A call for balance between religious freedom and non-discrimination
LGBT people can still be discriminated against by businesses in Utah. And as for "Utah compromise", it's hardly compromise when the
legislature unveils a stab-you-in-the-back bill the day after releasing the
The world can force, by law, those who oppose gay lifestyles to accept their
behavior in the communities but, It is still an abomination before God.
And although he loves all his children, he is disappointed by all sinful
People who say businesses shouldn't have to bake cakes or shoot weddings
for gay people should think how it would sound if they discriminated against,
say, Jews or Asians. "We don't do wedding cakes for Muslims." for
example. It's not really any different. If you have a business license to
open your doors to provide a certain service to your community, you simply
can't choose your customers by whether you agree with their belief system.
It seems like a strange line to draw in the sand. As an LDS person,
if I had such a business, I would try to be kind and patient and helpful to all
my customers, not just those whose religious or cultural views I agreed with.This wedding cake issue is clouding the waters on religious freedom. We
need to worry about being allowed to speak our mind in the public square on
matters of faith, provide single gender housing at BYU, keep our tax deductions
for charitable offerings, etc. There are serious issues of religious freedom in
our country today. Gary Johnson has this one right.
Johnson is up and coming in Utah. Not a bad alternative.
What are they talking about exactly when they start with the "Religious
Freedom " thing? We have had those protections for a very long time and the
include the right to be an atheist, if one chooses! This is about the beliefs
that are not so nice! It is about Church leaders making members feel fine with
the bad treatment they give to those are thrown out( LGBT)I know exactly
what they are talking about and I don't let them get away with it! I tell
them to do as they please, but none of it was my choice and it never will be! If
they choose to treat me any differently now, it is their choice and more power
to them , but it hurts deeply! It can cause suicide. So, we are not members, it
doesn't mean you treat us any different. I think people know exactly what
they do and it is very sad!
@JoeBOB20,RE: "As we become more diverse-because of our economic
prosperity- religious affiliations, participation, and belief will decline
rapidly; it is an inevitable reaction to statistics, and peer-reviewed
research"...---Again throwing out the peer-reviewed
research (but no references to such research).Utah has been
religiously diverse and prosperous for quite some time. And religious
affiliation, participation, and belief have NOT rapidly declined in Utah.So much for peer-reviewed research vs what has happened in Utah.There has been no rapid decline, and we have the best economy of any
State in the United States. According to your peer-reviewed research... that
should cause religious affiliation, participation, and belief to plummet in
Utah. And yet, church membership, participation and belief has grown in
Utah.Ever seen those new churches being built in many neighborhoods?
And I don't mean only LDS church buildings.======RE: "The response to this inevitable evolution of our society is going to
be hilarious to witness"...---Why would that be fun or hilarious
to watch?======RE: "Cheers to the free, and good
luck to the ignorant"...---Same to you.
Freedom is limited to when you begin to infringe on the freedom of another
citizen. Too many people say, "they are persecuting my personal, religious
beliefs." To those of you who say such ridiculous things, I say, "Quit
infringing on my right to science, statistics, and research." Science for
the win. Religion for the ignorant and blind. Utah has been run by the LDS faith
since it was founded. The United States government did not persecute your silly
religion; the US government was protecting other citizens from a group who would
displace anyone who was settled where they wanted to settle, and was raising an
army of their own. Utah has not had a separation of church and state since
before becoming a state. As we become more diverse-because of our economic
prosperity- religious affiliations, participation, and belief will decline
rapidly; it is an inevitable reaction to statistics, and peer-reviewed research.
The tantrums thrown by religious zealots in response to this inevitable
evolution of our society is going to be hilarious to witness. Cheers to the
free, and good luck to the ignorant.
@bradz03;Allowing religions to dictate what goes on outside their
walls is an "establishment of religion". Most likely, yours. That
marginalizes those who do not belong to said religion. It is
Unconsititutional.They can dictate inside their walls all they want.
Secular society is not under their purview.Strangely, you go on to
quote that very restriction later in your comment, but you fail to see the
irony. Furthermore, the First Amendment is not a free pass to skip on past
any civil laws you think restrict your religion. We don't allow human
sacrifice, do we? That is a restriction of religious freedom.And
finally, can you please, please, please show me the scriptures where your god
tells you that baking a cake for someone you disapprove of is a violation of
your religious beliefs? I've asked and asked and searched high and low and
I simply can't find it. Thanks in advance.@IloveTacos;Wow, I don't think I've ever seen anyone twist reason into
such a pretzel. You haven't shown how performing the function of your
business is a "violation of one's relgious conscience". Hint, it
Consider this: It all starts with a "cake"...
As private organizations, religious groups can discriminate as much as they
like. A public business licensed by the state however operates under different
legal restraints.The point Gary Johnson tried to make is that,
carried to the logical extreme, total religious freedom would let people kill
non-believers if their religion allows it. Obviously that is not acceptable in a
free society, although many religions have done that. ISIS, for example,
condones it.The case of the photographer that was fined for refusing
to work a gay marriage ceremony was a rare and unusual case - most likely
perpetrated specifically to challenge the law. Several courts upheld that
decision, as the law says businesses cannot discriminate. In reality, that type
of limited discrimination is normally avoided - you just hire a different
photographer.A balanced religious freedom law allows religions the
right to discriminate on their own turf, and individuals on their own property.
Discrimination in the public realm is illegal though, as the courts have ruled.
If you disagree, work to change the law.In my opinion, Gary Johnson
has a pretty good handle on this complex subject and he will be getting my
..."He is pro-life personally, but feels it is not right for the federal
government to make that decision for individuals. Please stop disseminating this
false information about him."IOW, status quo.
Well said, Governor Johnson.
For those of you claiming that Johnson supports abortion, please have a look at
his stance on it again. He is pro-life personally, but feels it is not right
for the federal government to make that decision for individuals. Please stop
disseminating this false information about him.
People like Ranch demonstrate exactly why religious liberty is under attack.
According to people like Ranch, religious objections are prohibited despite the
guaranteed protection afforded by the first amendment. The reality is,
conflicting constitutional rights are at play here. Compromise is needed, but
certain militant LGBT activists use legalized racketeering practices to force
compliance to a selective small group while the majority is discriminated
against. It's about selective protections, not equality. According to
people like Ranch, people need to get over having their conscience violated and
having their names soiled based on an act that their belief shiws God is
directly opposed by a same sex marriage. This is how the cup of iniquity is
filled people. Secular society forcing faithful followers to accept and embrace
I've got a weird idea. Why don't we apply the Civil Rights Act only
against government entities (as was originally intended) and not against private
citizens or businesses? I am really tired of special snowflakes who get
offended at the drop of a hat (some are willing to drop it themselves). Also,
lets get rid of the Johnson amendment which has been abused by the Federal
Government more than once.But lets put this Freedom of Religion
thing into perspective. It is really the freedom of conscience. Or the freedom
to have your own philosophy. Or to think the way you like. IOW, the single
most important natural right mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. IMHO, we all
should be defending this with all our might, even if we disagree with
other's opinions and belief set. Whether you believe it is discriminatory
or not.Prosecuting a person for his opinions, with very few
exceptions, is very dangerous and counter productive. IMHO, let a person be as
discriminatory as he pleases. I don't care.
@2bits:"Enough bickering about cakes..."Just
when I was getting ready to ask a liberal what they thought about a wedding cake
with the confederate flag on top, requested by a gay bigot...Liberals insist that these things need to be decided through the courts,
instead of the legislature (where it *should* be done). This will eventually
end badly.And they'll never see it coming. But one day,
they're going to push something through the USSC and get the result they
wanted, and then the impact of that result will be felt years or decades later,
and it will be clear it was a bad result for the country. And then,
since it was a USSC decision, it's going to be really hard to change, even
though it needs to be changed, since it's hard, the change will be too
late.It's probably already happened. If current trends hold,
and as prosperity expands to more countries, the population of the Earth will
eventually start to fall. And that will bring forth "calamities
foretold." Right now, we depend upon young people replacing us in the work
force. When that stops....
@Ranch"Churches...can not...determine what goes on outside their
walls." Why not? Are members of a religious community required to only
practice their religion within the walls of the church? The laws of a community
should reflect the values held by the citizens of that community. That's
why the Constitution specifically says that anything not covered by it is left
up to the individual states."Businesses have no religious
beliefs." - Says who? Why can't a business be based in faith? Are you
telling me Deseret Book doesn't have any religious beliefs? That statement
is false and really quite silly."They chose to violate the
law" - Not sure which law you're referring to, but the highest law of
the land specifically says "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Any
law that prohibits someone from freely exercising their religion is
unconstitutional. That's not how it is often enforced, but that is what it
Enough bickering about cakes...I know, I know, I started it. But
only to point out how silly it is. I didn't think it was going to take
over the conversation!The issue is not whether somebody should be
forced by the government to make you any cake you could ever want...The issue is religious freedom!Let's drop the, "you have
to make the cake I want", issue. It's nonsense.Who cares
if the government makes you make a cake you don't want to make? Just make
it and don't worry about it!The real issue is... what if the
government wants to force you to do something more important... that violates
your religious beliefs...That's what we should be
discussing.If the government can tell your religious beliefs
can/can't be... do we really have religious freedom?
I for one perfectly willing to accept that businesses can legally refuse to
create, say, a CTR cake for me if they do not like my message. Free speech
should not be regulated unless there is a real and compelling reason to do so,
like the classic example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
Forcing people to decorate cakes with messages they don't agree with is
about the furthest thing from a real and compelling reason for interfering with
a basic constitutional right that I can think of.If no one wants to
make my CTR cake right now then either I can decorate it myself or Someone will
eventually see this gap in the market and agree to fill it. That's how the
free market works.Free speech is the issue, not freedom of religion.
A business shouldn't be compelled to create an expression of an opinion
that they don't agree with.
I am grateful for the time and effort that was put into this letter.I am struggling to support Johnson, but ultimately he is a way better option
for me right now than Trump.I have never smoked POT and have always
thought it to be evil. I am coming to the realization that it probably has some
benefits and is probably safer than 90% of prescription pain pills and anti
psychedelics.Regarding abortion. I will never support abortion.
The fewer we have and the more difficult society makes it to have one, the
better. But, I also don't support young women using hangers.
Any religion that uses the term "freedom of religion" to then
discriminate against any minority is not a true religion. Period! They are
false religions, and using their "faith" to act uncivilly towards others
that they view as different or sinners. . So if you are hearing that any
religion is using the banner of "religious freedom" and then promoting
laws that discriminate against US citizens rights...... Run away. That
isn't what the prophets and Jesus taught.
@oldcougar wrote, "That just makes common sense. Why would you force someone
to photograph your wedding if you knew they didn't want to? Wouldn't
it be better to find someone who would give their best effort and passion? Do we
really need laws to govern this?". Makes sense to me. Why
should a black couple send their children to their neighborhood school if the
teachers there only wants to teach white kids? Why shouldn't they keep
looking until they find a school with a teacher who wants them? Do we really
need laws to govern this?
I appreciate the clarification and apology, Governor. Thanks for publishing,
@oldcougar;Would you be so sanguine about a business refusing
service if you were the one being refused? If you had to go from business to
business to business to business until you found one willing to serve you?
Should those businesses be required to post signs so we know who to avoid? Why should LGBT couples have to worry about being refused service by a
business that provides the service they need, when no other couples are being
denied? What if there are no other providers in the area? Why is it okay to refuse to do business with this one group? Should
they also be allowed to refuse service to black couples? If not, why just LGBT
patrons? What if that same business provides their services to
straight couples having sex prior to marriage, or adulterers, or Sabbath
breakers? Those are also against the stated religious views - should they be
required to be consistent and refuse service to these people? If not, why is it
okay to violate their religious views in that case but not the other?
Ranch, Laws can be changed...and are changed quite regularly. I, and many
others, support a law that allows businesses, especially small creative
businesses, to refuse to participate, with their cakes or photographs, in any
event which is contrary to their conscience. The small bakery and photography
industries have plenty of diversity. Customers will surely be able to find a
cooperative provider without forcing the issue. That just makes common
sense. Why would you force someone to photograph your wedding if you knew they
didn't want to? Wouldn't it be better to find someone who would give
their best effort and passion? Do we really need laws to govern this?
SC Matt2 says:"@ Ranch:I have yet to hear, from
anybody, a coherent reason why it's OK for Walmart to refuse to bake a cake
showing the confederate flag, but not OK for a baker to refuse to bake a
"Adam and Steve" wedding cake."--- Let me spell it out
for you.When a business does not provide a service (i.e., baking
cakes with swastikas, or confederate flags on them) for anyone, they're not
required to bake such cakes. Not for anybody. When the baker does not bake
cakes with those logos for anyone already, then no need to bake them at all.When a business provides a product or service, and that is THE product
or service of their business, they're not allowed to deny that product or
service to some but not others. "In both cases, it's not
the person you're refusing service to."But in the first
case, the business does not already make that product or service. In the second
that is their product or service they're refusing to just the one set of
customers.Are you clear now?
So, what if a business owner refuses to provide a service which goes against
their beliefs? Do you believe they have the right to refuse service that would
cause them to go against their conscience?
I agree with Jonhnson's basic position here--in general, we should have a
small government and broad personal freedom. Personal freedom includes freedom
of religion. However, freedom of religion isn't supposed to mean you are
exempt from laws that conflict with your religion. If a law violates your
religious beliefs, then fight to get the law changed. Some people
argue that "freedom of religion" means religious people get to choose
which laws do and don't apply to them based upon their religious beliefs on
the matter That is a troubling slope.
Mr. Johnson can pretend that he is Hillary and that he didn't mean what he
said or he can be a man and take full and complete responsibility for his own
statements. If he didn't believe it then why did he say it?
Vote your conscience. Personally I can't stomach Trump or Clinton. I
think I'd feel ill voting for either of the two.
@Stalwart Sentinel"The irony that seems to escape Mr. Johnson in his
attempt to vilify government for the poor treatment of my ancestors (early
Mormons) is that the individuals responsible for passing/enforcing laws such as
the Missouri Executive Order 44 were doing so under the guise of misguided
religious zeal."Escape Mr. Johnson? He mentioned "in the
name of religion" as a cause for that poor treatment."My
point was that even a respected, peaceful people experienced tragic harm in the
name of religion and was, in fact, persecuted by the government itself by
politicians who opposed their beliefs and practices."
He said what he said. Now, he may be a nice guy, but in interviews
I've seen, he is pretty much clueless on many of the significant issues
that will be faced by the next President.
Each of us gets one affirming vote. The only situation where you waste your vote
is when you vote against your heart, because the only time voting for the lesser
of two evils works is if your single vote was the deciding vote. In other words
- never. Voting for Hillary is not a vote against Trump any more than a vote for
the flying spaghetti monster would be. It is only a vote for Hillary and a vote
surely wasted.I've met Gary Johnson and he is a good man with a
sweet soul and an iron will that he uses with purpose to improve the world. His
comments on baking cakes were made contrasting his position against the position
of an anarchist. Gary Johnson represents the best of American values, the values
that made this the nation where in the gospel could be restored and where people
could be free from the institutional fears that the adversary uses to muffle
truth and to discourage faith.A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for
the constitution; it is a vote for freedom; it is a vote for right; and it is a
vote for the America we love.
@ Ranch:"They violated the law. They CHOSE to violate the law.
They, and they alone are responsible."I have yet to hear, from
anybody, a coherent reason why it's OK for Walmart to refuse to bake a cake
showing the confederate flag, but not OK for a baker to refuse to bake a
"Adam and Steve" wedding cake.In both cases, it's not
the person you're refusing service to. It's the speech on the cake
that you want nothing to do with. As a caterer, I certainly would prefer to
have nothing to do with the following:1.) Two hotels on a really
boring, long isolated stretch of road. Both normally 65% full.2.) One
burns down.3.) The other owner wants to throw a party celebrating the
fact that the other hotel burned, with a cake showing a hotel on fire, and
celebrating record profits to come.Count me out. There's
certainly something wrong with taking pleasure in somebody else's
misfortune. I don't see any difference between this and baking
a cake for a gay wedding, even if I'm the only caterer in this isolated
Who? Please study the 2000 election - Regardless of how you feel about
Clinton/Trump, one will be elected. By voting someone with no chance, you
undermine the chances of the candidate closest to your views. You'll never
agree with anyone completely, but if religion matters to you, the life-long
Methodist is the only choice in this election cycle.
The irony that seems to escape Mr. Johnson in his attempt to vilify government
for the poor treatment of my ancestors (early Mormons) is that the individuals
responsible for passing/enforcing laws such as the Missouri Executive Order 44
were doing so under the guise of misguided religious zeal. Indeed, Mormons were
not being targeted by the "secular liberal left" but rather the
religious right. So, just as the religious right is to blame for
codifying slavery, misogyny, bigotry, genocide, and many other forms of
discrimination in the US and abroad, so too can we lump the early Mormon
struggle in with those horrendous acts by the religious right. Further, the shrill cries of the "persecuted" religious right in
modern times is laughable. As an active Mormon myself, I have suffered no loss
of religious freedom. When you truly drill down, the only thing these religious
"victims" have lost is their ability to discriminate against others.
It's the same story as yesteryear: the religious right doesn't want
others to have what they've always enjoyed and they cry foul when equality
As long as a Political Party continues to tie itself to a particular religion
there will be endless attempts to excuse the behavior of the Political Party by
invoking the dogma of that particular religion.Religion was used as
one excuse to drive the Mormons out of Ohio, Missouri and Illinois.Religion was used as one excuse to deny Mitt Romney the POTUS. Religion continues to be used as one weapon to facilitate the denial of
individual civil rights in the name of protecting States Rights.C'est la vie.
RanchThank you for confirming what I said about the left justifying
denying religious rights. Sole proprietorships are not people? Partnerships are
not people? Shareholders of S and C corps, particularly closely held corps, are
not people? Just because a person decides to enter a business does not mean they
have to check their rights at the door. Otherwise you are establishing laws
concerning who can enter what type of business, laws based on something other
than qualifications. You are establishing religious tests for certain types of
businesses, contrary to the first amendment. I am only sorry you cannot see
it.Research Edmunds-Tucker laws, and then retry your comment about
how churches can determine their own doctrine.TroutstalkerPeople go into business so they do not have to take public assistance.
Businesses also pay taxes. A business being forced to participate in an activity
their religion views as wrong is government telling the business owner they
cannot exercise their religion.
@JustExactly correct. I need to hear that from Gary Johnson. As it
stands today, there are initiatives (laws) being considered that remove such
rights from churches if their doors are open to the public (referred to as
"public space"). Religious liberty is under attack at every turn and
from every angle possible attempting to silence, change, and destroy religious
beliefs. Where does Gary stand on that? From what I've seen, he avoids
Thank You Gary Johnson. I have tried for Months to get something like this.
Writing and calling and Tweeting him or his campaign. On Monday I said on
Facebook Johnson was Toast in Utah. Perhaps not any more. I think he finally
Gary Johnson has now revealed he is a social liberal who values LGBTQ
discrimination above religious discrimination. A true libertarian
would not take sides and say one form of discrimination is worse than another.
He says he would protect religious freedom and LGBTQ freedoms, and then adds
that LGBTQ freedoms trump religious freedoms. This is unconstitutional. The
constitution explicitly protects religious freedom and says nothing about
protecting sexual behavior.It is clear he will appoint supreme court
justices and federal judges that will continue down the path of federal social
engineering instead of appointing judges that protect the constitution.Lastly, his bias against religion reveals that he doesn't appreciate the
constant discrimination I received in the south as a Mormon. Now religious
discrimination is the rage across all of America and is against all traditional
Christian religious. He doesn't appreciate this new brave new world where
the government shuts down my religious school, or my company fires me, or LGBTQ
activists sue me because my religious beliefs do not conform to the liberal
religion of political correctness.Instead he is more worried about
religion being a threat to his agenda to protect LGBTQ behaviours.
Missouri Executive Order 44. If you are LDS and don't know this then you
need to. If you aren't LDS and don't know this you need to. This is
what the early church had to contend with. I read comment sections in other Utah
papers and see the hatred that residents have for the church, are those the
people you want to elect our next president? They have no tolerance for others
but do we? I think Governor Johnson thinks we do. And I like the fact that he
has great faith in the Constitution. He has more than earned forgiveness for
misstatement, and has gained another vote for admitting he was wrong, something
I have not seen from a politician in this or any race for a long time.
@2bitsWhy force someone to bake you a cake? You asked the question
so I will attempt to answer it.People who decide to do business in
the public square take benefit from the taxation of all. The fire department
that will respond to the fire at your bakery, the police that respond to
attempted robbery, the construction of water ans sewage, the civil court system
that protects your brand, etc..The people who pay these taxes that
support the civil society that the baker operates in may be LGBT, the may or may
not be LDS, or Christian, etc... To deny any of them services based on the
baker's religious beliefs would be the government supporting one set of
beliefs over another, and in this country we have separation from Church and
State. I for one support Mr. Johnson, I hope others in this state will vote
for him over Trump.
Original comment:"I mean under the guise of religious freedom,
anybody can do anything," Johnson said. "Back to Mormonism. Why
shouldn't somebody be able to shoot somebody else because their freedom of
religion says that God has spoken to them and that they can shoot somebody
dead?"Clarifying comment:"My point was that even
a respected, peaceful people experienced tragic harm in the name of religion and
was, in fact, persecuted by the government itself by politicians who opposed
their beliefs and practices."So, say whatever you like, and if
it offends too many people, pretend you said something else--that philosophy is
certainly in vogue this election cycle.
@ Bountiful GuyAssuming that your question was not just directed at
Mr. Johnson, but the public at large, I think the answer is yes. Deciding what
is a sin and what is not falls under defining church doctrine. Assuming you were
referring to the LDS Church, the bounds of religious authority to punish are
limited to excommunication being the highest punishment. The Church denies any
authority to punish someone beyond that. Even so, it encourages its members to
remain civil to such excommunicated members.As far as
discrimination, that comes from members who go against the teachings of the
Church to try and belittle those who don't practice the same way they do.
That is condemned in conference talks, in Church manuals, and even scripture,
especially the Book of Mormon.So yes, a church has every right to
define what a sin is and exercise punishment as long as it goes no further than
termination of membership and the privileges from that membership. Beyond that,
discrimination in any form is unconstitutional and wrong. I don't see any
infringement of civil rights on the part of the LDS Church by the things you
mentioned like Temple worthiness standards.
Religious liberty hardly exists America today. We're fighting over scraps.
That's because we kept compromising. With every compromise came less
freedom. Soon we'll have nothing left. The sad part is that respected
leaders keep calling for more compromise. Compromise for its own sake is a vice,
not a virtue. If I hear the word "compromise" one more time, I might
have an aneurism. Johnson supports abortion. That alone costs him my
vote. I don't understand how someone who calls himself a libertarian can be
okay with not defending the right of the most vulnerable and innocent among us
to their own life. He defends the right of prisoners condemned to death to live
just in case one might actually be innocent, yet he also defends the
"right" of mothers and doctors to kill precious babies, all of whom are
innocent. The writer of this article deserves a raise though. And if
Johnson actually wrote it all on his own, he's got Obama-level manipulation
skills. It's as insulting as it is well-written. I don't know whether
to ooh and ahh or to write Gary a nasty letter.
It seems like I have three choices: The Libertarian, the liberal or the
People really have things confused. Sin is not a legal Term. Governments
were not instituted to govern sin. Governments are not tools of religion to
compel people to exhortation. Governments are here to arbitrate and ensure the
rights of all citizens..... and that is it. While some things may both be
against the law, and a sin, they are not against the law because they are sins.
Marriage in the legal sense has nothing to do with marriage in the
spiritual sense. In many countries, the two marriages are completely separate.
And it would not offend me if they became so in the US as well. One is a
legal contract. One is a promise you make to your spouse before God.Key the law and religion disconnected..... when they are tied together very
bad things happen.
I find this to be a very satisfying compromise, personally. I am also somewhat
gratified that Gary Johnson understands how important the Mormon vote is to his
campaign—probably far more so than it usually is in elections. An alliance
between Mormons and the Libertarian Party, even if only temporarily, would be
beneficial to both, and to the country.
As long as Gary Johnson advocates for abortion and the smoking of pot - he will
never have my vote as support.When your children or grand children ask if
you supported someone who was in favor of abortions and the use of Pot, are you
going to feel good when you say yes?
Imagine law suits if religions could ever complain. Instead, we focus on long
suffering and forgiveness and taking hit after hit. Yet we can take it since we
know we are winning. We don't fight. We don't protest, nor do we
riot. Just take it on chin and let the heavens pull the strings.
Who is Johnson?
Ok, I feel much better about him as a candidate. I still am unsure who I will
vote for, but Trump and Hillary won't be getting my vote.
Since so many presumed to know just what Johnson meant to say in the initial
sound byte, it is rather refreshing to read something that actually comes from
"If you care about who is right, vote Trump. If you care about what is
right, vote Johnson."It seems like you left someone out, the
candidate that I'll be voting for in November.
Gary,I have never tried pot, but I voted to legalize it for adults.I
am straight, but I voted for legal same sex marriage.I would be happy to
help with a gay couple's wedding.I am horrified that my vote for
Marriage Equality has been used to FORCE small business creatives like
photographers, florists, bakers, etc.to participate in an event against their
religious views or lose them family businesses. They did nothing to block the
wedding, but The STATE destroyed them for their faith.You need a clear
policy that expresses our shared belief that the legal marriage system needs to
be open to all citizens, with the state not choosing who we love and that
protects small businesses from being ruined for not wanting to participate in an
EVENT w/their CREATIVE EXPRESSION. This would not cover retail of ready made
goods or doing business outside the event.As I would not force gay
creatives to do work for "Focus on the Family" I would not force these
people to do their Art for an EVENT against their conscience. Even though I
would. LIBERTY not PC!
@Noodlekaboodle- Gary retracted his statements on the LDS Church but he did not
retract his statements against religious freedom. He has said several times
that Religious freedom is a black hole. He has said that religion can't,
under any circumstances, can't be used as an excuse for anything that could
be considered discrimination.I didn't care at all when he said
something silly and ignorant about Mormons. Heck, there are still people that
think we have tails, horns, and multiple wives. I will give someone for
misspeaking on the details of my religion. I will not look past a complete
disregard for religious freedoms and the 1st amendment as a whole. I
will not support someone who says that abortion rights simply come down to
choice, JUST CHOICE (almost an exact quote) while not even allowing
'choice, just choice' to be the standard for religious freedom and
freedom of religion.
@Ronnie W.You make a really good point. I mean if most of us look at our
lives, we've made mistakes and said something that we realize after the
fact is rude, insensitive or flat out wrong. But owning that mistake is huge.
Whether it's your boss at work, your spouse, or the leader of the free
world, i'd much rather deal with a person who can own when they screw up
instead of someone who doubles down and insists their mistakes are right.
"I mean under the guise of religious freedom, anybody can do anything. Back
to Mormonism. Why shouldn't somebody be able to shoot somebody else because
their freedom of religion says that God has spoken to them and that they can
shoot somebody dead."His original quote insinuates that Mormons
are going to shoot people, not that the government persecuted Mormons in the
1800s.It doesn't add up to me.
My concerns lie with the possible consequences of politically-driven legislation
which claims to protect LGBT Americans but instead rolls back the legal
protections guaranteed religious liberty in the constitution. That
legislation, and unfortunately the court cases that have followed diminish
public respect for and commitment to the legitimate protection of the right to
believe, to practice and to express deeply-held religious beliefs.Johnson praises the Utah compromise, but to many on the left it is anathema,
and they will seek to overturn it in the courts first chance they get.What is unfortunate is the left does not deny their laws and rulings restrict
religious liberties; they only try to justify them.
@mr. brightsideThe Utah law speaks nothing of what I'm talking
about. It has to do with housing and other benefits all citizens are entitled
to. It does not address my specific questions, and that's that I want to
know from Gary.Thanks.
Is not making a cake for somebody considered "serious harm"? Because he
keeps coming back to this example.If somebody refused to make a cake
for me because I was Mormon... I would say "OK"... and either not have a
cake, or go to the baker next door and buy a cake. No serious harm.Why force the guy to make you a cake... even if he doesn't want too?=====People do weird things, for weird reasons, all the time
(not just for religious reasons).I don't know why somebody
wouldn't make a cake for somebody, but I don't think it's a big
deal. Not important enough to get the government involved and force him to do
it (even if he claims it violates his religious beliefs).I
don't see how making a cake would violate anybody's religious beliefs,
but if they feel it does... who are we (or the government) to force them to
violate that belief... just to make us happy?IMO the government
should not force anybody to violate their religious beliefs... even if it makes
us happy to force them to make that cake.
@Bountiful GuyI don't know the specifics of all his positions.
But he criticizes Indiana's religious liberty legislation while speaking
highly of Utah's. That gives us some idea of what he would do.
I would love to have a calm, level-headed, and honest person like this as
President. Is he perfect? Of course not. No one is. But he's decent and
qualified which makes him the frontrunner for my vote.
Gary makes it seem more simple than it is. I would ask Gary to comment on the
right of a religion to say what it sin and what is not. Can a religion declare
that acting on sexual urges that are not male/female within the bounds of legal
marriage is against church tenets or not? Can a church have qualifications to
enter the temple that include sexual activity outside the bounds of a religious
defined unit of male and female? Would Gary protect religious liberty, even
though it clearly discriminates? Every qualification of every kind
discriminates against those who do not qualify. Until Gary can say what he
really means, I would not vote for him.
Unlike Trump, Johnson can apologize. Unlike Trump, Johnson will admit mistakes.
I believe Johnson misspoke in a big way. But I believe he
recognizes that. If something this small will make you not vote for someone I
can only assume the candidates from the 2 main parties lost your vote a long
time ago.If you care about who is right, vote Trump. If you care
about WHAT is right, vote Johnson.