Are college campuses the next battleground in religious freedom-LGBT rights conflict?

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.


  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 27, 2016 10:14 a.m.

    To "rdean92" here are some examples:

    "Boston U distances itself from an incoming professor's controversial remarks about white male college students." at Higher Ed. We see the university did nothing to the Professor, yet we have recently seen White Professors fired for doing less.

    "Court to decide if discrimination against whites is still a good thing" at American Thinker.

    "Rejected Asian students sue Harvard over admissions that favor other minorities" Fox News

    "White professors sue Alabama State for discrimination" at USA Today

    "Controversy on campus: Conservative group's flyers defaced and removed" At Fox. Yet Planned Parenthood is welcom on most campuses without a word said.

    "American flag ban on California college campus draws lawmakers' rebuke" in the DN. ALso "California Students Sent Home for Wearing U.S. Flags on Cinco de Mayo" at Fox where we see Mexican flags allowed but not US flags.

    The discrimination exists, you and your ilk just don't want to accept that fact.

  • rdean92 Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 26, 2016 7:37 p.m.

    RedShirtCalTech, please site one example of a "liberal university" that discriminates in the way you are suggesting. I don't follow. I fully support everyone having ALL the information (whatever that is). As tax payers, we should all have ALL of that info (good, bad or ugly) and if "liberal Universities" are discriminating, then in fact, that is not ok.

    Libertyforall, perhaps for Utah tax payers (though it's still not right), but not for Federal Taxpayers, yes.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Jan. 26, 2016 2:48 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech
    "If there is a rule that states men cannot wear a dress on campus [...]"
    Then it's sex-based discrimination.

    "To "rdean92" then should we also have a list of ALL organizations that receive federal funding?"
    Maybe the "list" isn't formatted how you like it, but that largely does exist. And when it's not already posted (most of it is), you can file a Freedom of Information Request to get it.

    That said, it is mostly conservative (specifically religious conservative) groups objecting to transparency of late. As seen in this case, in Oklahoma, and in Mississippi, the condition of "but people will known ahead of time" is anathema to people that want to discriminate.

    @greatbam22
    "They break it down into either you accept it or you reject it. Either your a bigot or your not. You either love or you hate."
    You're defending the right of universities to arbitrarily discriminate against gay people, but it's gay people "burning bridges" by calling you a bigot? What happened to "actions speak louder then words"?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 26, 2016 12:31 p.m.

    @Jimbo Low
    "which article of the constitution "enshrined" slavery? Please educate me as I am not familiar with that verbage or amendment (I think it MAY clash with the 14th--go check it out)."

    Of course it clashes with the 14th Amendment. The 14th (along with the 13th and 15th) were added after the Civil War.

    "if you are not familiar with societies that have fallen chasing immoral lifestyles that include homosexuality"

    Rome had homosexuality long before its' fall. If anything it was more Christian when it collapsed but it didn't fall because of that either.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Jan. 26, 2016 12:29 p.m.

    To "Sylvia33" so you are saying that rape is ok because you do not believe "that sexual feelings must be controlled to a strict standard"?

    To "rdean92" then should we also have a list of ALL organizations that receive federal funding?

    All universities and colleges discriminate. The problem is that liberals have taken it upon themselves to determine what sort of discrimination is ok. For example, it is ok for a school to discriminate against a white man in order to admit a black woman. It is ok to discriminate against a conservative student organization while welcoming a liberal organization. It is ok to discriminate against somebody who wants to display the US flag on a campus located in the US, but not ok to discriminate against somebody who wants to display the Mexican flag. It is ok to discriminate against Christians, but not against Atheists and Muslims.

    If you eliminate discrimination, how could a place like Harvard ever reject anybody, they have to discriminate in order to eliminate students that are ill prepared or do not meet the standards required for their institution.

    Why is it so hard for your ilk to accept the fact that you discriminate?

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Jan. 26, 2016 12:18 p.m.

    To "Furry1993" the problem is how do determine when discrimination occurs.

    If there is a rule that states men cannot wear a dress on campus, and they define men by genetics not by what you feel like, how can there be any discrimination against a trans-gendered male student that wants to wear a dress? The policy is equal for straight and trans-gendered male students.

    Who decides what is discrimination and what is not? Is it discrimination to

    To "Karen R." if the Federal Government pulled its funding from a place like BYU, it wouldn't hurt the school much at all. It will hurt students by pulling Pell Grants from them, and possibly student loans. With the number of people applying to BYU, those that use Federal Aid will be replaced by somebody who doesn't.

    I noticed you couldn't even refute Kora's statement about liberal discrimination.

    To "Frozen Fractals" so you agree that the gay bakers discriminate because they would offer their FULL SERVICES to write bible verses on a cake. As liberals have stated you must serve all customers equally, handing them the icing to write on the cake is DISCRIMINATION.

  • rdean92 Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 26, 2016 9:07 a.m.

    Might I remind those who disagree with the "list approach" that the reason this is happening is that we all (the American people) spend our personal money on these private institutions though taxes. Why should they be able to discriminate? If they take Federal money (money from the people) then they should be willing to live by the guidelines that you cannot discriminate, period. How do you explain otherwise? Why is this such a problem for people?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 26, 2016 5:42 a.m.

    @greatbam22 9:00 p.m. Jan. 25, 2016

    First the qualifier -- I am a person of deep and abiding faith (LDS). I've been a Christian all my life.

    The basic issue concerning sexual orientation/identity is simple -- Nobody is being denied the right to believe what they want, worship where ad as they choose, socialize according to their beliefs, etc. The only thing that is being addressed is the fact that, regardless one's sexual orientation/identity, we all have eh right to be free of discrimination in our civil, secular interactions. LGBT people should not have to e pushed back into the closet to get along with the straight people with whom they come into contact. "Render unto Caesar the tings that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. Belief, worship, etc., are "God" things. Civil, secular things (including protecting against prejudicial discrimination). are "Caesar" things.

    Nobody is trying to put scrutiny on religious organizations. People who might interact with the religious organizations just need to know what they will face when the fact that they are LGBY becomes know. If they will face discrimination, they need to know up front. That's all.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Jan. 26, 2016 2:22 a.m.

    If Utah's model legislation, SB296 extended protections to government officials who do not wish to issue marriage licenses, why is it not an equal protection and due process violation for other government institutions who do not wish to admit, serve or house gay people?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 26, 2016 2:14 a.m.

    re: greatbam22 "....government to put more scrutiny on educational religious organizations that don't agree with their lifestyle."

    But what about others that don't agree with your lifestyle, all that self righteous finger wagging, judging and condemning going on...

    Who wins?

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    Jan. 25, 2016 9:00 p.m.

    I response I often hear / read from liberals / LGBT activists is that they like make the issues surrounding sexuality, gender identity, etc and pretend like they are simple. They break it down into either you accept it or you reject it. Either your a bigot or your not. You either love or you hate.

    I am sorry that many have to resort this this kind of thinking. It often resorts to it is either my way or the highway type of thinking. It ends up with many burned down bridges because the other side is unwilling to compromise.

    It ignores the fact / idea that in a lot of situations both sides can come to a win / win scenario.

    All this smells like to me is that an LGBT activist group are actively trying to get the government to put more scrutiny on educational religious organizations that don't agree with their lifestyle.

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    Jan. 25, 2016 8:02 p.m.

    @the real maverick

    "Why are religious institutions receiving federal money in the first place? Don't I have a say in how many hard earned money is being spent? Or is that too liberal of an idea for some of you? Is my job merely to provide for the welfare and entitlement of corporations and religious institutions?"

    Do religious folk not pay taxes? I love the "how my hard earned money is being spent" fallacy unless you are part of the top 10% of the folks in the US then you are probably contributing pennies to the things you mentioned.

    In case you didn't know.."Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes".

    @gingermarshall

    "Believe whatever "sincere" belief you want to hold, but do unto others as you would have others do unto you - in other words, be polite and kind to your neighbors. Even if those neighbors are gay or transgender. "

    In other words step aside religionist while we bully you into agree, believing, and doing as we do!

    Christ said "come follow me."

    He didn't say: "hey you! get over here and follow me and be nice to everyone while your at it!"

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 25, 2016 7:50 p.m.

    Worf: Right is the same civil rights for everyone.
    Wrong is believing your religion can take away someone else's rights, when those rights do not affect you in any way.

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    Jan. 25, 2016 7:02 p.m.

    @Ranchhand

    "Jesus said to treat others the way you would want them to treat you. All of these "religious" schools aren't being very true to their religious beliefs if they won't even follow this basic commandment."

    Jesus also said: "If you love me, keep my commandments." Is it not one of Gods commandments to multiply and replenish?

    How can LGBT people accomplish this commandment in pursuing LGBT relationships?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 25, 2016 6:31 p.m.

    @Jimbo Low 9:33 a.m. Jan. 25, 2016

    "First, Misty--which article of the constitution "enshrined" slavery? Please educate me as I am not familiar with that verbage or amendment (I think it MAY clash with the 14th--go check it out)."

    It's not a blatant provision, but if you know how the Constitution was created and know the compromises that go into it, the provision can be found. It's the first paragraph in Article 1 Section 9 which says: "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person." The people who are "migrating" or being "imported" are the slaves. This provision says that no state can ban the importation of slaves until 1803, thereby giving slave owners plenty of time to increase and establish their "livestock" (and that's how slave owners viewed their slaves).

    Misty was very accurate in what she said.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Jan. 25, 2016 2:54 p.m.

    @Mick
    "The fact is there are hundreds of schools, bakeries and cake shops to choose from. But the LGBT community always seems to find the one or two that have a different set of standards. While you believe my standards aren't reasonable, I believe yours aren't either."
    Yeah, it's almost like schools, bakeries and cake shops don't actually advertise their intent to discriminate. Maybe if there were a list of schools that *did* intend to discriminate, gay kids could avoid going to those schools.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Jan. 25, 2016 2:32 p.m.

    This reminds me of last year, when Oklahoma was pushing it's "Religious Freedom Act". A representative offered an amendment that would allow business to discriminate (as long as they add "because God"), but they have to put notices of their intention to discriminate at their business and websites and such.

    Naturally, the amendment was derided as an attack on Christianity, horrible offensive, and so-on.

    It's sort of surreal. Prior to the Civil Rights Act, people were proud to put up signs announcing their intent to discriminate. Then that discrimination was banned. Now they know how bad the signs looked and don't want to bring those back, but they do want what the signs announced. They just don't want to admit it.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Jan. 25, 2016 12:32 p.m.

    @Jimbo Low:

    The Roman Republic was founded in 509BC and, in 27BC transformed into the Roman Empire, which stood until 476AD. That is 985 years, and during that time same-sex relations were accepted throughout Rome, especially between men.

    Historically, though, we find that after being the first world super power for nearly 900 years Rome fell less than a century after Christianity became the state religion.

    Other factors included corrupt politicians who held office primarily to enrich themselves and their cronies, and a bloated military that demanded an ever increasing budget, causing the civil infrastructure to collapse in disrepair.

    In other words, the Roman Empire fell because of the same agenda as our current right-wing: Turn Christianity into the official state religion, put political puppets in office to enrich the 1%, and keep expanding the military by claiming threats are behind every shadow.

    On the other hand, the gays were part of the force that built Rome and made it strong and secure for 900 years.

  • UT Brit London, England
    Jan. 25, 2016 10:11 a.m.

    Jimbo Low

    Brigham Young said Rome fell because of them practicing monogamy, he said polygamy was the ideal and God punished them for it.

    Also if you think Rome fell because of homosexuality I suggest you take some history lessons on the rise and fall of the roman empire. You will find it had nothing at all to do with homosexuality.

  • Jimbo Low PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Jan. 25, 2016 9:33 a.m.

    @MistyMountain:
    "Jimbo, slavery was enshrined in the Constitution..."
    This is the odd strategy of the liberal crowd--people back then did _____, therefore we can't trust anything they did and we must recreate the constitution ourselves.
    First, Misty--which article of the constitution "enshrined" slavery? Please educate me as I am not familiar with that verbage or amendment (I think it MAY clash with the 14th--go check it out).
    Second, if you are not familiar with societies that have fallen chasing immoral lifestyles that include homosexuality--my words remaining are limited so get off the internet boards and dig a little deeper. If you want to start with the net--how about Greece and Rome for a starting place.
    Third--the constitution is an inspired document from which we should base our laws. This includes the free exercise of religion.

  • 65TossPowerTrap Salmon, ID
    Jan. 25, 2016 9:30 a.m.

    Cut the double talk - this is an effort to "black list" and target schools.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 25, 2016 7:38 a.m.

    This shouldn't be a topic of discussion.

    Some folks can't distinguish between right and wrong.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 24, 2016 9:56 p.m.

    Religious schools want to discriminate but they don't want anyone to know they discriminate because people may think poorly of them if they know they discriminate.

    If you can't stand by what you do, perhaps there is a problem with what you are doing.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 24, 2016 7:31 p.m.

    LGBT are not actively trying to take away the rights of conservatives.
    Conservatives are actively trying to take away the rights of LGBT.
    That is a huge difference that the conservatives posting comments do not get or are not willing to admit.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Jan. 24, 2016 4:10 p.m.

    There just isn't anything here worth turning into "the next battleground." Nonetheless, it seems like there are always groups out there that need a "next battleground" to keep the money coming in. If there isn't a real battleground available they will try to create one. That's all this is. It isn't a threat - its a fund raising opportunity.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Jan. 24, 2016 3:43 p.m.

    @Sylvia33: "All people in America should be able to live as their conscience tells them...."

    And that is exactly what the Department of Education is helping with.

    Title IX says schools cannot receive funds if they discriminate against students or staff about sexual orientation or gender identity.

    Fifty-six religious colleges have requested a waiver so they can discriminate against some students and still receive Title IX funds.

    Every single one of those waivers were granted - those schools have a waiver allowing discrimination.

    The DOE is simply making the list of schools available to the general public. This will help students who's conscience would keep them from attending a school that discriminates from inadvertently enrolling. It will help professional organizations that don't support discrimination to avoid association with those schools. It will help accreditation agencies to identify schools that discriminate.

    This is sunshine. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    Jan. 24, 2016 3:12 p.m.

    Title IX , seemingly so fair, right, and equitable, is about as unfair, up equitable, and right as any federal legislation ever was. No one is against giving equal opportunity to women, at least I am not against it, but title IX redistributes opportunities without any fairness to to whether any of the sports should exist at all. Men's wrestling programs were decimated by title IX. Was that fair? At USU, wrestling was drawing far more interest and paying for itself, but other women sports were put in place with empty seats. Did that matter? No, not to those seeking "Justice" and "fairness" by eliminating opportunities for others, including where there was interest. Most of the women sports, with some exceptions, ride financially on the coat tails of men's football and basketball. Does that matter? Nope? In a world where people demand opportunities and "fairness" without having to get there with hard work, title IX is another perfect vehicle for redistribution at the expense of others willing to do the hard work.

  • Misty Mountain Kent, WA
    Jan. 24, 2016 2:55 p.m.

    @Jimbo Low wrote, "Religious freedom was certainly addressed and the absolute right to practice religion as one sees fit.
    Those wanting to re-write the history of the constitution and acceptable values have cast aside lessons from history; go down this road and destruction is imminent and certain."

    Jimbo, slavery was enshrined in the Constitution. And it was based on Biblical Christianity. It's been 150 years since this "value" was cast aside; how soon is the "imminent and certain" destruction going to happen? We're waiting for your answer.

  • Sylvia33 Hyrum, UT
    Jan. 24, 2016 2:26 p.m.

    The Red Guard is out in full force making sure that conservative people be forced to not live according to their conscience......All people in America should be able to live as their conscience tells them....it is not discrimination, it is a moral issue. Some people simply believe that sexual feelings must be controlled to a strict standard. We respect the rights of anyone to believe differently...

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    Jan. 24, 2016 2:25 p.m.

    This whole argument tells you how irrelevant, irrational, amoral, and politically correct campuses have become. Instead of learning, we have universities trying to mediate and proscribe "correct" thinking. How unamerican, anti first amendment, and ignorant, the very things a University education is supposed to remediate and help students overcome. Now on display is bigoted, intolerant, pseudo intelligence.

  • Scribner Fuquay-Varina, NC
    Jan. 24, 2016 1:25 p.m.

    When the left disingenuously states "Faith does not allow you to discriminate", they fail to realize that religion, by its very nature, is discriminatory. Religion always has taught principles for behavior according to the doctrine of that faith. "Good" vs "Bad", "Righteous" vs. "Evil";. Trying to hide behind the politically correct mantra of non-discrimination fails when it comes to the protection of Freedom of Religion. Too often those who belabor the establishment clause; as the reason religion must be held at arm's length by government they conveniently ignore the rest of the phrase, - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How can the federal government implement policy that runs counter to the faith of its citizens without violating the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion? For that agency that tries to pass judgement about what religious doctrine is allowed or not violates the First Amendment right of freedom of religion in its entirety! By stating what religious doctrine is allowed, the federal government has assumed the mantle of religion and has become a religion unto itself. At the same time, it proscribes the faith of other religions whose beliefs runs counter to federal policy.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2016 12:19 p.m.

    @Kora
    "In Colorado a baker who opposes Gay Marriage cannot legally refuse to make a gay wedding cake, but a baker who doesn't like certain bible verses, can refuse to put them on a cake, even though she does other writings on cake. Isn't that religious discrimination?"

    Well one refused to bake a cake period and the other was willing to bake the cake and give frosting and one of those tube squeezy thingies whatever they're called so that they could write whatever they wanted on it.

    @Kora
    "What you are talking about is stopping students from getting Pell Grants or loans for these schools. Isn't that discriminating against the students for their religious beliefs?"

    No because these rules apply to all students going to these or other schools the same. Nothing's stopping an LDS or non-LDS student from going to the U or the Y for intance. You'd probably have a better argument asking if it were discriminating against the school for its religious beliefs.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 24, 2016 12:00 p.m.

    Something I've noticed.

    There are requirements found in Title IX which require non-discrimination based on sexual orientation and sexual identity. Adherence to those requirements constitute a pre-condition for receiving federal money unless an exemption concerning them is given. The colleges in question have already been given an exemption to the requirement to adhere to those non-discrimination requirements based on their claim of so-called religious freedom. They can make whatever rules they want and teach whatever they want concerning sexual orientation and sexual identity and they are still eligible to get all of the federal money to which they would be entitled if they followed all of the non-discrimination provisions of Title IX.

    The colleges aren't being restricted or sanctioned in any way as a result of their actions or positions or requirements. The only thing happening is that the public will now be able easily to find out which colleges have received exemptions to the Title IX requirements of non-discrimination in the areas of sexual orientation and sexual identity.

    The public is gaining now easily-obtained information. Nothing more; nothing less.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Jan. 24, 2016 10:50 a.m.

    @Mick: "There are no rules being broken. Some schools follow a set of standards."

    Comparing Planned Parenthood services to college admissions and employment standards is comparing apples to bicycles. The former is about funding for specific services, the latter is how students and employees are treated at the school.

    The requested Title IX exemptions are *not* about religion classes vs math and history classes, it is about schools accepting federal Title IX dollars and excluding students based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This is exactly the same as schools taking federal money and excluding students based on race or ethnicity or religion. These schools want an exception allowing them to discriminate *and* they want it kept secret.

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    Jan. 24, 2016 9:20 a.m.

    Many years ago, the late senator Barry Goldwater once said, "you can't legislate love".
    Well, it seems they're trying awfully hard.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2016 8:59 a.m.

    "Are college campuses the next battleground in religious freedom-LGBT rights conflict?"
    =============

    The **next** battlefield!?

    Whoever came up with that question for the headline must not have been in touch with the news for at least the last 30 years.

    There is no place where freedom of speech and freedom of thought has been challenged more during that time than in many, if not most, college campuses. It's why even comedians have recently pointed out what a mine field college campuses have become for anyone even hinting at expressing an opinion that smacks of dissent from the politically-correct puritanism of the pampered and self-indulgent whiners found most prominently on college campuses.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    Jan. 24, 2016 7:53 a.m.

    Ginger-

    Religious schools teach math, history and science. Federal funding goes toward teaching these subjects or funding athletics for programs so more women's can compete and get scholarships. This federal funding doesn't go to religious education.

    Religious schools can separate their money just like planned parenthood if it would make you happy. It is just book keeping and money shuffling. Just like PP.

    There are no rules being broken. Some schools follow a set of standards.

    The fact is there are hundreds of schools, bakeries and cake shops to choose from. But the LGBT community always seems to find the one or two that have a different set of standards. While you believe my standards aren't reasonable, I believe yours aren't either.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 24, 2016 6:58 a.m.

    @ Kora

    First, institutions aren't entitled to be included in the grant program. They must qualify.

    Second, the nature of a belief doesn't determine if it's discriminatory. Its effects do and the reality is that, whether it's practiced in a religious or a public setting, the effects of practicing this belief are indistinguishable.

    Third, you show your bias when you lambast "liberals." That category doesn't comprise all who disagree with you, nor does "religious" or "non-religious." A solid and growing majority across categories now recognize that society's previous beliefs about homosexuals/homosexual sex have virtually no basis in fact - nowhere near enough to justify treating non-heteros differently than heteros.

    If some believers/institutions choose to carry on as before in spite of the evidence, they can. It's just that the consequences have changed to reflect the facts. This isn't unprecedented. It's the norm. As society's views change, the consequences of holding a belief change (ask, for example, White Supremacists).

    These religious schools are asking to practice their beliefs consequence-free, a privilege we don't grant non-religious institutions. Thus, it's unconstitutional. Taxpayers shouldn't fund unconstitutional practices.

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Jan. 23, 2016 10:45 p.m.

    @Jacobiuntherus: "There needs to be some boundaries however such as limiting bathroom use to protect the privacy of individuals of male and female biological gender. It is easy for LGBTQ citizens to show respect for reasonable standards like that."

    I'm a transgender woman. I'm seen and treated as a woman at home, church, work, the grocery store, the doctor, and so on. My students call me "Mrs Marshall," strangers call me "ma'am."

    I use the Ladies' Room because using the Men's Room would be uncomfortable for the men in there and as dangerous for me as for any other woman. When I'm in the Ladies' I'm not violating the privacy of any one - I'm doing exactly what the others are doing in there.

    Reasonable standards allow transgender women to safely use the ladies' room and transgender men to safely use the men's room. Reasonable standards are to do your business and not worry about what parts other people - who are doing their business- have.

  • Jimbo Low PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 10:42 p.m.

    There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that addresses homosexuality or any other behaviors the founders would certainly have considered aberrant. Religious freedom was certainly addressed and the absolute right to practice religion as one sees fit.
    Those wanting to re-write the history of the constitution and acceptable values have cast aside lessons from history; go down this road and destruction is imminent and certain.
    The intolerance of the left is truly astounding.

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Jan. 23, 2016 9:40 p.m.

    @Mick: "Do you feel the same way about federal money and planned parenthood?"

    Planned Parenthood provides a wide range of health services, including fertility and insemination care, reproductive health, breast health, sexually transmitted infection care, and education on contraception and safe sex. They can - and do - get federal grants for some of the services, others are paid by insurance, and some are paid by the patient. Some PP clinics perform abortions- never paid by federal funds, always paid by the patient.

    Planned Parenthood gets tax dollars for some services *and* they follow the rules.

    These schools want tax dollars and they want to break the rules and they want to keep their rule-breaking secret.

    @Idaho_Runner: "Lists? Registries?"

    These schools get to circumvent the rules. I'd expect the Department of Education to keep track of schools that get tax dollars and want to discriminate against a minority group.

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 23, 2016 9:22 p.m.

    "Are college campuses the next battleground in religious freedom-LGBT rights conflict?"

    Absolutely not! The conflict is over, religion lost! Prop 8 failed. Some religions have yet to accept it, though.

  • Marigold Provo, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 8:52 p.m.

    I just wish the current transparent government administration were as vigilant in being transparent as they bully other individuals and institutions into transparency. Remember the news articles outing gun owners back East...when/where will this stop? Truly Big Brother is on the prowl...

  • Kora Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 7:43 p.m.

    RanchHand- I also recall that Jesus said: "Go and sin no more". Are we really living our religion if we don't tell people the same? The bible states in both the old and New Testament that homosexuality is a sin. So if we are truly living as Christ, we have to do what he does here as well. If you are going to advocate the teachings of Christ, you should have a better understanding of them yourself.
    He never taught that sin was okay and that we should condone, or tolerate it and actually celebrate it as the left is teaching. He taught quite the opposite.

    Karen R- What you are talking about is stopping students from getting Pell Grants or loans for these schools. Isn't that discriminating against the students for their religious beliefs? Next are you going to say that anyone who holds religious beliefs the left disagrees with should not get a Government job, or be entitled to any Federal funds?

    Furry1993- Why no list of schools where men can use the women's showers or restrooms so my daughter knows where she is at risk?

  • Owhee5 2C, ID
    Jan. 23, 2016 7:26 p.m.

    This subject is the old dead horse.
    What will happen when the gay people get every right they sue for?
    Then what?

  • Kora Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 7:02 p.m.

    To all the liberals who believe everyone should be treated equal explain this for me:
    Why are liberals allowed to discriminate against things they don't like or find offensive, but Conservatives cannot?

    This has been evidenced many times. In Colorado a baker who opposes Gay Marriage cannot legally refuse to make a gay wedding cake, but a baker who doesn't like certain bible verses, can refuse to put them on a cake, even though she does other writings on cake. Isn't that religious discrimination? Why is that double standard acceptable? Why was a store in New Jersey allowed to refuse to put a child's name on a birthday cake because they found the name offensive?
    Why do liberals get to decide what is offensive and what is not and set a standard? Recently liberals on College campuses are asking to block offensive speech, a clear violation of the First Amendment.
    The truth is Liberals want the freedom to discriminate against whomever they choose, and want acceptance and celebration of their discrimination as well.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

  • Castlepath South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 6:20 p.m.

    "Treat others as YOU would want THEM to treat you. It couldn't be any clearer."

    In a theoretical world that would be a great idea, but I have to live in the real world. The real world calls me a "homophobe" and "bigot" if I disagree with certain lifestyles. You never hear anyone calling people "Christianphobe" or "religiousphobe" for disagreeing with Christians. So who is mistreating whom?

  • boyd Ricks sandy/salt lake, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 5:25 p.m.

    "......defenders of the school contend school policies are already available to students". This statement made me wonder, are LDS students who apply to BYU aware if they change their religion while attending BYU they will be effectively kicked out?

  • FanOfTheSith Vernal, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 4:44 p.m.

    Makes sense to me since diversity of ideas freely roamed college campuses.

  • donn layton, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 4:43 p.m.

    RE: RanchHand. “Jesus said to treat others the way you would want them to treat you. All of these "religious" schools aren't being very true to their religious beliefs if they won't even follow this basic commandment”(s).

    Honor your father and mother[not significant other]. Love your neighbor as yourself.'"(Mt 19:19)
    "Honor your father and mother"[not significant other]--which is the first commandment with a promise—(Eph 6:2)

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    Jan. 23, 2016 4:26 p.m.

    Anticipating a next "battle" is, in a way, looking for a problem before it exists.

    How about looking for the next opportunity to build trust and cooperation?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 23, 2016 3:35 p.m.

    "'A student can challenge (their school's exemption) and say...that it does not have a religious tenet that would be burdened by Title IX,' he said."

    This sounds like a possible reason for the LDS handbook change a few months ago.

    "If religious institutions are required to uphold secular views on sexual orientation and gender identity, their ability to pass on faith-based teachings on sexuality is weakened."

    I agree. But why should the SECULAR federal government financially support this? This is a violation of the religious freedom of all taxpayers who don't hold this religious view. The fact that this may create a financial hardship for some religious schools isn't the public taxpayers' problem. At least, it shouldn't be.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 2:43 p.m.

    @rusby;

    You've really twisted that one all up, haven't you. Did it ever occur to you that your version of "standards" may not be as accurate or "standards" as you seem to think they are?

    Treat others as YOU would want THEM to treat you. It couldn't be any clearer. Discriminating against them doesn't meet that commandment. Treating them as second class doesn't meet that commandment. Trying to "bring them" up to your "standards" doesn't meet that commandment because you're just treating them as "second class" as they are.

    "The golden rule only leads to a lack of conflict if we all want to do the same thing."

    --- Seriously? The golden rule only leads to conflict if you want US all to do the same thing.

    @Jacobiuntherus;

    We've had years of you guys treating us badly; now that we are making progress, you've suddenly switched your tune to "you need to treat us better". You reap what you sow.

  • Idaho_Runner Rexburg, ID
    Jan. 23, 2016 2:26 p.m.

    Lists? Registries? How can this be freedom? It does seem familiar, though. Weren't the Jews in Nazi Germany registered so everyone could know who they were and what they were doing? Singling out others based on their religious views was wrong then and it is now.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 1:49 p.m.

    Title IX provides protection against prejudicial discrimination based on criteria including sexual orientation and sexual identity. As of the date of this article, 56 schools have applied for and received exemptions from that Title IX requirement based on religious reasons. The Department of Education is now going to provide a list of those schools so that people contemplating attending the schools can know restrictions which they may face should they decide to attend them. This transparency is a good thing because it provides information which allows students to make an informed decision about a school they may wish to attend.

    Contrary to what "lost in DC" alleges, the Department of Education is NOT creating a list of institutions it feels are undesirable. Some people will see this exemption as a recommendation for a school and others will see it working against a school. In fact, the list is not in any way commenting on the "desirability" or "undesirably" of any of the schools, but is merely providing information concerning how some schools address a Title IX issue.

    The list has nothing to do with religion per se. It merely provides neutral, valueless information. Nothing more.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    Jan. 23, 2016 1:47 p.m.

    Ginger-

    Do you feel the same way about federal money and planned parenthood?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 1:43 p.m.

    Extend any two "rights" sufficiently far and they will collide. This is true for LGBT rights and religious rights. How far should each be extended against the other? That is the question.

    That determination will largely depend on science. For many years many religions discriminated against Africans as a religious principle. Science proved the falsity of that position. It will likely do the same for LGBT.

  • belgie Tualatin, OR
    Jan. 23, 2016 12:38 p.m.

    There are so many things wrong with this I'm not even going to attempt to enumerate them all. One that doesn't get much attention is the liberal backdoor to government control of almost every aspect of our lives - taxes and subsidies. It's easy to convince the public that federal education subsidies are a good idea. For some reason, this looks like free money, even though they had to steal it from us before they could give it back.

    But, along with the subsidies come an ever increasing list of regulations and requirement - only the latest of which is prohibition of discrimination based on sexual lifestyle. So, either fall in line with the liberal agenda so you can get the "subsidies", or pony up the extra cash to make up the shortfall (after paying taxes to support everyone else that gets the subsidies.)

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 12:34 p.m.

    Modern intellectuals love mocking the Catholic Church's Index of Prohibited Books, claiming that it harmed intellectual freedom. Yet activists in the Dept. of Education want to issue an list or index of colleges? Is that really the duty or responsibility of the federal government? As if a LGBT student isn't smart enough to investigate and find out if a private religious university has a code of conduct which precludes certain behaviors? What is next, an index of prohibited people? An index of "intolerant" religions, fit for public shunning and ready to be stripped of their First Amendment rights?

    And beware, Title IX applies to public education across the country and the Department of Ed oversees federal funding for public schools across the country. Local control of public ed will become a memory. Mark my words: We will witness transgender students in the locker rooms in our schools. Gender will become meaningless in athletics. We will see lawsuits galore on a variety of issues we can only now imagine. Dissolve the Department of Ed before it is too late.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 12:34 p.m.

    Remember, it is those who hate Christians, mostly, that are saying "Faith does not allow you to discriminate!" And who, may we ask, decides what is discrimination? Why, they do, of course. Just like how Stalin was in favor of elections, explaining that who counts the votes is the most important thing.

    It is amazing how intolerant the left is, and how hostile they are. They are engaged in a full on assault on religious liberties, but only those of Christians and conservative Jews. From the IRS demanding the contents of prayers to Houston's LGBT mayor demanding the contents of sermons so she could see who was being "bigoted" to now this demand by the LGBT crowd. I assure you: there is far, far more threat from the LGBT intolerance brigade right now to your job, your home, and your rights than there is from any alleged Christian boogeyman. It is a cultural revolution in the purest Mao sense of the word.

  • The Real Maverick Spanish Fork, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 12:12 p.m.

    Why are religious institutions receiving federal money in the first place? Don't I have a say in how many hard earned money is being spent? Or is that too liberal of an idea for some of you? Is my job merely to provide for the welfare and entitlement of corporations and religious institutions?

  • Jacobiuntherus Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 11:00 a.m.

    As Religious folks, we have no need to treat others disrespectfully. However, LGBTQ folks and groups need to apply that same principle toward conservatives. We can acknowledge differences without being disrespectful. There needs to be some boundaries however such as limiting bathroom use to protect the privacy of individuals of male and female biological gender. It is easy for LGBTQ citizens to show respect for reasonable standards like that. Where we run in to problems is when LGBTQ folks strive to force their views on others without being sensitive and respectful to others who don't fully share their views. It takes work, but it can be accomplished. Little wonder so many Americans are supporting a candidate like Donald Trump who is willing to take a stand against some of the silly political correctness nonsense. All citizens matter and we should all be respectful toward the civil and religious rights of all individuals. Now let's just do it!

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 10:28 a.m.

    I wouldn't expect much in the manner of things that would force a religious school to do a certain thing, it'd be something more like boycotts from other schools (I'd be kinda surprised if there weren't protests at Stanford against BYU by the time their last scheduled football game is played) and loss of federal funding.

  • rusby Minneapolis, MN
    Jan. 23, 2016 10:05 a.m.

    @Ranch Hand, You are right Christ taught to "treat others how you would like to be treated." Your interpretation seems to change it to state "treat others how they would like to be treated." This is a significant difference. Understandably, some people want to be left alone to do whatever they want. As such, when these people follow the golden rule they should leave others alone to do whatever they want. However, what about us who are trying to conform and change our lives to a standard and desire others to help us reach that standard? If we are to follow the golden rule, we should be reaching out to others to help them reach a standard. The golden rule only leads to a lack of conflict if we all want to do the same thing.

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Jan. 23, 2016 10:01 a.m.

    @lost in DC: "We have liberal posters who think they and the government can decides what religious beliefs are acceptable and which are not."

    Nope. Not at all. You are free to believe anything you like. The Civil Rights Act of '64 did not stop one bigot from believing in God-ordained segregation and related racist beliefs. It did, however, stop those believers from mistreating others in the public square and in public accommodations.

    Laws protecting LGBT citizens from discrimination, bullying, and mistreatment in the public square and in public accommodations do not require any "believer" to change their beliefs - it simply protects an identifiable minority group from being harmed by anyone who thinks they have a right to demean or exclude others under the law.

    Believe whatever "sincere" belief you want to hold, but do unto others as you would have others do unto you - in other words, be polite and kind to your neighbors. Even if those neighbors are gay or transgender.

    If you don't want to be polite, if you want legal permission to bully, expect to be exposed.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 9:22 a.m.

    The BO misadministrstion never met a part of the constitution it did not feel it could trample. Now it is creating a list of institutions it feels are undesirable. I guess the list will appear in post offices next to the FBI's most wanted list.

    We have liberal posters who think they and the government can decides what religious beliefs are acceptable and which are not. If we do not accept their choices, we are bigots, but in rejecting our choices, they are enlightened. I guess you have to be intolerant to be a tolerant liberal. The world does not work for liberals without their obvious double standard. I guess they have a hard time understanding NO law concerning the establishmeht of religion.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 8:52 a.m.

    Discrimination and bigotry are not "religious values", and if they are in your religion, then you should find another. Jesus said to treat others the way you would want them to treat you. All of these "religious" schools aren't being very true to their religious beliefs if they won't even follow this basic commandment.

    Furthermore, many LGBT people are religious, does their religious freedom enter into the equation?

    "The gay rights side wants their unlimited freedom in every place and every context. And a lot of folks on the conservative side don't want gay rights to exist in the first place," Laycock said."

    ---Gay rights folks just want LGBT people to be treated just like everyone else in society.

    "...labeling mainstream religious beliefs as discriminatory..."

    --- A rose by any other name...

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Jan. 23, 2016 8:01 a.m.

    We have a law, with clear policies, stating that schools that accept federal money in any way must treat all students equally and without discrimination.

    Religious schools want to receive federal dollars *and* be able to discriminate against some students *and* they want their bad acts to be hidden in the shadows so the general public doesn't know about their institutional bullying.

    School spokesman "warn that the online list is a thinly veiled effort to degrade Constitutionally guaranteed religious protections." Their 'sincerely held religious beliefs' are somehow threatened if people know about them? Really?

    We need the list. We need to know which institutions are are claiming their doctrine should override law, which institutions want to bully in the shadows.