The more I have studied the issue of religion and individual right of agency. I
find that most all religions all started on one individuals personal
relationship with a god or deity which came from a condition of personal agency
of choice. So if one holds to the very basic individual right of god and and
choice the more weight one can put on that of individual Choice as the answer to
what need to rule in a changing nation.
Can people choose to be gay? Lesbian historian, Dr. Lillian Faderman, has
discovered that many lesbians had made a CHOICE to become gay. She writes about
this in two of her award-winning books. In ”Surpassing the Love of Men:
Romantic Friendship and Love Between Women from the Renaissance to the
Present," Dr. Faderman speaks of the power of lesbian-feminism (page 17):"...I was also observing what was happening between women in the
feminist movement of the 1970s. Many who had entered the movement as
unquestioningly heterosexual, or heterosexual-by-default, experienced a
metamorphosis: Their feminism led to radical feminism that led to
lesbian-feminism. I had witnessed again and again the transformation of
sexual/affectional--object CHOICE [my emphasis] in the context of an immediate
social milieu--the radical feminist movement--that encouraged love between
To "RanchHand" you are wrong about Jesus. He said that you
shouldn't judge unrighteous judgements. That means that you have to look
at what they are doing and judge what they are doing according to the Gospel
that Jesus taught.It is funny how your ilk will pull out that
argument when what you are doing goes contrary to the Gospel that Jesus
taught.So, let me get this right, you want me to stop judging you,
but you don't want to stop sinning like Jesus taught. Isn't that a
bit hypocritical?As for gays discriminating against Christians,
there have been cases where your ilk have refused to make cakes or print tee
shirts. You also have the cases where the LGBT community is attacking
Christian colleges that have no recorded instances of discrimination. You
have the LGBT businesses that have lobbied governments to enact anti-christian
laws that force people to openly show signs that they accept the LGBT
agenda.To "UtahTroutStalker" what you propose would actually
make tax rates rise because fewer religious groups could operate their
charitable foundations, which help more than Governments, if they had to pay
The solution is simple:We have a right to life, liberty, and
property. That means we can exercise our talents, labor, and resources in
whatever way we deem appropriate-freedom of association. People have the right
to be unkind and unfair, actions that legislation can't and won't
eliminate. If religious people have ever seemed unkind or unfair to people who
endorse a homosexual lifestyle, realize that the reverse is painfully
abundant.We have a right to freely and publically express religious
ideas. "Separation of Church and State" means that the State cannot
financially endorse a particular sect. It does not mean that we are to pretend
religion does not exist in public matters.We do not have the right
to force a selfish or sex act centered idea of "marriage" onto others
through fines and discrimination.
I think there would be more religious freedom if religious institutions paid
property taxes. Keep the money people give to their church, etc...tax exempt on
the personal income tax, but tax all church owned property across America at the
normal property tax rate.That would generate enough taxes to give
the rest of us a tax break, or build more schools, or help the needy and the
poor regardless of their beliefs. That way no one will feel coerced when they
@summarizerer;Which part of equality and equal treatment is wrong?
Which part of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" is
wrong?@Facts;We (yes, the majority of us) couldn't
care less if you "celebrate" our right or not (btw, they're the
same rights you enjoy, so technically, you ought to celebrate them).As for marriage being 2000 year old definition, you ought to also check the
"history of marriage". Many societies (even further back than just 2000
years) permitted SSM. Go figure.@RedShirt;You made the
claim that LGBT businesses are discriminating against Christians. Try again.Jesus is the one who told you not to judge, if you can't follow his
commandments (like the false witness commandment), can you honestly call
@ranch"This isn't about an "agenda", it isn't
about "forcing" anyone. It's about equality. Nothing more."Yeah right...all your saying is "I'm right and your wrong."
I employ and love very much 3 LGBQT people. I attend and support two families
members recently married in same-sex marriages.But a huge problem
remains. The LGBQT community will say all they want is equal rights. The vast
majority of them don't. They want rights and YOUR CELEBRATION of their
rights. They want you to gush over their lifestyle choices and be
cheerleaders.As a man of faith, I feel marriage is a 2000 year-old
institution of man-woman union for nurturing children with a father and a
mother. That's what I celebrate. It's the ideal...and I will
celebrate the ideal, without a single drop of "hate" for anybody. In
fact, the contrary.
To "RanchHand " so you are saying that it is ok to judge, just not when
it is against something you value.As for discrimination against
Christians, yes I can. Just read many of the posts here. How many liberals are
telling Christians to keep their religion in their homes and churches and to
hide it everywhere else. Furry1993 is a perfect example of the discrimination
that LGBTs want to impose on Christians.
@RedShirt;You refuse to admit that the "judging" you
reference is not the same judging I mentioned. And you can't find a single
honest example of LGBT businesses refusing to serve Christians. I thought one
of the big 10 was "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbor". And you have the nerve to claim you follow your own religious
tenets? That's a huge LOL.Try again.
To "Laura Bilington" you do realize that 51 years ago gay marriage was
not even a question or a thought people had, so why would a person in the
1960's even question the event? You might as well have used an example
form the 1700's to question the uses of internet.To
"Utefan60" actually the constitution does protect action too. If you
read first amendment, all of the items listed there are actions. Nearly all of
the Bill of Rights are related to actions.To "Misty
Mountain" so you are saying that it is ok for gays to act according to their
gay beliefs, but it is not ok for religious people to act according to their
religious beliefs?To "Furry1993" tell us how preventing
people from practicing their religion in the public space is constitutional? If
my religion says that I wear a piece of jewelry for all to see you can't
prevent that per the fist amendment because you are now prohibiting the free
exercise of my religion. Tell us why you want to infringe my rights?
To "Ranch" but customers are judged all the time and it is done legally.
You are sorely mistaken about heterosexuals being more protected than gays.
Just look at the cases where gays have refused to provide their services for
Christian events.To "rdean92" if a gay couple can't
find a building for a reception, does that prevent them from getting married?
You are also getting the argument wrong. If your religion says that eating
chicken is wrong, is it ok for somebody to force you to eat chicken? If you say
No, tell us how that is different than a religion that says gay marriage is
wrong and you refusing to take part in a gay marriage ceremony.To
"UtahTroutStalker" you are wrong. You should be allowed to
discriminate. Think of a daycare. Would you prevent a daycare from
discriminate against a child rapist who wants to work at the daycare? How about
a bank that wants to discriminate against somebody who once was convicted of
theft? Discrimination is neither good nor evil. It is a tool used to protect a
person or business.
To "Hutterite" but if I am religious and I refuse to participate, your
ilk has sued to force me to participate. Just look at the cases of the bakers,
photographers, and other wedding related businesses that refused to participate
in a gay wedding. Every time they are sued and forced to participate.To "MaxPower" when you see a single mother in the grocery store, how
can you tell the difference between her and a married mother? Also, since when
is buying groceries a religious event?To "Red Corvette"
Jesus also pulled out a whip and drove the moneychangers out of the temple. He
also cursed an unfruitful fig tree.To "Cheesecake" but
businesses discriminate all the time. How many men do you see at Lady Fitness?
How about Men's Only Country Clubs? Other than essential services, such as
hospitals, doctors, grocery stores, and utilities, what would happen if
businesses were allowed to discriminate? Will people die if a photographer
discriminates? Will people die if a cleaning lady discriminates?Also, if you want to eliminate discrimination are you going to go after
performers who refuse to go to certain states because of politics?
I think we have two camps of what people believe is "religious
freedom".There are those who say you are free to believe what
you want, worship with like minded people of faith, etc... as long as you do not
violate the laws of this land and harm others.And, there are those
who believe that their religious beliefs and practices trump everything else.
If they don't believe in paying taxes, they will not pay them. If they
don't like a certain group of people they believe they should be able to
discriminate against them in the marketplace, and create laws that subjugate
them to that of a citizen with less rights.In the history of western
civilization, only a few other regimes come to mind where latter camp came into
power. Nazi Germany, current Iran, and North Korea. Let's do our best
not to become like one of these.
At the end of the day, the argument in favor of same-sex marriage and related
sexual issues have about as much weight to them as the opposing arguments: it is
literally one side saying, "Two men or two women should be allowed to marry
each other because they love each other," and the other side saying, "We
believe that it's wrong because God said so."To most
religious individuals, the latter is very important. But to atheists or members
of non-Abrahamic religions, it may not matter at all. An appropriate balance
needs to be struck to defend both sides, and I think the vast majority of people
agree. The issue is that extremists on one side are shouting, "Throw
religion out the window," whereas the other extreme is saying, "Death to
all gays!"On the other hand, if we locked them in a room
together until they agree to a good compromise, the reasonable individuals of
the world would have an eternity to come up with a more satisfactory solution
for both sides, which would probably be something along the lines of, "You
don't have to agree with the other guy, but you don't have to be a
jerk about it, either."
Not a hard one to decide.Churches have the absolute right under the
First Amendment to decide the qualifications for membership and the rites they
provide.Individual people have the right to believe as they choose,
to discuss their beliefs subject to the right of listeners to argue, and to
associate in their private lives consistent with their beliefs and wishes.When dealing in the private, secular marketplace, people must deal with
all potential customers equally -- if the business sells a good/service to some
people, it must provide the same good/service to all people, and if the business
denies a good/service to some people, it must deny the same good/service to all
people. That's equitable treatment to all, and is consistent with both the
1st Amendment and 14th Amendment to the Constitution. That MUST be the standard
all businesses provide.If that standard is not required, then
businesses should at least be required to advise concerning whether they would
serve everyone or deny service to some people. That way the people to whom
service would be provided and/or denied would know and act accordingly.
How about equal rights for people wanting to be polygamist or live in polyamory?
Are these people any less deserving of "protection" than gay people?
@ NeifyT"While, I have no doubt that you did not choose to be
gay; circumstances beyond your control or even conscious thought caused that
orientation to develop. But being 'born gay' is an outright false
claim."That seems a little overstated. I would say it qualifies
more as technically incorrect. As you yourself confirmed, the gist of
rdean92's statement is, in fact, true: We don't knowingly choose our
Counter IntelligenceI agree that orientation is willingly adopted or
subverted.I agree that if an activist can question my thoughts, feelings,
or behavior, I can theirs.I agree that anything less is hate from the
LGBT, rather than open dialog.Although I believe there is merit to
the term "Religious freedom". I agree with your point about it simply
being "Freedom" on its own. This is why the most concise term is
probably "conscience rights". The only problem is that the most vocal
"warriors" of the left suggest that they in fact are defending the
freedom of conscience. They do, as long as the conscience is what they approve
of. The fact is, no moral relativist ever owns up to the fact that they
aren't really a pacifist. They assert their own rule and live in denial
that they do so.The danger is that their system is a facade built on
the idea of tyranny and being a dictator to everyone else. They seek power, yet
pretend to be peaceful on the outside. It's one of the greatest lies ever
devised. Even my most atheist professors, even those who were anti-LDS
recognized that in 2007. After Prop 8 they changed tunes.
Somebody please show us where Jesus said anything about homosexuality. That is,
did anybody recall forty+ years later (when the Bible was written) if he did say
anything about homosexuality. If he did, they forgot to write it down.
@rdean92,While, I have no doubt that you did not choose to be gay;
circumstances beyond your control or even conscious thought caused that
orientation to develop. But being "born gay" is an
outright false claim. And I can prove it with just one word. Anyone who has
studied the topic of human biology with any reasonable depth knows that the
development of one's orientation is NOT completed at birth. While I have
no doubt it starts in the womb (obviously because of the hormonal shifts that
drive the development of certain body parts); it continues all throughout life;
although it is largely set by puberty.The process is certainly, just
like most other human development, at its peak during the first couple years of
life. But, it most certainly is not "born that way."And it
takes but the review of just one word to prove that beyond any possible doubt.
A word that I doubt I could use on here. But, that shows that this
developmental process continues to occur after birth. Without getting deep into
all of that, let me just put it this way, no baby is born wearing leather.
@antodav - Tampa, FLSorry, but my argument is not weak, and does not
only consider roads, but also civil courts, criminal courts, police, fire,
schools, economic development money,etc..SCOTUS apparently thinks
like I do, and they are more learned in these matters. It is you who make the
weaker argument. First you claim that the business "probably" paid more
taxes. Really - how did you determine that? I seem to remember a pretty
success business man who recently ran for President who admitted has hasn't
paid any Federal Income taxes in years. Of course DJT doesn't have a
problem renting his rooms in his hotels to LGBT people who may or may not be
married, and yet many of those who claim to be part of the religious right still
voted for him. Think about that for a moment.
Counter Intelligence says, "Gay activists have gone out of their way to
present being homosexual as similar to gender or race: Scientific reality is
clear that it is not. A straight white male may change his thoughts,
feelings and behaviors to become gay, but it will never turn him into an Asian
woman, regardless of bullying efforts to demand the contrary."I
am startled--who is bullying Asian women to become white males (gay or
straight)?And since you told us that you were homosexual, please
tell us at what age you decided to "change [your] thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors" to become so?
Sorry folks, but you voted for Trump, and he's not going to
change it either.
@Jimbo;Why are the fruits of equality so terrifying?@NoNames;"Declining to provide goods and services for ... a
homosexual wedding, is different than discriminating against ...
homosexuals."--- You are incorrect. Think about it."we must respect business owners' conscience."---
Does their "conscience" also prevent them from serving fornicating
heterosexuals or adulterers? Sabbath breakers? If not, then their
"conscience" is selective and therefore suspect.@JoeSpald;"No where in the constitution is a lifestyle
protected."--- Religion IS a "lifestyle".@Meck;You should have lived by that concept BEFORE P8, et.al.@Hope;Voting away someones equality is far more than
"disagreement", and it most certainly is not "love". Nor is it
living your doctrines.@worf;Life is full of things you
don't want to be "exposed" to. Thats just life.@antodav;Are you required to "drive down the road" to the
next business for their product? If not, why should LGBT have to? A customer
is a customer is a customer.
@ antodavHumans have already run the experiment you're
suggesting and found it detrimental to a civil public square. What does work is
applying the basic rule most get introduced to in grade school: If you're
going to bring treats to class, bring enough for all. If you only want to treat
some, then do this in your own home.@ worf"To many,
this is not natural, and react to it like finger nails rubbing along a
chalkboard."As I understand it, sexual orientation falls on a
spectrum. The stronger your hetero or homo orientation, the more likely
you're going to experience a strong aversion to the other. So homosexuals
can experience what you do, too, just in relation to hetero sex.It's a mistake to generalize one's personal experience to
right/wrong for all. One's reaction is only about what's right/wrong
for you and your makeup. It appears that LDS leaders now accept this as I
believe they're no longer encouraging mixed-orientation marriages.
Gay activists have gone out of their way to present being homosexual as
similar to gender or race: Scientific reality is clear that it is not.Regardless of whether orientation has a genetic trigger or not, its
expression is defined by thoughts, feelings and behaviors: A straight white male
may change his thoughts, feelings and behaviors to become gay, but it will
never turn him into an Asian woman, regardless of bullying efforts to demand the
contrary. But most importantly; if gay activists have the right
to question the thoughts, feeling and behavior of people that they disagree with
- then the reverse MUST also be allowed, otherwise it is simply gay hate. I am homosexual and I have the right to disagree with gay
activists (AKA bullies) for the same reason I have a right to NOT be
forcibly involved in anyone's religionThat is not just religious
freedom - it is freedom
There is some serious revisionist history here. The First Amendment clear
prohibit's the government from establishing religion or preventing the free
exercise thereof. If the government can compel you to participate in acts which
violate your religious beliefs, you do not have free exercise of your
religion.Also the claim that the founding fathers were all deist is a con
pushed by many on the left. George Washington prayed before battle. John Adams
was a vocal Christian. Even Thomas Jefferson advanced the argument that our
rights came from God. Jefferson indicated that he followed Jesus'
precepts, but was very critical of churches for corrupting Christianity.If you want to live your beliefs, allow others to live theirs.
Otherwise you are a hypocrit.
@UtahTroutStalker,Sorry but that is a very weak argument. The roads
were not created specifically for any one business, and unlike the businesses
themselves they are public property, not private. Also the business owners
themselves also paid taxes to pave those roads (probably more in fact) which
negates whatever claims or positive rights their customers think they have
because they contributed a small amount to the funding of those roads. If a
business closes its doors to you, you have the right to continue driving right
on down the road to the next business that is willing to take your money. The
business that turned you away has already suffered a loss at its own hands;
there is no need to exact additional penalties against them just because the
rejected customer's feelings were hurt.
JoeBlow,To many, this is not natural, and react to it like finger
nails rubbing along a chalkboard. It's that way to the majority
of folks, who don't want themselves, and children exposed to it.
Religious freedom advocates are divided over how to address LGBT rights===Hey, How about this for Religious Freedom -- How about letting Religions decide if they want to sanction or perform
Same-Sex Marriages or not, and keep Government OUT of it?
JoeSpald - Orem, UT, you are completely right. The Constitution protects that
right to have freedom of thought, but not freedom of action. The Mormon,
Buddhist, or Catholic "Lifestyle" is not protected under the
Constitution anymore than your supposed justification about the LBGT
"Lifestyle". Stereotyping and promoting a supposed justification for
discrimination, you must realize The Mormon "Lifestyle" has no
Constitutional protections anymore than you claim that the LBGT
"lifestyle" does. . The Constitution allows ALL Citizens to
participate in it's secular rules. Those rules have precluded the
intrusion of religion to discriminate. Those cases have been already studied and
ruled on by the Supreme Courts. That's why marriage and it's secular
rights have been expanded. This is where religion inappropriately put their
"lifestyles" over the right of others.Any "religion"
that stereotypes or defames a segment of society that they don't understand
is a false religion. People who do that and follow those beliefs that include
discrimination are truly in a "lifestyle" that is Unchristian.
@JimboLow wrote, "If you don't think "baking a
cake" or "photographing a wedding" is participating, I don't
think you have been to a wedding."When I got married fifty one
years ago, the clerk at the Brigham City Safeway took my cake order and the cake
was duly created. She didn't ask where the wedding was to be held, let
alone the sex of the other party. I'm reasonably sure she forgot the
transaction as soon as the next customer came in. Now please tell me how she
"participated". "Homosexual weddings won't affect
you." They are affecting the church and its members more and more each day.
If you don't think they do--I will give you a million examples."Three would suffice. Please give them.
"Instead, policymakers should prioritize passing laws that ensure the rights
of traditional marriage supporters, Anderson said...Even when SOGI laws include
religious exemptions, as Utah's did, they cast belief in traditional
marriage in a negative light, Anderson said. "Ms. Dallas,
virtually 100% of people out there are "traditional marriage
supporters". A majority of them believe in marriage equality for all
people. Please be honest and label Mr. Anderson accurately. He is not
"supporting" anything. What he is doing is opposing gay marriage.
@Mayfair writes, "Just imagine signs on businesses that read: "We do not
serve Mormons." "Been there, done that. Several
times."I doubt that you ever saw such a sign. Two reasons:1. It would have made national news. It didn't. Not once, let
alone "several times".2. The business would have lost at
least half their customers overnight. Lots of non-Mormons would be repulsed by
such an attitude and found another business to patronize.Have you
noticed that the places that won't accept work related to gay weddings
never--repeat, never--post that position publicly? No signs in the window,
and not in their advertising. What do you think the reason is?
NoNames wrote, "All must respect religious freedom to publicly, peacefully
call any conduct sinful and to avoid association with that conduct. Whether it
is gambling, drinking, premarital or homosexual sex, or anything else. Unlike
racist policies that emerged at some churches in the wake of civil rights, moral
positions on homosexual conduct are long standing in most religions. "Moral objections to the LDS church are long standing in the Baptist
religions. Please tell me that you have no problem with Baptists peacefully
picketing the LDS temple in Gardendale while a wedding is going on there.
You're implying that a long-standing belief is OK. Does that mean you
don't see anything wrong with the racist policies that have been in effect
in some churches for two hundred years? If so, why? Do you have a
problem with an LDS man working as a grocery checker? When he sees a six pack
of beer, should he peacefully convey his sincere belief that drinking is sinful?
If not, why not?
Religious freedom and LGBT rights have nothing in common and don't have
anything to do with one another. Both subjects are completely independent.Why does the dnews & others in Utah continue trying to mesh them together?
You have to appreciate an irony here.The very same people who spend
every effort of their life fighting, criticizing, hating, even lying about
religion to mislead people away from it- all because of how untrue they say it
is......get on here to tell us how much we aren't living our
own doctrines. I mean, it's as if they think that they, the very people who
*fundamentally disagree with our beliefs* would ever interpret the beliefs as
accurately as we do.Of course, any well-meaning human being can be
an ignorant hypocrite. I don't hate someone because they twist and warp my
religion into something it isn't. But I do wonder if they ever ask
themselves why they are so invested- not just in defending their own views, but
in claiming to know our own religion better than we do. Such self-serving
rhetoric is typical of the "get off my planet" secular movement. I mean,
they wish we didn't exist and they tell us we are misunderstanding the
meaning of "love thy neighbor".I can disagree with someone
and love them.I'm pretty sure I can't wish they didn't even
exist and love them.But hey, what do I know about my own religion?
@NoNames wrote, "No one should be forced to provide bakery or photography
services for an NRA convention, a Mormon missionary effort, or a homosexual
event. Note that this is markedly different than denying service to someone
because of his religion, political affiliation, or sexual orientation."No, it is not different. No one except people of homosexual orientation
hold "homosexual events", whatever those are supposed to be. No one
except Mormons hold Mormon missionary events. And "gun owners" are not
a protected class, any more than barefoot people are. Both can, and sometimes
are, refused service.This has already been before the Supreme Court
[Christian Legal Society v. Martinez]. The CLS claimed they were discriminating
on gay conduct, not gay orientation. But the Court ruled that there was no
difference--only gay people engaged in "gay conduct". Their point was
that a tax on hats is religiously neutral, but a tax on just yarmulkes equates
discrimination against jews, because only Jews wear yarmulkes.
@Vanceone (at 2:20) wrote, "The fact remains: Same sex activity
is a sin, and you cannot make it right via government force. That is your
current strategy, and your attempts to legislate morality and thought control is
the very vilest of evil."Same sex activity is a sin? It is
certainly your belief, and you have a right to believe it if you wish. Another
religion believes that blood transfusions are a sin, but I think you'd be
upset if they tried to outlaw this treatment option. And public
accommodation laws are not "legislating morality". Nobody is forcing
you to marry a same sex person or a person of another race (or get married at
all).And no matter what you say or do, you're on the wrong side
of history. You can attempt to control the thoughts of the next generation,
but, by and large, you won't succeed. Fifty years ago you never saw blacks
in advertising. Now there are ads with interracial families and gay families.
Millennials read stories of the bakers who won't do cakes for gay weddings
and wonder what the big deal is.
Oh how I pray for success of all parties at the Yale meeting that they can find
a way to determine policies in the states that address the needs and rights of
all citizens and not just one group or the other. This planet belongs to all of
It's. very sad that after more then 49 years we still have so man that
oppose gay rights still making the same tired arguments that have been refuted
thousands of times and dismissed by the courts as baseless over and over again.
l little hint for you all, you have not discovered any new arguments that have
not already failed over and over and over again.
To those saying gay folks are going to far...We had sodomy laws in
this country until 2003.Policies preventing gay folk from working in
the FOR UNTIL the 90s.A law preventing gay folk from serving in the
military until 2011 or so.Laws preventing us from marrying until
2015.Various laws keeping us from being teachers.All
supported by Christians while in effect, and mourned when they were gone.But the same exact non-discrimination protections you already enjoy is
going "too far"?
The answer is easy.Religious freedom, is the protection of free
thought. No where in the constitution is a lifestyle protected.A
religion does not have to promote or accept lifestyle choices. That includes
LGBT relationships, using drugs, praying a certain way, living a certain way
etc.The LGBT community doesn't want to be forced to accept
other peoples religions, they shouldn't be trying to force others to accept
theirs. The LGBT movement has become as much a religion as any
other. It carries a code of conduct, it represents a lifestyle, it motivates or
inspires action, there are Non-profits dedicated to the support of its members,
they have special groups and affiliations, they accept donations and even offer
special scholarships etc.They don't want to promote or advocate
other peoples lifestyles then others shouldn't be forced to promote or
advocate theirs. They can choose to deny entry to their support groups, their
scholarships and their services if you aren't a member of the LGBT
community, all while trying to force acceptance of their lifestyles.
I like how "I can refuse you service because of my God's grudge against
gays, but you cannot refuse me service because of my God's grudge against
gays" is being defined as "fairness for all".It
doesn't fool anyone. If "conscience" is a good enough justification
for you to violate laws of general applicability, then it's a good enough
justification for me to violate laws of general applicability. *That* would be
"fairness for all". These special exemptions? Obviously are not.
@ Vanceone"Let us consider who is the group that government has
punished. It is the Christians. The gays get free reign to do whatever they
want, yet cry out for complete control. The LGBT movement truly believes it
should have the right to jail Christians who disagree with them."You really picked my curiosity:How has the government punished
Christians?Can you provide an example of what LGBT can do that straight
people are not allowed?Complete control.....? Of what?Can you
please indicate, why, how,when, where, LGBT have tried jailing Christians or any
one who disagrees with them?I am looking forward to your answers.
Because you see, I consider myself a Christian who happens to be gay, and there
are millions of other American citizens like me. I can assure you
that if the LGBT movement is guilty of those things you accused us. I will stand
up for those being prosecuted by us. I will defend them with the same passion
that I have to defend us (LGBT) from some of my Christian brothers and sisters
who are blinded by their prejudice.
patriot - Cedar Hills, UT, you gaslighted us again. The Constitution is not,
nor ever has been founded on Christian principles. The Founder and framers of
the Constitution were for the most part Deists. They believed in a higher
power, but it was not Christian belies i in most cases. They actually
believed and wrote that religion was not to be included in the secular
Constitution they wrote.The 1st Amendment later provided a large
wall between religion and secular rights.Also any business that has
a business license is required to serve the public at large. There is no
religious and/or civil freedom to discriminate or not do business in the secular
world that business is in. To do so violates Christian principles and the civil
laws. The civil laws do not allow any business to discriminate. Also Patriot, tell us what freedoms you have lost? None! Religion that is
used to discriminate is a false and dishonest fraud of Christian principles.
This is why millennials are not flocking to mainstream religions. They have seen
the hypocrisy in many religions that profess to love the Lord, but act with
hatreds toward others that don't fit their narrow description.
@Cheesecake: " Just imagine signs on businesses that read: "We do not
serve Mormons.""That is as offensive as "we don't
serve gays" or "no guns allowed". I oppose all three.I
do not oppose, "We don't do Mormon missionary events." Or even
"We don't do photography on Mormon temple grounds." This is not
denying service to individual Mormons. It is not promoting church events.Refusing to provide goods or services to an NRA convention is materially
different than refusing to serve all gun owners, or even law abiding citizens
legally carrying a gun for self defense.Declining to provide goods
and services for homosexual Pride parade, or a homosexual wedding, is different
than discriminating against individual homosexuals. Want a birthday
cake? Your sexuality, race, religion, and politics must not be an impediment.
Want a cake decorated for a black panther or KKK event? An NRA
event? To promote a GOP candidate? To advance Mormon missionary work? Or to
celebrate a homosexual or polygamous wedding? (Homosexual marriages used to be
illegal too.) Now we must respect business owners' conscience.
@Hutterite:"If you're religious and don't like it,
don't participate. "The problem, Hutterite, is that this has
already been proven to be false. If you don't think "baking a cake"
or "photographing a wedding" is participating, I don't think you
have been to a wedding. That is why the church fought so hard for Prop 8 (and
won?)--they knew that it was a great lie to say "homosexual weddings
won't affect you." They are affecting the church and its members more
and more each day. If you don't think they do--I will give you a million
examples.Our society has unfortunately accepted homosexuality and we will
reap the fruits of our collective decision.
@Antodav"The solution is really quite simple: the government
should neither prohibit nor mandate discrimination based upon sexual orientation
(or any other factor) by private businesses, while strictly prohibiting it by
public agencies. "I feel I must respectfully disagree with you.
Private businesses benefit from public roads, infrastructure, police, fire
departments, courts, etc... all of these things and provided to the business in
part through the tax paid by everyone which would include LGBT community, the
conservative Religious community, etc... So if you do business in the public
square then you give up your right to discriminate because you do so while
taking from some without offer service to all.
Lets analyse that headline...... people who want to protect the rights of
religious people are divided on what rights the LGBT crowd should have. Really.
Lets give people the right to choose - and let the churches and
families teach the correct principles they want their kids to have. I
don't want the government telling anyone who they can love or marry.
Frankly it is none of the governments business. Nor more so than I want the
government to decide what is the right and proper way to worship. There is a "secular/legal" relationship people have between each
other, then there are the convents we make between our spouses and with God.
These are not the same thing. If that were the case, churches would have to
grant divorces rather than governments. What man puts together, man takes
apart. What God puts together, man must deal with God with breaking that
covenant. Let churches determine what rights and ceremonies they
will hold and with whom, and let people who want to establish secular
relationship make that decision, with the government. Keep the churches out of
the governments business, and government out of churches business.
VanceoneLGBT do not want the right to jail Christians. This is the
problem. You consider the LGBT so vile to heinous, that you are doing the same
thing you are accusing them of. Not everyone is LDS, not everyone is Christian.
Just because you feel everyone should be, doesn't mean it is true. I see no
harm in the IRS looking at the tax exempt status of many religions. If there is
no wrongdoing, there is nothing to fear. Also, let people live their
lives. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you do not have to
participate. You should not be able to tell others what they are doing to be
happy is wrong, when it does not harm you. Being gay isn't contagious. They
are the same as you and me, trying to live a good life and be happy and
@ Yar"Some of them feel that...they need to force others to
accept and celebrate homosexual behavior..."I really think this
perspective is the choice of those objecting. For instance, does selling a cake
come with the requirement that one approve of the customer or celebrate their
event? One can CHOOSE to see things this way, but this is a choice, not
something forced upon them. And they can just as easily choose to make X cake
with celebration and acceptance in their heart, but not so much when making Y
cake. So as I see it, this problem is entirely within the control
of the objector.
Let us consider who is the group that government has punished. It is the
Christians. The gays get free reign to do whatever they want, yet cry out for
complete control. The LGBT movement truly believes it should have the right to
jail Christians who disagree with them.Look at the prominent LGBT
lobbyist trying to destroy the LDS church right this very second. Every single
one of you "Same sex marriage is not hurting anyone" also vigorously
supports this attempt to use the IRS as a weapon against one of the largest
churches in the United States. No matter how many people you fine,
jail, persecute, reeducate, or otherwise punish, the fact remains: Same sex
activity is a sin, and you cannot make it right via government force. That is
your current strategy, and your attempts to legislate morality and thought
control is the very vilest of evil.
The solution is really quite simple: the government should neither prohibit nor
mandate discrimination based upon sexual orientation (or any other factor) by
private businesses, while strictly prohibiting it by public agencies. If a
business owner chooses to turn away paying customers, it will face the social
and financial consequences of that decision at the hands of the public without
government interference. It should also get out of the business of marriage
entirely and allow individuals to create private contractual unions civil unions
each other without requiring them to obtain a license from the state. It should
be trying neither to legislate morality nor to forcibly change social
institutions without the consent of the public. And it should cease to provide
any sorts of special benefits to people on account of marital status, which
would in turn indemnify churches from any potential legal liability for refusing
to perform ordinances that are contrary to their doctrines. The
state makes this issue far more complicated than it needs to be. Hopefully
leaders begin to see reason soon.
@Yar;--- This is what you consider "way too far" and
"against someone's beliefs":* Having a business treat
LGBT customers exactly like any other customer.* Having an LGBT citizen be
treated exactly like any other citizen by a public employee.* Giving LGBT
people the same protections that heterosexual people enjoy.This
isn't about whether belief or non is more important, and we couldn't
care less if you don't "celebrate homosexual behavior". Its about
someone claiming that their "religious belief" is so important that they
can't do business with "sinners", then they break the Sabbath and
serve other groups that also break their religious tenets. Just how important
are those beliefs then? When does this finally show that their claims of
"religious belief" are simply convenient excuses for discrimination
against JUST this one group?This isn't about an
"agenda", it isn't about "forcing" anyone. It's about
equality. Nothing more.
We to just concede that there are decent people on both sides of the issue and
there are extreme positions and points of view on both sides of this issue. We
need to also concede that both sides are going to be uncomfortable with the give
and take. I don't think that dropping random scriptures is going to change
many minds or opinions. I see the , "Jesus said love one another"
reference a lot. What if i don't want to be like Jesus or believe in him?
The real challenge is that each side is coming to the discussion with different
believe systems, perspectives, life experiences etc. When a religious person
quotes a scripture, it is meaningless if I don't subscribe to the Bible or
believe in God in the context of convincing one another that their position is
right. It is simply going to be uncomfortable as each side makes small
concessions to the other.
@ Yar (2)Again, if we ask the same group of people if an
"unnamed sin/action" of others, which is allowed by law. Should be an
infringement of their own sanctity if they provide a service to sinners as
required by law ? The answer would be No! because Christ words would come into
play: "Do not judge", "Give Cesar what belongs to Cesar, etc. etc.
"So, basically what I am trying to say is reason and logic
should prevent discrimination. However, many times our own negative
instincts take over and we justify them with the label of "moral
conscience", when in reality is not our conscience but our prejudice it is
what is dictating our behavior. ( I really hope you understand what I'm
trying to convey)
@ Yar - Springville, UT", this... debate has gone on, for quite a long
time. I.. hope that this issue gets resolved, soon. I mean,..., both sides need
protection. LGBT people need to be treated like real human beings and religious
people need to be able to follow their moral conscience. "Yar,
by your tone I think you should be a nice and reasonable person. But please,
allow me to disagree with "religious people need to be able to follow their
moral conscience". Moral conscience and religious truth are not the same.
if I ask a group of Christians , chances are the majority of them will agree
that discrimination is wrong. However, many of the same individuals will not
hesitate to defend their right, based on their moral conscience, to deny
services to another individual because they don't agree with that
individual's life style.(continues)
Refusing to sell to or serve certain groups of people may get you a couple of
"high fives" at Sunday School. But we're well past the tipping
point where that's acceptable in society at large. Be prepared for a
surprising number of people who no longer want your goods or services.
@Mayfair please tell us where and when you went to a store that had a sign
saying no Mormons.
@RanchWell, here's a question I think everyone should consider.
What makes a non-belief more important than a religious belief? Look, the
problem here is that some people are forcing their own agenda on others. And
unfortunately, from what I've seen, that what some gay rights groups are
doing. Some of them feel that protections are not enough and that they need to
force others to accept and celebrate homosexual behavior as something good,
force them to go against their beliefs that they don't agree with, and
silence those who disagree with them. Yes, gay rights are important, but some
people are seriously pushing their agenda way too far.
Luke 20:25 Mark 12:17 Matthew 22:21 The answers were
provided long ago, by a very wise man. So when a group compels another group
to right their perceived wrongs, I have a difficult time accepting that, unless
that group is Government. The preamble is pretty clear cut. If you chose to
associate with a vocal minority, and push your agenda beyond governmental laws,
be prepared for equal push back by a largely silent majority.
@patriot, I have said it once and I will say it again. People are born Gay. I
was born Gay. I can say that because I am Gay. I assume you were born
straight? People don't "struggle" with same sex attraction. They
are beautiful exactly how they are. Attitudes like this is what contributes to
severe harm to those who are less confident in their surroundings. My
suggestion is that you practice what the Lord teaches. "Love One
Another." Period. Also, there are MANY Christina Churches who teach that
being Gay is ok. Is your religion supposed to be more valid than theirs?
I begin considering conflicts like this with genuine willingness to find a fair
solution for all. However, what inevitably creeps into the back of my mind is
the fact that the religious side can't prove that anything they believe
about LGBTs is actually true. Why doesn't this matter,
particularly when we can show that behaving as if the beliefs are true results
in harm to LGBTs? Isn't this why we wouldn't allow a genuine
religious belief in the evils of left-handedness to be an excuse to force a
college student to use only his right hand at risk of being expelled? Is the
nature of the "harm" done on the religious side in this instance any
different than what believers face on the LGBT issue?
@Yar;Nobody says that a religious person can't follow their
"conscience". The issue is that when they open a business, that
business is NOT them. Businesses have different rules than individuals.
Discriminate against LGBT people all they want, in your private lives. A
businesses is a public life issue, and it needs to act like a business. All
customers are simply customers. Business owners have no business judging the
morals of their customers. Public employess need to serve *all* the
public. If their religious beliefs preclude that, and they refuse to serve all
the public, then they should find other lines of work that won't lead to
conflict. When these people claim "religious conscience"
and then serve all other types of so-called "sin", then their
"beliefs" are truly suspect.@NoNames;"Once
we recognize that sincerely held and peacefully exercised religious beliefs are
not "bigotry"..."--- Actually, when used to discriminate
against a customer that IS bigotry.@Cats;All LGBT people
are asking for is the SAME protections you enjoy; nothing "special"
Patriot,Can you explain to me how allowing Same Sex Marriage affects
you. I ask this sincerely.Cats writes "I see no reason why
LGBT should get special rights or protections. I just don't see
why."It appears to me that the LGBT community wants no special
rights or protections. They want exactly what the heterosexual community wants.
Please explain why I am wrong.
@ "Just imagine signs on businesses that read: "We do not serve
Mormons." "Been there, done that. Several times.You just move on.But LGBT will not move on. They stick
around to sue and punish those who refuse to agree with them.
@NoNamesAccepted, you are absolutely right about the Church part, a Church
should ALWAYS have that right, no matter what. But I have a few things to let
you in on, Gay people can be religious. Gay people are normal people. Just as
you don't discuss the privacy of your bedroom, neither do many other
people-including many Gay people. What happens if a Gay couple live somewhere
where there are not many choices to hold a reception? In fact, let's say
the only place is that cool cabin down the street, not owned by a Church, but
owned by Dorothy and Truman, a Church attending straight couple. As a public
business, in your definition, the Gay couple is out of luck? The public
accommodation concept is that if you sell wedding to the public, you must sell
them to everyone. You cannot pick and choose. If you are implying that people
should be able to choose who and what types of people they serve (i.e., no Gays,
etc.). What if every single business operated that way? Some would not want
Mormons, some would not want Muslims, some would not want Jews, some would not
want Christians, some would not want Gay people. How exactly do you propose we
make that work?
Why would I not be surprised by all this fuss? The best approach seems to be
considering both sides of the issue together, just like Utah did. Everyone
seemed to be satisfied that things worked out for the best. There were smiles
and handshakes on all sides as the legislation was passed.Then a
short time later there was the Big12 LGBT letter thing by persons who had never
set foot on the BYU Campus or talked with anyone. It seems all the happiness
was just rhetoric and a deeper, underlying effort was not satisfied at all, it
was just delayed to rear it's head at a later date.You
can't have a "my way or the highway" attitude and be disingenuous
with the issues. It requires give and take. Ever notice how environmentalists,
communists, fringe LGBT advocates and too many movements like BLM all use
identical tactics? The Utah solution wasn't like that at all, yet folks
can't just be satisfied and move on. It's "all-or-nothing"
for them and that will lead to failure as many who would otherwise embrace their
movements are really turned off by the antics they employ. That is truly a sad
day for all.
"...with exemptions to protect the conscience rights of faith communities
and religious business owners.""...calling for stronger
religious freedom laws rather than Fairness for All legislation."--- What makes the religious "belief" against SSM more valid than the
religious "belief" that the races should be segregated? If the one is
valid, so should the other be valid. If the one is not valid, neither should
the other be valid. Otherwise, someone's religious beliefs are elevated
above the religious beliefs of others. Businesses should treat ALL customers as
customers and just stop judging them."In the aftermath of the
(same-sex marriage) decision, we don't need additional laws protecting gay
and lesbian Americans. We need laws that protect those who lost,..."--- You already have far more protections than LGBT people do. Perhaps
you ought to try to follow Jesus instead of bigotry.
This entire first amendment argument has gotten out of control over the past 8
years and I hope with a new more conservative "constitution originalist"
court we can reel some of the extreme arguments back in to align with what our
founders intended. Religious liberty has been attacked under the Obama years no
question with little or no regard for people of faith. This entire issue has
been one-sided up to this point and Christian people are frustrated and
frightened. The radical left which includes the radical gay crowd want no
compromise and instead think "force" is the answer. It isn't.
People whom legitimately struggle with same sex attraction should be heard and
treated with respect and the same holds true with people of faith. Christian
worship cannot exist where freedom and liberty are supressed. It is a fact that
homosexual conduct is forbidden in the Christian faith -- a faith that is over
2000 years old and is a foundational part of our constitution. At the same time
we need to help and respect people who have legitimate gender attraction issues.
Cooler heads need to talk and prevail here.
"These protections need to extend even to religiously operated for profit
businesses like wedding chapels." -NoNamesAccepted - St. George, UTAbsolutely not. Religious protections are exclusively for non-profit
religious institutions. If anything were passed that protected for-profit
business simply because they call themselves "religiously operated" it
would create a loophole for any and all businesses to discriminate against
anything they want. This could be used to protect business owners who
discriminate against those of particular religious affiliations, national
origin, skin color, etc... Just imagine signs on businesses that read: "We
do not serve Mormons."
All natural rights are individual. Group rights are based on individual rights.
As with the "Utah Compromise", groups are wrongly given greater
protection than the individual.Also, I saw no mention in this
article of protections for business owners. Businesses are in reality
individuals or groups of individuals that deserve the same protections as a
religious organization.Individuals/groups have the natural right to
discriminate and any governmental interference is an over step. That said, I
believe that everyone should be treated fairly and justly.
All people have rights under the Constitution. I see no reason why LGBT should
get special rights or protections. I just don't see why.
Church owned schools (K-post-graduate) must enjoy the same protections as
churches themselves when it comes to student conduct codes, housing, restrooms,
etc. Such morally or doctrinally based policies must never be an impediment to
accreditation, students receiving government funded student aid on equal basis
as students attending any secular school, access to taxpayer funded research
efforts, etc.Decent people should also be able to accept that such
policies should not be an impediment to membership in inter-school associations,
sports conferences, etc. Once we recognize that sincerely held and
peacefully exercised religious beliefs are not "bigotry", this becomes
clear.At government run schools, religious clubs must be free to set
requirements for leadership positions.@Red Corvette: "He did not
say "Make others do what you do or think they should do."And
both sides need to live by that. Don't force a baker or photographer to do
work they don't want. Don't force a religious college to endorse
homosexual relationships. Don't force your neighbor to hide or deny his
religious convictions by labeling him a "bigot".
We must also provide the absolute highest levels of protections to churches and
church run schools.Churches must remain absolutely free to
administer or withhold sacraments (including marriage rites) as they see fit.
They must be completely free to offer or deny the use of their property (such as
for wedding receptions) as they see fit. These protections need to extend even
to religiously operated for profit businesses like wedding chapels.Nobody demands to hold his wedding or reception in a location where the owners
don't want him, except to rub someone's nose in something. That
isn't productive. All must respect religious freedom to publicly,
peacefully call any conduct sinful and to avoid association with that conduct.
Whether it is gambling, drinking, premarital or homosexual sex, or anything
else.Unlike racist policies that emerged at some churches in the
wake of civil rights, moral positions on homosexual conduct are long standing in
most religions. Tax exemption must never be at stake on these
A civil resolution requires both sides to view the other as opponents, rather
than enemies. Accusations like bigotry or sinner just poison the well.All persons, including sexual minorities and those who own and carry guns must
have access to routine goods and services without discrimination. "No
gays" and "No guns" signs and policies generally need to be as
socially and legally unacceptable as were "Irish need not apply" and
"No Coloreds" signs.All persons also need to be protected in
their conscience not to participate in events that offend them. Advertising
companies should be free to pick their specialties and only work with Democrat
candidates for example. No one should be forced to provide bakery or
photography services for an NRA convention, a Mormon missionary effort, or a
homosexual event. Note that this is markedly different than denying service to
someone because of his religion, political affiliation, or sexual orientation.
We must recognize the difference between individuals accessing
services and forcing someone to promote an event which he finds offensive for
Yeah, how about that do unto others thing, doesn't seem too complicated.
What happened to Jesus' admonition to "Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you"? He did not say "Make others do what you do or think
they should do."
I've gotta say, this heated debate has gone on, for quite a long time. I
really hope that this issue gets resolved, soon. I mean, the reality is, both
sides need protection. LGBT people need to be treated like real human beings
and religious people need to be able to follow their moral conscience. Sadly,
with extremists on both sides, progress is really really slow. But there's
still hope to resolve this conflict. One of those days, someone will get it
right. And when we do get it right, all of us will celebrate and no longer will
this become a burden (hopefully for quite a while).
Jesus explicitly taught against divorce: yet no one bats an eye at making a
cake for someone's second or third wedding.The Bible outright
condemns fornication, yet a single unwed mother can still get service at a
grocery store.Religious freedom groups just need to stop selectively
following certain teachings.
Really, in the case of same sex marriage, for example, it shouldn't be that
difficult. Same sex marriages happen. They're legal. If you're
religious and don't like it, don't participate. Religion should be
allowed to live in its' insular world and not have to participate. But the larger world is moving on without them.
I wish we didn't need SOGI laws but we do.The article mentions
"Ryan Anderson, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation...he disagrees
with the logic of Fairness for All legislation, arguing that now is not the time
to turn sexual orientation and gender identity into protected categories under
the law." He added " "In the aftermath of the (same-sex marriage)
decision, we don't need additional laws protecting gay and lesbian
Americans. We need laws that protect those who lost," he said.".I would like to ask Mr. Anderson when would be, in his enlighten
opinion, a good time to protect all law abiding citizens from discrimination?Mr. Anderson claims that "we need laws to protect those who
lost". What did you loose? You only lost the right to discriminate.Protection from what? Are LGBT people "harming" those opposed to them
and their rights?I am always shocked in disbelief how certain
individuals who claim to believe in Jesus Christ can use his name to contradict