why don't we go find someone else? Let me ask you. Have you ever walked into a business and had them tell you "we don't serve your kind here"? How do you think you would feel?

    Additionally, you say: "Find another florist or baker! There are plenty of businesses out there who will take your money no matter what." - what if we can't find someone else to take our money? What if we live in a small town with only one baker or florist? Should we then have to drive miles/hours to find the services we need? Sweetheart, bigotry is NOT a religious value.

    If you plan on using religious conscience as an excuse for bigotry, be prepared to refuse service to all sinners, otherwise, you're going to be called on the carpet for bigotry.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Jan. 16, 2015 10:30 a.m.

    Lund said "These bills are being debated and conceived of as being about florists, photographers and landlords, (but) a lot of (other) merits get overlooked."

    Name one, Mr. Lund.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Jan. 16, 2015 10:20 a.m.

    @Tami wrote, "As far as the boycotts go, it goes both ways. We cancelled a trip to Arizona last year because they failed to pass the law."

    Perhaps you'd like to take your next vacation in Algeria? Or Iran? You could try Mississippi, where the Evangelicals run the ship, but just don't let on that you're LDS. You will be greeted with about as much warmth as...well, if your neighbors share your feelings, about as much warmth as a gay couple might get when visiting Herriman.

  • Shane333 Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 10:15 a.m.

    It won't matter what laws are passed. All it will take is an activist judge to legislate from the bench and make the legislative branch inconsequential...all in the name of political correctness.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 10:11 a.m.

    @Tami

    Also, why do the Christians have to push so much? If someone is so opposed to a Christian relationship, are they really going to do a good job with their service if they are FORCED to accept this business? Find another florist or baker! There are plenty of businesses out there who will take your money no matter what.

  • Tami Herriman, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 9:42 a.m.

    Whatever happened to the good old "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." I remember seeing those signs all the time. Also, why do the gays have to push so much? If someone is so opposed to a homosexual relationship, are they really going to do a good job with their service if they are FORCED to accept this business? Find another florist or baker! There are plenty of businesses out there who will take your money no matter what. I support laws for religious protection. As far as the boycotts go, it goes both ways. We cancelled a trip to Arizona last year because they failed to pass the law.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 9:36 a.m.

    Corrected headline: State lawmakers eye legalizing discrimination and bigotry

    @Liberty For All;

    The only violation of your religious beliefs would be if YOU married someone of your own gender; providing services to others who do it is not a violation of your religious conscience. Refusing those services however would be. Jesus said: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." He didn't say: "Treat others badly if you disapprove of how they live their lives".

    As cjb stated above, unless you're going to refuse to provide your products and services to all "sinners" who "violate your religious conscience", then its nothing more than plain old-fashioned bigotry dressed up as religion.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Jan. 16, 2015 9:30 a.m.

    "The rush to enforce same-sex marriage across the country"...

    Say what?

    Now there are laws forcing people to marry someone of the same sex?

    How about an alternate caption: "The steady march of rulings denying states the right to discriminate against gays"..

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    Jan. 16, 2015 9:26 a.m.

    @ FatherOfFour

    You are right on point. To be specific and to offer just one example, after the Civil Rights Act passed, the owner of the Piggie Park restaurant chain in South Carolina advanced the argument that he could refuse to serve black people because his religious beliefs very emphatically forbade the mixing of the races. I'm sure these beliefs of his were "deeply and sincerely held" too -- or perhaps he was just using his religious beliefs to justify an existing set of prejudices.

    Anyway, these phrases "religious freedom" and "religious freedom protections" just seem like dogwhistle phrases to me.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 9:22 a.m.

    I simply do not understand how taking pictures or baking a cake for a same sex wedding violates a persons "deeply help" religious beliefs. It doesn't make any sense to me. If your god would judge you harshly simply for providing services to the public in an equal and kind way then that god isn't worth worshiping.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 9:01 a.m.

    A solution looking for a problem.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 8:54 a.m.

    To everyone who thinks this is a great idea: Beware unintended consequences. You may not be as happy with the equal rights for people of ALL religions as you think you will be.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 8:41 a.m.

    I remember when "religious freedom" meant denying business to blacks too. Nothing has changed.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Jan. 16, 2015 8:36 a.m.

    I can not wait until some state law which enshrines religious bigotry is used against the religious majority in Utah. When the shoe is on the other foot, it usually does not fit too well.

    Of course, the LDS has forgotten its history of religious persecution by the religious majority in its exodus to Utah. So, no sympathy for those who are differently oriented or religious obtuse. How sad.

  • Here Sandy, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 8:29 a.m.

    As we take it case by case, line by line, our religious rights slowly but steadily erode till what was once thought impossible becomes commonplace.

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 8:24 a.m.

    On the other hand . . . . there is a need for protection of religious organizations and people of religious conscience. It seems to me, with today's legal environment, the rights of such organizations and people need laws passed such as RFRA. If there is no protection, I believe the opposing side will take whatever it can get till no rights are left. It's about some principles and legal doctrine the Founding Fathers held very dear.

    Long before the 14th amendment, the first clause of the first sentence of the first amendment stated, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Obviously they felt strongly about it.

    As someone put it, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, 11 October, 1798.) He's proving to be right in my opinion.

    Another put it this way: “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor...” (George Washington,3 October 1789)

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 8:20 a.m.

    Just remember, if you really intend to set religion aside for protection you're going to have to acknowledge and provide equal protection for all. Including the ones with which you disagree,and those that disagree with you. Equal for all, proof from none.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 7:59 a.m.

    I'm sure glad I live in Utah where these protections will most likely pass. People of faith or conscience should not be forced to violate strongly held and deeply personal religious beliefs. Protections for pharmacy dispensaries against providing abortion pills or birth control already exist. This is logical extension of those protections for all business who have similar rights for same gender couples and their marriages.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 16, 2015 7:23 a.m.

    Well said cjb (1/15/2015 5:33 p.m.) -- exactly right. The laws in question aren't about religion or freedom. They are intended to promote prejudice and discrimination.

    If so-called "religious freedom" laws are passed in any state, the stickers from Mississippi should immediately be used. You know the ones -- they say "We don't discriminate. If you're buying, we're selling." Interesting to note -- business owners in Mississippi tried to get those window stickers banned because people opposed to prejudice and discrimination would not do business with those businesses that refused to say they were not prejudiced or discriminatory.

    If the stickers became needed here, my husband and I would also refuse to do business with a business that did not have that type of sticker in its window or on its premises. "Pick your approved sinner and refuse to do business withany else" laws and practices just don't work for us.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 15, 2015 5:33 p.m.

    There was a case in the news a while back where a lady had a photography business and didn't want to be forced to take pictures of a gay wedding even though the law in her state forbid businesses from discriminating against gays. The judge eventually ruled against her.

    The judge should have asked her what would she do if a woman who had been divorced wanted to marry, would she take pictures of that wedding. If she said no, because such marriages are counter to teachings of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the judge should have ruled in her favor.

    If she said yes of course she would take pictures of that wedding, the judge should have ruled against her and pointed out that such a marriage was also against her religion or at least the scriptures that she claims she wants to abide by. That if she wants to run her business according to the dictates of her religion she is free to do that, but she can't pick and choose which parts of her religion to obey and then use religion as a cover to discriminate against other people contrary to the law.