A look at the '12 religious freedom grenades’ launched by the Supreme Court decision on marriage

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Lyn52 Saint George, UT
    July 12, 2015 7:26 a.m.

    SSM is now just marriage, get over it.

  • Ophelia Bountiful, UT
    July 11, 2015 10:22 p.m.

    The DN is starting to sound like Donald Trump.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 10, 2015 12:27 p.m.

    @4word thinker;

    News Flash- LGBT couples can and DO have children - in the same manner as opposite sex couples who are infertile.

    Oh the irony!

    Rikitikitavi says:

    "Ignored in this whole debate seems to be children."

    News Flash (to you too). LGBT couples DO have children.

    @Christian 24-7 ;

    Does anyone remember that LGBT people are being tortured to death around the world (By CHRISTIANS) while people here take swipes at each over this minor issue?

    @4Freedom;

    Please provide a single reference to your holy books that says: "Thou shalt treat LGBT sinners differently than you treat stright sinners". Just one. I CAN show you where your own god told you to: "Treat (ALL) others as you would have them treat you."

    @Triple-I;

    Your begging us to: "leave me alone" is pretty hypocritical given your enormous effort to violate OUR rights.

    @FDRfan;

    You can't force your god onto others; that IS the basic tenet of religious freedom.

    @Confused;

    Please give us date/time when you CHOSE to be heterosexual. Unless you are going to CHOOSE to abstain from an intimate relationship, you have NO BUSINESS at all asking anyone else to do so.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 9, 2015 6:40 p.m.

    Brendan Eich was not fired - or forced to resign - for "supporting traditional marriage."

    He gave an impressive donation to an organization that was trying to deny equal rights to same-sex couples. Had he been supporting traditional marriage he would have donated money to a campaign to make divorce harder, or to a non-profit that provides free marital counseling, or some other action actually supporting opposite sex married couples.

    His employees - in a company known for diversity - objected, and strongly. His customers - who saw Mozilla as a progressive company that values diversity - objected and stopped using the service. He resigned because, as somebody above said, he was no longer able to be an effective leader.

    The claim he was persecuted for "supporting traditional marriage" is false, because he did nothing to support any marriages.

    @Laura Bilington: "Or do they just treat gay couples the same way they treat straight couples?"

    This would be the real problem I think.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 9, 2015 5:32 p.m.

    @AZKID --

    "I once again respectfully disagree. In today's climate, a gay person has zero chance of being fired for being gay. Zero. One call to the media, and the person doing the firing would be out the one out on their ear instead."

    Wow.

    Guess again.

    One Utah survey: Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Utah. Read the report at the Williams Institute site. "In response to a 2010 survey of LGBT people in Utah, 43% of LGB respondents and 67% of transgender respondents reported being fired, denied a job, denied a promotion, or having experienced other forms of discrimination at some point in their lives. Even higher percentages of employees reported experiencing verbal harassment at work on at least a weekly basis."

    Welcome to the real world.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    July 9, 2015 4:15 p.m.

    The danger in letting the government control marriage is the approval they give, they can also take away. But, supposedly Obergefell acknowledges a constitutional right to marry. But, only on the Supreme Court's terms--which according to Obergefell are limited to 2 people per marriage. SCOTUS does not attempt to explain or justify the limit of 2 people. It just states that is the limit. Many have noted that Obergefell, in a sense, was just an acknowledgement of what is popular now. I am already seeing some media now saying that gay marriage is better than traditional marriage for the adults and children involved. Rather than polygamy, is the next progressive advance, the notion that traditional marriage is not only inferior to gay marriage, but actually harmful to adults and children, such that limits should be placed on traditional marriage? At some future date, might the argument be made that a certain kind of marriage that is popular in Utah is not only "not good," but also harmful to society, and in need of regulation? Mind you, I am not opposed to gay marriage, only to government acknowledgement that some marriages are worthy of recognition and some are not.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 9, 2015 3:15 p.m.

    @ AZKID

    Termination for being gay: Poor PR move nowadays? Sure - and thank goodness. But still legal in many places. It isn't legal anywhere to fire someone simply for having an opinion you don't like.

    Brendan Eich: When you and I are so important as to be seen as the public face of our company, then yes, the consequences of our actions may carry a greater price than when we were anonymous work-a-day stiffs. That's the reality and Brendan Eich isn't the first to experience it. (My first memory is of Al Campanis, fired from the Dodgers organization after some oblivious comments on Nightline about race.)

    But let's be accurate about Eich's fate. Unlike Campanis, he wasn't fired. He chose to resign because, in his own words, "Under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader." THIS was the issue that led to his resignation, not his opinion on SSM. Mozilla didn't care about that. Like the Dodgers, what Mozilla cared about was whether its CEO was an asset or a liability to the bottom line. Like Campanis, he'd become the latter. Eich agreed.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2015 2:21 p.m.

    @Confused
    [No the LDS church said "Even though individuals do not choose to have such ATTRACTIONS, they do choose how to respond to them."...]

    Okay, and since sexual orientation is based on who you have attractions to, not based on actions (being a virgin doesn't mean you aren't heterosexual or homosexual, it just means you haven't had sex) that statement by the church says that people are born that way (since what else would it be if it weren't a choice?).

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 9, 2015 1:23 p.m.

    @AZKID wrote, "I work at a company which is openly and aggressively pro gay "marriage".

    Wow.

    They're going to fire you if you marry someone of the opposite sex? They're taking deductions from your pay to donate to LGBT causes? They put quotes around the word marriage when they refer to straight couples?

    Or do they just treat gay couples the same way they treat straight couples?

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    July 9, 2015 10:45 a.m.

    @ Karen R.

    I once again respectfully disagree. In today's climate, a gay person has zero chance of being fired for being gay. Zero. One call to the media, and the person doing the firing would be out the one out on their ear instead.

    Today's environment has people getting fired for simply speaking their conscience on this issue. Just ask ousted Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 9, 2015 8:03 a.m.

    @ AZKID

    I'm not sure what you mean by "aggressively pro-gay marriage," but the implication is that your disagreement could get you fired. If it did, all of the legal protection you would need to fight this injustice is already in place. It's against the law to discriminate on the basis of religion. You would just have to prove that this was the intent behind your termination (assuming you hadn't been creating a hostile atmosphere with your obvious disdain for some people's "marriages").

    Meanwhile, in more localities than not, it's still legal to be fired simply for being gay. So while you're out there in your Roe v. Wade kind of way fighting for protections you already have, make sure you demand the same protections for gay people too, okay? This will actually do more for your cause than what you're proposing. Equality protects us all.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    July 9, 2015 4:40 a.m.

    Karen R.

    I couldn't disagree with you more. I work at a company which is openly and aggressively pro gay "marriage" and I fear for my job if I so much as voice my opinion as to how this has played out. I need legal protection for my freedom of speech, and I see the Roe v. Wade path as much better outcome for me personally.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 8, 2015 5:15 p.m.

    @ Confused

    "Please site ONE study that says [sexual orientation] is not chosen."

    Google "biology and sexual orientation," then choose the Wikipedia link. It provides a good summary of the current state of research and provides links to studies.

    Also, from a pamphlet offered at apa.org (American Psychological Association):

    "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation."

    Note that it says "develops," not "chooses." It continues:

    "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

    I repeat: "[M]ost people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

    So now I ask you: Please cite one study that supports your (implied) contention that most of us DO choose our sexual orientation.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    July 8, 2015 3:08 p.m.

    @Confused --

    "No you did not use their language..."

    Sure I did.

    In my post of 9:23 AM I directly quoted the Mormons and Gays website.

    Yet again -- LGBTs **do not choose to have such attractions.**

    "they never said people were born that way, only that they have inherent tendencies"

    Why do you keep harping on birth? Your church says LGBTs do not choose to have such attractions. They can choose their action, but not their attraction. It doesn't *matter* whether their LGBTness starts at conception or at birth or at two minutes after birth -- there is no choice involved.

    "how we choose to do with those feelings is what the LDS church is talking about."

    I've already said that, Confused. As the church says -- LGBTs do NOT choose their attraction. They can only choose their action.

    Just exactly like interracial marriage.

    People can not choose their own race. But they *can* choose who to marry.

    "I asked which study proves people are that way,"

    I assume you mean "proves people are BORN that way".

    And again -- the exact moment at which LGBTness begins is irrelevant. The essential point is that IT IS NOT A CHOICE.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    July 8, 2015 2:29 p.m.

    Contrariusester,

    No you did not use their language... You said they said that people are "Born That Way", the quote I gave, is the EXACT words they used and YES they never said people were born that way, only that they have inherent tendencies... BIG BIG difference.

    Do you understand the concept between what "Feelings" and being "born that way" is?

    Everyone has feelings of one sort or another that they must figure out. like I said, some have feelings about addictions, how we choose to do with those feelings is what the LDS church is talking about.

    "People can't choose their race -- but they can choose who to marry" That is true, even for Gays... BUT that had NOTHING to do with my original post. I asked which study proves people are that way, and like a true liberal, you try to spin off topic to confuse others.... NOT me...

    And yet there is NO proof as I have said... people are born gay... Thank you for confirming it by not sited a source.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    July 8, 2015 1:32 p.m.

    @Confused --

    "the LDS church said "Even though individuals do not choose to have such ATTRACTIONS, they do choose how to respond to them."..."

    Yup.

    They don't choose the attraction -- the orientation.

    They can choose whether or not to have sex, just as you can.

    "If you are going to quote the LDS use their language..."

    I used their exact words -- but thanks for your concern.

    "addiction to alcohol"

    You're equating sexual orientation with a disease. Again, you are contradicting your own church.

    Quoting directly from mormonsandgays: "Attraction to those of the same sex, however, should not be viewed as a disease or illness."

    "You comparison to Racial Marriage is off topic and has no bearing on what I posted....."

    People can't choose their race -- but they can choose who to marry.

    Similarly, people can't choose their orientation -- but they also can choose who to marry.

    The two situations are exactly analogous.

    I hope this helps you out of your current confusion.

    "So please site a source that says gays are born "gay"..."

    Your own church acknowledges that people don't choose to be gay. Again: they can choose their action, but not their orientation.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    July 8, 2015 12:16 p.m.

    "Religious people have been mocked, abused, slandered, discriminated against, murdered, martyred, and on and on, many times through the ages."

    Hmm . . I would think you could at least admit they historically give as good as they get.

    "Suppose I ask a Baptist cake baker to bake me a cake with a picture of an LDS temple on it and he refuses on religious grounds. Can I get $135K out of him for emotional damage?"

    Yes . . if he's been decorating cakes with LDS temples for everyone else, but won't for you because you're LDS. If it's a service he doesn't normally provide, you're out of luck. Come on, man . . you have to have known this.

    "I would be pleasantly surprised if the victims of intolerance end up showing tolerance to those who continue to view them as perverts or misguided sinners."

    Because, of course telling someone they're a pervert and a misguided sinner is the key to nurturing a healthy respect for each other. Just like you'll be OK with someone considering you a sheep living in a fantasy world, right? I'm not sure you quite get what "tolerance" really means.

  • Nanook of the North Coquitlam BC Canada, 00
    July 8, 2015 11:59 a.m.

    I'd like to see Schaerr's "Twelve Hand Grenades" in detail. Is there a transcript of his remarks available somewhere?

    I've taken a very close look at other arguments expressing concern about "religious freedom" lately, including arguments made by legal expert Elder Dallin H. Oaks. And upon examination, the foundations of their arguments fall apart completely.

    People who oppose same-sex marriage have the First Amendment right to express their opposition. Other people also have the First Amendment right to criticise the foundations of that opposition. That's not "violating religious freedom", that's freedom of expression for all. If someone says that their religious freedom is being violated, and if upon examination it's not their "religious freedom" but rather their PRIVILEGE that is being "violated", then we have every right to call them out on it. The only REAL threat to religious freedom comes from those right-wing theocrats that want America to be "a Christian nation", but only for their preferred flavour of Christianity, of course. THAT is the ONLY serious threat to REAL religious freedom today in the United States of America.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    July 8, 2015 11:50 a.m.

    Contrariusiest,

    No the LDS church said "Even though individuals do not choose to have such ATTRACTIONS, they do choose how to respond to them."...

    If you are going to quote the LDS use their language...

    This coincides with research that says Gays have Genetic/DNA markers that they have a pre-disposition for these same sex attractions... Problem is "Everyone has pre-disposition marker for something".

    Mine happens to be "addiction to alcohol" do to may family heritage... That does not mean I was "born" an Alcoholic.

    Second, You comparison to Racial Marriage is off topic and has no bearing on what I posted.....
    comparing inter-racial marriage to gays being "born that way" is a bit weird for me to understand.

    Notice you never sited a actual source saying they are born that way.... So please site a source that says gays are born "gay"... Now please remember.... Gay marriage is a different issue than if they are born gay or not.

  • tennerifa Orem, UT
    July 8, 2015 9:24 a.m.

    @Meckofahess,
    Yours is the very attitude/outlook that I can agree with. As a supporter of Gay marriage, I feel that you are free to disagree with me about that concept, as I do with you. I strongly believe that people should be free to practice whatever religious tradition they choose. Where I have the problem is with the religious thinking that by baking that cake they are violating their religion.
    I suppose that it is all academic anyway, since I cannot imagine there will ever be many Gay couples beating down the doors of uber-religious bakers in Utah, attempting to get some sweets for their marriage celebration.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    July 8, 2015 9:23 a.m.

    @Confused --

    "Please site ONE study that says SSM is not chosen"

    Please site just one study that says interracial marriage is not chosen. (In case you didn't notice, "SSM" means "same-sex marriage.")

    "But that does not mean they are "born that way"."

    Even the LDS church acknowledges that homosexuality is not a choice.

    From the mormonsandgays website: "individuals do not choose to have such attractions"

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    July 8, 2015 9:11 a.m.

    Karen R.
    No, the SSM debate is every bit like those about skin color and interracial marriage. Sexual orientation and skin color aren't chosen.

    Please site ONE study that says SSM is not chosen, please just one scientific study that supports your comment...

    There is NONE... there are studies that says people may have a Genetic Disposition to SSM... But that does not mean they are "born that way".

    People have a genetic disposition to being addicted.... That does not make them born to be drug addicts or Alcoholics....

    I believe that if a person is any type of committed relationship they should have the same rights a married couple (Traditional) including getting the "Married" tax disadvantage.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    July 8, 2015 8:57 a.m.

    Regarding the view that states that want to get out of the marriage business are misguided, I disagree. Both the Reynolds decision and Obergefell, at their core are about government telling its citizens how they can and cannot form family relationships. While control over marriage was taken by government centuries ago, it does not make it right or the best way to shape a free and peaceful society. How about government enforcing a right to form family relationships any way mature adults want to? Perhaps it would be best if government had no place dictating the terms of our family relationships so long as their is no abuse of spouses or children. States getting out of the marriage business by not issuing marriage licenses to anyone might be a good first step. Maybe families just want to be left alone by government to pursue their own happiness the way they want to.

  • OneHumanFamily Provo, UT
    July 8, 2015 8:57 a.m.

    Yet another hysterical article in the Deseret News that has no basis in fact. But I guess facts just get in the way if you already think you know all the answers.

  • Justiciaparatodos Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2015 8:05 a.m.

    @From Ted's Head:

    You said: "I would be pleasantly surprised if the victims of intolerance (i.e the gay community) end up showing tolerance to those who continue to view them as perverts or misguided sinners. Pardon me if I suspect that isn't going to be what the future holds".

    You know, I can understand your point of view. I don't believe we should characterize other sinners in unkind terms. We can leave judgement up to God. However, you seem to suggest that people of conservatives faith who believe what the bible says and what God teaches should accept or embrace sin.

    If that is what you are suggesting, in my mind that is intolerant and misguided.

    Moreover, what do you say to gay citizens who characterize religious folks as bigots, hypocrites and "misguiding sinners"?

    We can do better, but it will require real effort and real tolerance!

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    July 8, 2015 7:52 a.m.

    " If supporters of traditional marriage retreat, are intimidated into silence and give up trying to find the right words to defend their beliefs, then the court's gay marriage decision will become a disaster for religious liberty, Dushku said."

    Interesting!, So, if those who are against Same Sex Marriage "fail" to articulate their ideas in a coherent manner, that means that LGBT people are violating their religious liberty. Am I reading this wrong?

    If your mind suffers from such paranoia that you are always preparing for war or being victimized. Chances are that you are going to be reading attacks and insults where there is none.

    I have full confidence that the cool head and common sense of the vast majority of citizens of this country will prevail.

  • Gandalf Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2015 7:38 a.m.

    This group of individuals quoted in the article are completely misguided in their legal analysis. If I said what I really thought, the DN censor would not let it through so I'll just stop there.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2015 7:27 a.m.

    I am unalterably opposed to the concept and practice of same gender marriage from rational and religious based orientations. That said, I do not now believe that it is productive to express my disagreement with same-sex unions by refusing to bake a wedding cake.I can respectfully bake a cake for any couple but the act of doing so in my view does not represent my support or condoning of same-sex marriage. In my view, I retain and maintain my religious belief in and support for traditional marriage between a man and a woman, but I also show civility and charity to others with whom I disagree.

    I certainly do not want others to discriminate against me in employment or anything else based upon my support of traditional marriage. We may need new laws to protect employment rights and such for conservatives who express their views in support of moral and religious tenets including traditional marriage. But let us not discriminate against others who disagree with our beliefs.

    I believe it is possible to respect the legal and constitutional rights of conservatives and the LGBT community if everyone works together.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 8, 2015 7:17 a.m.

    @Hordak: "It looks like most of the people on here identify with the group that wants to put traditional marriage advocates in the racist camp instead of the anti-abortion camp, which is sad, but not surprising."

    If the shoe fits… This is happening because people are actually listening to what is being said.

    If you want to "defend traditional marriage" then end no-fault divorce, require extensive premarital counseling and waiting times before getting a marriage license, require extensive marital counseling before divorce, criminalize adultery and criminalize out of wedlock births . Also, work to extend and support policies that help families – better options on daycare for working mothers, better wages for single income families, healthcare at a reasonable cost, and so on.

    But that is not what is happening. The entire "defend traditional marriage" movement is about blocking a group of people from having the same marital benefits that you have. The movement is not "defending traditional marriage," it is blocking a group of citizens from having civil rights.

    And their rhetoric mirrors the anti-interracial marriage crowd from 50 years ago.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 8, 2015 7:04 a.m.

    ""Obergefell has opened a religious freedom can of worms,"

    Maybe, just maybe that can of worms needed opening. Remember folks that despite all your "we are a Christian nation" and the Founding Fathers believed in God we are in fact a secular society who gives strong accommodations to religions and religious beliefs.

    The Bible says so is not a legal argument. In fact it's the very reason the opposition to SSM marriage came up with such ridiculous arguments. Yet from the beginning the treatment of Gay citizens has been based on the Bible and continues to fuel religious opposition such as this article.

    Therefore "opening up this can of worms" is exactly the right thing to do.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 8, 2015 6:46 a.m.

    In New York City the taxi commission tightly regulates the number of cabs that can operate by regulating the permits – or medallions – that are in circulation. That means when new medallions become available, or a company goes out of business and gets medallions will be resold, competition is fierce and bidding is very high.

    If states only allowed a certain number of couples to be married at anyone time, and thus tightly regulated the number of marriage licenses that were permitted to be sold each year, then game marriage would be a threat to traditional marriage.

    But that isn't how it works, of course.

    If people were

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 8, 2015 6:43 a.m.

    @KingsCourt: Thanks for your comment. Actually, anti-LGBT "Christians" are still free to verbally attack and demonize gay people. That's guaranteed by the First Amendment. And as far as actions go, sadly, in most jurisdictions of the US, there are no anti-discrimination provisions that specifically protect gay people.

    The "only" thing this ruling changed is overturning government bans on gay marriage. This only affects government agencies. Churches, businesses and individuals are unaffected. "Religious" individuals who object to same-sex marriage and who are engaged in secular businesses that provide goods and services for weddings may, however, come in conflict with public accommodations laws if they discriminate and if those laws cover LGBT. (Again, most don't.)

    The First Amendment, of course, doesn't immunize anyone against any consequences of their speech. One's employer, for example, has a right to expect employees to support company policy. Government agencies have a duty to serve the entire public. No one has a right to keep a job if they refuse to do that job the way their employer wants, or publicly disparage their employer or gainsay its policy. That's not persecution, just common sense.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 8, 2015 6:36 a.m.

    Sadly, the discussion of same sex marriage has degenerated into a religious conflict. Whose rights are superior? The rights of the religiously fundamental who view same sex marriage as some sort of sin akin to murder and worthy of societal taboo? Or the rights of the religiously liberal (and non religious) who don't have a problem with same sex marriage at all.

    For a very long time, the religiously conservative have held sway in the arguments regarding many social issues: slavery, woman's rights, family planning and abortion and same sex marriage, to name a few. Most of these issues have been "liberalized" to the dismay of fundamentalists. I don't know if same sex marriage is the last of the shibboleths to fall, but the organized religious institutions who still see homosexuality as sin are in a righteous snit over the issue.

    All I ask for it to live and let live. The religiously conservative have lost the argument, and it is time for them to do the same.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    July 7, 2015 10:38 p.m.

    So "12 hand grenades" is how the anti-marriage crowd shows their civility and graciousness. I would expect nothing else from a group that wants to force people to "live in sin" without the sanctity of marriage. Perhaps someday they will read their scriptures and really learn what God expects of them.

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    July 7, 2015 10:21 p.m.

    What we should do is revisit Marbury vs. Madison. I cannot believe it was the intention of the founding fathers to give such power to 5 highly partisan humans. Nor do I believe it could be in favor with God. Are there any original thinkers in our judicial system or have they all been brainwashed by legal "scholars" of the law schools?

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    July 7, 2015 9:53 p.m.

    Loving v. Virginia did not overthrow religious freedom by legalizing interracial marriage. Obergefell v Hodges won't either. Of course that won't stop those who lost the Gay Marriage debate from making outrageous claims to the contrary. Its not surprising that the author of the "Twelve Hand-grenades" theory is the same lawyer who tried to convince the Supreme Court that Gay Marriage would "lead to 900,000 abortions over the next generation." Even Justice Scalia didn't pay any attention to that latter claim.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    July 7, 2015 9:21 p.m.

    Will they just give this up? Religious freedom isn't under attack. People can still go to church and believe what they want and marry who they want. The only they can't do anymore is attack and demonize homosexuals and make them conform to specific religious values. Our country was founded as a secular nation, not a theocracy. If this keeps up, people are going to leave religion behind faster than they already are doing.

  • Sasha Pachev Provo, UT
    July 7, 2015 9:02 p.m.

    Suppose I ask a Baptist cake baker to bake me a cake with a picture of an LDS temple on it and he refuses on religious grounds. Can I get $135K out of him for emotional damage? From the perspective of somebody who grew up in the Soviet Union - American government comes out as hypocritical - on one hands it says it believes in liberty and private property to the point of sending military force to fight for it all over the world, on the other hand it dictates to its own private businesses who they should hire and who they are obligated to serve. You can be certain that Putin's propaganda machine does not fail to notice that, and now you will have a difficult time convincing a Russian boy that the American democracy is the way to go - so he votes for Putin.

  • From Ted's Head Orem, UT
    July 7, 2015 8:28 p.m.

    There exists a beautiful opportunity for those who oppose gay marriage to learn compassion and tolerance for those who have a differing viewpoint. Society's values continue to change and handwringing or wishing for bygone days won't undo what has been done. Accepting the changes as fact doesn't mean one can't be of the opinion that gay marriage is an abomination before God. For now we still have the freedom to publicly state as much. Do I expect that continuing to voice unpopular, "bigoted" beliefs will result in unfavorable consequences? Absolutely. Would it be easier to colorize my facebook profile pic and jump on the "equality" bandwagon? Certainly it would. But I'm not looking for easy or popular. I would be pleasantly surprised if the victims of intolerance (i.e the gay community) end up showing tolerance to those who continue to view them as perverts or misguided sinners. Pardon me if I suspect that isn't going to be what the future holds.

  • 4Freedom Columbus, OH
    July 7, 2015 8:24 p.m.

    Hutterite,

    This is not a new phenomenon. Religious ideology has been attacked countless times through the ages. This very issue of acceptance and embracing of homosexual relationships as normal is not new--it is just new to this particular society. We have limited but clear descriptions of how some of those instances ended up in the past.

    Also, religious people have been mocked, abused, slandered, discriminated against, murdered, martyred, and on and on, many times through the ages. It has been and is happening again--at least some of it. We are now seeing the very behaviors that the left decried--intolerance, etc. Where are those loud voices now?

    It is fascinating yet disgusting that so many people slam religion the way do in the name of freedom while seeking to remove the freedom that was founded on clear religious principles. People will one day see that the "obstacles" they are hacking away are nothing more than their own precious liberties.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    July 7, 2015 8:17 p.m.

    Pat Condell, an atheist in the U.K. even recognizes how the criminalization of "hate speech" is not only unconstitutional, but that the generations of liberal college students today... the generation that actually believes that words can be criminalized... will govern us in 30 years. They will be deciding what is lawful and what is criminal.

    There are already gay judges. But the young generation today that has let moral relativism embitter and seduce their feelings into hatred... this generation will eventually be the judges in our courts. Any time a religious person is in question, for anything, I fear that we will see things so awful that we've yet to see in the history of mankind.

    That's a pretty gloomy and depressing picture. If you disagree with me, rather than tell me how wrong I am. Please show me instead. I beg you, please show me through your actions for the rest of our lives, that I am wrong. I sorely hope I don't need to fear that judges will criminalize me even believing something. You have your state-recognized stamp of approval. Now leave me alone.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 7, 2015 7:48 p.m.

    Religion is finally having to begin relinquishing it's privileged spot at the table, which it has enjoyed for thousands of years. It's not going to go willingly, but it's going to have to go.

  • Hordak Lehi, UT
    July 7, 2015 7:33 p.m.

    It looks like most of the people on here identify with the group that wants to put traditional marriage advocates in the racist camp instead of the anti-abortion camp, which is sad, but not surprising. I've been called much worse for expressing my views and that was long before the Supreme Court ruling. A big difference between racial segregation and marriage segregation is that race has nothing to do with the birth and rearing of children, whereas marriage and abortion are so intertwined with the family, that there will always be opposition to both, no matter what the courts say. It has nothing to do with intolerance, just the belief that every child deserves to be raised by a mom and dad. That's not to say there won't be divorce, children born to single parents, etc. but it's one thing to live with exceptions and another to elevate them. I learned very different things from my mom and my dad, and I don't believe it's simply because they're two different people.

  • Alexis64 Sunnyvale, CA
    July 7, 2015 7:09 p.m.

    I don't get it. Religious institutions have always been able to pick and choose who they will or will not marry -- Catholics won't remarry divorced people, Jews won't marry a divorced person to a Cohen, many denominations don't accept interfaith marriage, most clergy require some sense of faith. Why are marriages of gays any different?

    Are you trying to say that a Catholic baker can refuse to make a wedding cake for a divorced person remarrying? That a religious person can refuse to sell flowers for a wedding involving a religious sect whose schism from their own they don't accept? (Remember, not so many years ago people cited Divine provenance as the reason for shunning interracial marriages.)

    When you are a religious institution you get to follow your conscience. When you have a business license, part of your contract with the government is that you will provide public accommodation to all comers.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 7, 2015 7:01 p.m.

    "freedom grenades"...

    Slippery slope arguments in the same tone that followed Loving v Virginia.

    In two years it will be 50 years since Loving v Virginia.

    The freedom grenade pieces launched by enterprising lawyers after Loving v Virginia never came to fruition.

    Some southern states left unenforceable laws on the books to spite the SCOTUS decision.

    Life moved on...

    C'est la vie.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 7, 2015 6:35 p.m.

    I'd like to say something positive about Mr. Schaerr. If the state of Utah wants to spend more money on outside counsel to support traditional marriage, please rehire Mr. Schaerr. As a supporter of the legalization of same-sex marriage, I am pleased with the results that he has achieved so far.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 7, 2015 6:34 p.m.

    Isn't Gene Schaerr the lawyer who presented a terribly flimsy and ill-reasoned case to the Court, causing Utah to lose its ban against same-sex marriage? Isn't he the same lawyer who then went on to do the same thing for Nevada and Idaho with exactly the same argument, having learned nothing in the interim?

    He had no idea how to pursue a case about marriage. What makes anyone think he's any more of an authority on the legal basis of religious liberty? The only thing he's an authority on is how to get worried conservative politicians to open their checkbooks for his services.

    Don't bite again.

    As for his "dozen grenades," I don't get it. Other than public accommodations laws (where those even cover LGBT, because most don't), and not even that since they're not modified in any way by marriage, what is he counting? You want to sequester your kids away from the world? That hasn't changed, you still have to enroll them in your church's parochial school and turn off the TV.

    Churches and religion are unaffected.

    His whole list is nonsense.

  • 4Freedom Columbus, OH
    July 7, 2015 6:27 p.m.

    Easy for you to say, PeskyWabbit. Tell that to the people getting sued tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars for maintaining their religious beliefs.

    Many people don't realize the negative ramifications of the Supreme Court's decision. Frank Fourth, I believe we will see that it is the people crying for same sex "marriage," who insist that nothing is wrong, who are really the ones who are crying wolf. One day the stark realization of the grave aftermath of this decision will be apparent and regrettable. Just because your life goes on as normal right now does not mean everything (or anything) was right about this decision.

    We can ignore and even reject God's laws but there are associated consequences for doing so that are inescapable, both for individuals and nations.

  • Manzanita Las Vegas, NV
    July 7, 2015 6:08 p.m.

    Marriage equality has now launched "religious freedom grenades" in this “war” on religious freedom. With that nuanced introduction, I just read the Church’s amicus brief in Obergfell, and the threats seem less like grenades and more like self-planted land mines. Dushku, who authored the brief, failed to mention anywhere in his brief the cases of Loving v. Virginia and Reynolds v. U.S. He also wrote that "we cannot renounce scriptural beliefs", yet fails to point out that on the doctrines of polygamy and bans on interracial marriage, the Church has previously done just that. He speaks of the unassailable virtue of traditional, monogamous marriage across millennia, yet fails to ever acknowledge that the Church once taught and practiced polygamy as the only marriage worthy of heaven, and that it is still canonized doctrine in D&C 132. He argues that these decisions about marriage should be made by state and local democratic institutions, yet he fails to disclose that the Church lobbied for federal legislation to define marriage as between a man and a woman. If you want to convince us of your arguments, you must first treat us as adults.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2015 5:55 p.m.

    @LDSAZ
    Abortion clinics were the ones getting bombed, and providers assassinated like Dr. Tiller. What even comes remotely close to that has been done to pro-lifers?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 7, 2015 5:49 p.m.

    LDSAZ writes, "I remember lawsuits, protests, angry pro-abortionists, and vigorous religious debate over the issue. It had to run an ugly course and many were seriously harmed over it all. Some were forced to quit their professions."

    The angry and violent protests were the "prolife" bunch with their doctored photos of suspiciously developed fetuses. Lawsuits, yes--when public hospitals refused to let legal procedures be performed there, yes, there were lawsuits. And they were successful.

    "Some were forced to quit"? Or "were assessed heavy penalties"? Name two.

  • Frank Fourth New York, NY
    July 7, 2015 5:22 p.m.

    Let's stop crying wolf.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 7, 2015 5:21 p.m.

    "If supporters of traditional marriage retreat, are intimidated into silence and give up trying to find the right words to defend their beliefs, then the court's gay marriage decision will become a disaster for religious liberty."

    First of all, the obvious. You are referring to "supporters of discrimination against a same sex couple", not "supporters of traditional marriage". Virtually 100% of all Americans support traditional marriage.

    I'm not sure what "the right words" would consist of. Mr. Schearr is no legal newbie, and he was unable to come up with any solid reason to oppose gay marriage. "My religion says so" doesn't come across as "the right words". Few people criticize the Mormons for not drinking coffee because this particular prohibition doesn't affect anyone except themselves. And Mormon-owned businesses serve coffee. But if you cater to weddings outside of your church, there are no "right words" to explain why you will cater a wedding reception at X church if the couple is straight but not at X Church if the couple is gay.

  • LDSAZ Casa Grande, AZ
    July 7, 2015 5:20 p.m.

    Karen R. conveniently forgets all the doctors who refused to perform abortions because of religious beliefs. I remember lawsuits, protests, angry pro-abortionists, and vigorous religious debate over the issue. It had to run an ugly course and many were seriously harmed over it all. Some were forced to quit their professions. Some were taken to court and assessed heavy penalties. Perhaps some of those will comment here.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2015 5:19 p.m.

    "If society equates support for marriage between a man and a woman culturally and legally with racism, religious liberty as a practical matter would be severely restricted, Dushku said."

    Is the Westboro Baptist Church restricted in its' religious rights? After all, isn't that what this is worrying about? That people will see other churches that oppose same-sex marriage in a similar light to how most people see the most extreme (at least visibly among churches popularly known) anti-gay church today?

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2015 5:13 p.m.

    Schaerr's arguments against SSM and for "traditional marriage" were some of the most hysterical and unfounded arguments that anyone had ever heard. Even supporters saw the major flaws in his many times twisted arguments. It was a major reason that he lost that case.

    But Utah paid him handsomely with tax payer funds. That was again something that was sad.

    Freedom of religion will be the next big flaw in his arguments. The real issue is will American citizens, many of which are younger and more educated tolerate the bigotries of the past? Likely not, but religions will still be able to say and do what they want. They will however be under the microscope as there were when civil rights became the law of the land.

    The fight now is against the imposition of someone's religious beliefs into our secular society. Businesses need to follow the law. Discrimination is becoming a very big deal in our country. Even the bigotry against our duly elected President in this state is sickening.

  • Peskywabbit Salt lake, UT
    July 7, 2015 5:04 p.m.

    Conservatives have created a cottage industry based on shakey prognostications.

    Iraqis were supposed to greet their American liberators with bunches of flowers, Obamacare was going to send American healthcare into a predicted "death spiral", and Obama was going to institute a national ban on firearms.

    I'm confident that we will be able to work out the wedding flowers and pizza dilemma with a minimum of restrictions on religious freedom.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2015 5:02 p.m.

    If I understand what he is saying, its that the world is coming to an end, and its the Supreme Courts fault. Yawn.

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    July 7, 2015 4:56 p.m.

    No-no's are no-no's because they lead us away from the celestial kingdom; that only place in the hereafter where there can be found eternal marriage, eternal procreation, eternal families, and the building of God's celestial family that enjoys everything that God has to give his children. Some do not want that eventual outcome and society has to regularly accommodate those legitimate desires to not want all of His blessings.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 7, 2015 4:43 p.m.

    "How did society get to a place where pro-lifers could still have careers and be open and express their views without becoming outcasts?"

    Were they ever outcasts? I think this is an overstatement. And the comparison is a mistaken one. Virtually no one believes fetuses should be aborted as a means of mere birth control. Virtually everyone wants to limit the use of the procedure. Where we differ is on approach.

    No, the SSM debate is every bit like those about skin color and interracial marriage. Sexual orientation and skin color aren't chosen. Neither are inherently harmful. What HAS caused harm are the beliefs and superstitions about them arising from our lack of understanding of their origins.

    But just like with skin color, the more we understand and become familiar with all things homosexual, and the more that time proves our fears aren't going to be realized, the fear and hysteria will subside. And they'll eventually be replaced with the acknowledgement that we were wrong for ever discriminating against them in the first place.