What you need to know about Donald Trump and religious liberty

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • sashabill Morgan Hill, CA
    Feb. 7, 2017 5:09 p.m.

    GingerMarshall,

    Civil disobedience is the peaceful, nonviolent refusal to comply with a law or government regulation - including willingness to be sent to jail if that should happen. Your comparing it to hoods, nooses, and burning crosses, is pure hyperbole.

    Conservative Christians are not the ones who engage in such actions as sending hate mail and death threats to small business owners; hounding people out of their jobs because of how they voted, or marginalizing religious clubs off of college campuses (while professing to believe in "tolerance," 'pluralism," and "diversity.")

  • elarue53078 Chandler, AZ
    Feb. 7, 2017 11:43 a.m.

    I clicked on this article expecting to read some mention of the Muslim travel ban and Trump's proposed Muslim registry, which are in and of themselves attacks on religious freedom. But no, I only read an expose on attempts to "preserve religious liberty" for conservative Christians. We need to get over this mistaken belief that protecting religious freedom only applies to ensuring the ability of conservative Christians to impose their beliefs on everyone else, or else _true_ religious freedom will suffer.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 5, 2017 1:13 p.m.

    @NoNamesAccepted - Feb. 3, 2017 10:45 a.m.

    I've seen your argument before, back in the 1950s when inter-racial marriage was considered to be as immoral as same-sex is considered by some to be immoral today. Then your comment would read:

    "No Negro (using the term in use then) should be denied services. But no baker, photographer, or private reception center should be forced to promote or participate in a inter-racial celebration.

    "When it comes to creative talents like cake decorating, photography, or decorating for and hosting events, only a fool wants to receive work from anyone who isn't fully committed. Forcing people to service or participate in inter-racial events is not about getting needed goods and services. It is about rubbing Christian's faces in it for spite."

    Blatant prejudicial discrimination was just as wrong then as it is now, regardless the cause. And must be rejected.

    And BTW -- providing flowers or a cake or a reception center is not in any way "participating" in an event. The only participants in in a marriage are the people getting married, the witnesses signing the wedding certificate and the officiator.

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Feb. 4, 2017 9:32 a.m.

    @sashabill: "There is also one other "option": which people of faith would have if it ever should become necessary. This is the option of civil disobedience."

    The "civil disobedience" of conservative "people of faith" tends to include hoods and nooses, fire hoses and burning crosses, and claims that their god gives a mandate to marginalize and trample and beat and kill people.

    The civil disobedience of the left recognizes that every single thing Hitler did was first made legal, and "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed" (Martin Luther King, Jr)

    Expounding your religion is fine. Demanding people be legally oppressed and marginalized and hurt because of your religion is wrong.

    There is no middle ground. You're either fighting for a "right" to hurt people or you're not.

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Feb. 4, 2017 9:20 a.m.

    @Meckofahess: "In other words, a person cannot be discriminated against because of his/her views on same-sex marriage or gender identity period."

    I absolutely fully agree. You cannot and should not be discriminated against because of your **views.**

    But, just like those who hold racist or anti-Semitic views, your attitude must not be allowed to be translated into mistreatment of American Citizens because you don't like who they are.

    Your "religious rights" are **not** trampled when you are legally and socially stopped from harming people - to argue otherwise is to argue that the "religious rights" of Klan lynch mobs were violated when they were forced to stop lynching and beating people, that "religious rights" were violated by integrating lunch counters and schools and restrooms.

    You can hold your views, but the First Amendment says I can argue, challenge, and push back with fierce tenacity when I encounter discriminatory words and harmful actions.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 3, 2017 6:50 p.m.

    @Uteofferouus wrote, "It appears that you would favor the liberal community (LGBTQ groups, Sierra club, etc) to discriminate against conservative people that have deeply held moral convictions. Correct me if I’m wrong but it appears you would have employers, schools, and other entities exclude a person from participation if they don’t agree with you on things like same-sex marriage – am I wrong?"

    You are wrong. You can think anything you want about same sex marriage. But if your school has a policy--say, student housing--which discriminates against married couples if they are of the same sex--then you have crossed the boundary from beliefs to tangible discrimination. As did Bob Jones University back in 1976, which is how they lost their tax exemption. You don't seem to understand why companies, athletic associations, and the like would find discriminatory policies objectionable.

    It seems to me that the only "right" that you want is the right to treat other people badly and use your religion as a justification.

  • Janet Pete Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 4:41 p.m.

    NoNamesAccepted - St. George, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 11:11 a.m.

    "It seems some folks think they know better how to run another person's business than does the person who has invested his own money, time, blood, sweat, and tears."

    When a person get a license to do business in the public area, there is an implicit agreement that that person intends to do business with anyone who comes to them to purchase goods and services. The whole reason for putting together a business is to make money. And since everyone's money is green, U.S. currency backed by the federal treasury, everyone ought to be able to do business equally.

    If you have religious beliefs not in accord with the general public, keep them to yourself when you are engaged in business. Otherwise, the public has the right to boycott your business and you risk the chance of having your business license revoked and you go out of business.

    We've dealt with this issue for years. Having to go to the back door, not being allowed to do as other customers engaged in the same business transactions, purchasing a home is everyone's right. If you want to do business, you sell your goods and services to everyone.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 3, 2017 3:51 p.m.

    @NoNames wrote, "No homosexual should be denied services. But no baker, photographer, or private reception center should be forced to promote or participate in a homosexual celebration."

    You realize that the two statements are contradictory, don't you?

    But let's talk about that. A wedding and a reception are private events, not open to the general public. How is the photographer "promoting" the event? Who is he promoting it to? Everybody whose picture he takes is already there. By the time the pictures are delivered to the couple, the event will be over. Ditto with the reception center. And please, skip the "participation" part. To participate, you have to be legally able to perform wedding ceremonies, or be one of the couple getting married. A baker doesn't qualify as a participant any more than the letter carrier who delivered the mail-order invitations or the shoe store that sold the guys their footwear.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 3:23 p.m.

    Donald Trump and religious liberty?

    A better issue? Donald Trump and personal morality.

    Back when Bill Clinton was having his intern problems, the Deseret News asked him to resign for his personal morality problems.

    Now we have Donald Trump whose personal morality doesn't exist, but now it seems personal morality doesn't matter at the D-News. What happened?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 3, 2017 2:58 p.m.

    "What you need to know about Donald Trump and [fill in the blank]" is that he is an opportunist who is convinced that the world revolves around him. And that he will say or do anything to get your support. And that he doesn't give a fig leaf about all of the "causes" that he is so strident about--it's all show.

    And that he has zero real respect for people of faith.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Feb. 3, 2017 1:43 p.m.

    What you need to know about Donald Trump and religious liberty
    ______________________________
    What I know about Donald Trump and religious liberty is that Trump remained virtually irreligious throughout his adult life until, as candidate Trump, he needed to court votes from evangelicals and other religious groups.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Feb. 3, 2017 12:43 p.m.

    @No Names Accepted
    "Live your life as you see fit. Let other do likewise. "
    That would be a lot more persuasive if that had *ever* been an option. But no, religious folk did their best to make sure that we *couldn't* live our lives as we saw fit.

    Sodomy laws, obscenity laws, civil service bans, marriage bans, adoption bans, overruling our wills, DADT, DOMA, bans on being teachers... And if you define "non-discrimination" laws as a violation of "live and let live", then we've had to suffer under the Civil Rights Act since 1964 which keep us from refusing service to customers that think we're abominations that should be put to death.

    So if you want to argue that we should just "live and let live", you need to do one of two things: accept that non-discrimination laws are not a violation of "live and let live" (otherwise the inclusion of religion in the CRA violates "live and let live"), or repeal the CRA (1964).

  • Uteofferouus Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 12:38 p.m.

    @Jim Chee:

    Sorry friend, but I think you are missing something really pertinent here. This is not about “religious liberty” or “non-religious” liberty. You say it’s “about legalized discrimination” – well you may be right about that. It appears that you would favor the liberal community (LGBTQ groups, Sierra club, etc) to discriminate against conservative people that have deeply held moral convictions. Correct me if I’m wrong but it appears you would have employers, schools, and other entities exclude a person from participation if they don’t agree with you on things like same-sex marriage – am I wrong?

    Tell me why you won’t support a fairness for all approach where both the rights of liberals and conservatives are valued. Tell me why there should be any discrimination by employers, schools, athletic conferences or any other entity toward either group please.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 3, 2017 12:37 p.m.

    @ NoNamesAccepted

    If one freely chooses to believe in a religion that sees SSM as wrong, why are the public consequences of that belief a gay couple's burden to bear?

    Isn't it also the believer's choice to conduct business in the public square where public accommodation rules apply?

    And isn't it the believer's choice to see the transaction as approving of a "social agenda" when other ways of seeing it are within her/his power (e.g., it's a transaction)?

    But if a believer just can't see past that, why is the burden on the gay couple to accommodate the believer? Why can't s/he just say, "The law says I can't decline to sell you (X wedding product). However I think you're entitled to know that my heart really won't be in it because..." Isn't this respecting both the couple and one's beliefs? And doesn't this then rightly shift the burden of choice-making to the gay couple?

    @ lost

    "...your refusal to capitalize the word "God" tells me you would not think much of any God, regardless."

    Or I'm just more a student of punctuation rules than you are?

  • ACB Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 12:34 p.m.

    The headline of the Deseret News print editions screams "Trump order could broaden religious freedom" but the story says he wants to break down the wall between church and state and that's terrible for religious freedom since it would open the door to enact laws that promote one religious belief over another. Religious freedom thrives in the U.S. specifically because it is not attached to politics. The headline might just as accurately have read, "Trump attacks constitutional protection of religious liberty." Trump has already tried to violate the First Amendment ban on establishment of religion by trying to specifically ban Muslims from entering the U.S. Trump's idea is bad for politics, but it's even worse for religious freedom.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Feb. 3, 2017 12:34 p.m.

    @Yar: "All we religious people want is to follow our religion."
    Sodomy laws. Censorship in the mail. Bans from civil service. Bans on being teachers. Bans on marriage. On adoption. Challenging out wills. DADT. DOMA.

    Whatever you personally want, it's pretty clear that you do *not* speak for "all we religious people".

    @Lost In DC
    Then come out against the Civil Rights Act (1964). Most religious discrimination is religiously motivated, and at least in the sixties most racial discrimination was religiously-motivated†. Acting like anti-LGBT discrimination is somehow more worthy of protection compared to other kinds of religiously-motivated discrimination makes it hard to believe it's about "religious liberty" and not "anti-gay animus".
    ________
    †For the record, you do *not* want to open the door of the government deciding what religious beliefs are sincere or not.

  • fearfullooking Maple Grove, MN
    Feb. 3, 2017 12:31 p.m.

    Ms. Dallas wants to inform us on what we "need to know about Donald Trump and religious liberty."

    She wrote that "the executive order would protect a church's tax exempt status even when faith leaders speak out on political races [repealing] an IRS rule that prohibits churches and other nonprofits from endorsing or campaigning for political candidates."

    The LDS Church, as a tax-exempt organization, should not be allowed to endorse politicians or political candidates, and it would do well not to change its policies on these points.
    ....

    "Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel and law and policy director for Lamda Legal, to The Nation [said], 'We disagree. We would say being denied the ability to discriminate against others is not discrimination against you.'"

    Ms. Pizer's words make sense, especially if we use our common sense, innate humanity, and accept the scientific evidence that human beings are born with their sexual orientation.

  • Bored to the point of THIS! Ogden, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 12:21 p.m.

    Hey, DNEWS people...

    I want to know more about the Bowling Green Massacre?

    Where's the real news? A responsible news outlet would have covered that in more detail?

  • Nichiro-san Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 11:33 a.m.

    IsTM - Huntingtown, MD
    Feb. 3, 2017 4:31 a.m.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, for most Christians - sharing the good news of the gospel is part of their religion."

    Since we don't live in a Christian nation (we share and benefit from all religious and non-religious people), "sharing the good news" does not mean getting in someone's face and working to enforce your beliefs on them. Religion is fine in its place, but it has no place to be overtly dominant in public because not all people share in a particular religion.

    The adage, "Share by example" is different from actually confronting someone with the insistence that they adopt your position on moral/religious matters. You can live your beliefs. They are private and should not be expressed if they hurt someone. Many "Christians" do not behave with a Christian spirit of love and humility. They always appear to want some sort of punishment for people who do not adhere to their own belief system. Tolerance of others is not part of their faith.

  • Gus Talwynd Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 11:21 a.m.

    cougar engineer - Alpine, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 1:25 a.m.

    "Why aren't more people expressing concern about the fact that we keep having "leaked" preliminary documents, and private telephone conversations."

    Isn't it ironic that you protest "leaks" about the inner workings of the current administration, but you were ecstatic about the leaks obtained by Russian spying and attempt to influence our presidential election. I guess it does make a difference who is being affected.

    Some people may not be curious about what is going on behind closed doors as the Trump administration puts together its executive orders and creates havoc on the international stage. Donald Trump likes the razzle-dazzle of the Big Show and doesn't want his plans known before the unveiling, but he doesn't understand the needs of the people for transparency.

    The secretiveness and reliance upon non-disclosure agreements only increases the probability of "leaks" to the public. Conservatives never complain about the leaks in the opposition party, but leaks when they hold power is "unconscionable" because they like to operate behind closed doors.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 11:11 a.m.

    It seems some folks think they know better how to run another person's business than does the person who has invested his own money, time, blood, sweat, and tears.

    Actually discriminating against an individual because of his race, sex, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation or identity, body art, lawful possession of a firearm, etc is wrong. Civil society simply doesn't function well if I can only buy groceries from someone who approves of every aspect of my life.

    But, I don't expect a wedding photographer to have to advertise that he won't work any underwater weddings or any weddings that take place while the couple is skydiving. I respect his right to decline that work if offered simply because he doesn't like SCUBA diving or doesn't like heights.

    So too regarding homosexual events.

    Some folks need to accept that big chunks of this nation are never going to view homosexual couple as the moral equal of real marriage.

    Live your life as you see fit. Let other do likewise.

    Respect others' rights not to promote your personal social agenda.

  • Jim Chee Ka'anapali, HI
    Feb. 3, 2017 11:09 a.m.

    This is not about religious liberty. It's about legalized discrimination. It allows people to "practice" their religion in the public square and at work, enforcing their religious beliefs on others, and allowing the denial of rights to others not approved of by the religious extremists. It places preferences for some at the expense of others. If you are not a member of a favored religious group, then your rights as an individual are limited.

    This who mess is a gift to the evangelical, conservative religious groups where they are allowed to discriminate against others because they can't keep their religion to themselves. If they were concerned about "practice" among their own, then they can set their rules and not interfere with the lives of those outside their religious practice. However, the need to placate them is insufferable.

    The main issue is that these religious zealots want to enforce their "laws" and "beliefs" in the temporal world where they should leave it up to their god. Obviously their god is not my God which makes me not a participant in their concept of religious devotion.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 10:45 a.m.

    Yet again some folks conflate declining to promote an agenda with denying service to individuals.

    No republican should be denied service.

    But an ad agency should be prefect free to only take work from democrat candidates if that is how it wants to structure its business.

    Gun owners and those lawfully carrying guns (or with visible tats and piercings) should not be denied service.

    But a baker, photographer, or private convention center should be free to decline to work with an NRA fund raiser or body art convention.

    No homosexual should be denied services. But no baker, photographer, or private reception center should be forced to promote or participate in a homosexual celebration.

    When it comes to creative talents like cake decorating, photography, or decorating for and hosting events, only a fool wants to receive work from anyone who isn't fully committed. Forcing people to service or participate in homosexual events is not about getting needed goods and services. It is about rubbing Christian's faces in it for spite.

    That is as wrong as any discrimination would be.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 10:44 a.m.

    The Johnson Amendment has been ineffective in prohibiting Democrat politicians from politicking in Black churches. Why have the IRS threats been only against conservative white churches?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 9:55 a.m.

    One additional comment. If it is ever decided that businesses have the right to limit/deny services to certain people, for whatever reason, they must be required to disclose that fact to the general public. The people who would be provided or refused services at those businesses have every right to know whether they would be welcome or not welcome so they can decide whether to patronize or avoid the businesses, thereby avoiding angst on both sides of the potential transaction. And, for the record, my husband and I -- both straight Caucasian Christians who have been married to each other (first and only marriage for both) for over 47 years -- will not patronize any business that doesn't confirm that it doesn't discriminate.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 9:51 a.m.

    @Yar;

    "...there are some beliefs that we have that we just don't desire to break, lest we offend the deities we worship."

    --- Find me a scripture, ANY scripture that says doing business with someone you consider a "sinner" would offend ANY diety, and you'll have an argument. Until you can do that, all you're arguing for is the right to DISCRIMINATE against those people you consider "sinners". That is NOT "no desire, whatsoever, to harass, name-call, or otherwise abuse LGBT people".

    I don't care what your beliefs are. When you use them to HARM other people through your actions of discrimination, YOU are the one in the wrong - i.e., the "sinner". And you are NOT following your religious beliefs: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

    Religious freedom does not put you above civil laws.

    @ute alumni;

    You've been pushing US around for 1000's of years, you shouldn't be surprised that we've finally "pushed back" (your words).

    @IsTM;

    Your "commandments" apply to YOUR religion.

    @Meck;

    Not being allowed to discriminate is not discrimination against you.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 9:30 a.m.

    It needs to be recognized by everyone that there are two arenas "in play" in this discussion.

    One is private--how one believes, worships, socializes, etc. In this arena, a person is perfectly to believe as s/he chooses, to worship in a faith with which s/he has affinity, to socialize with people with whom s/he has an affinity, etc. Within a widely defined arena (exceptions being things like Jeffs' advocacy of child sexual exploitation), the religions/religious are perfectly to determine their dogma, their membership and to whom they will extend their rites, to opine as they choose, subject to the rights of others vocally to contest their viewpoints.

    The second arena is the public/civil/secular marketplace. There all businesses must operate without prejudicial discrimination. If a business will provide a good/service to some people, it must provide the same good/service to all people; if it refuses to provide a good/service to some people then it must effuse to provide the same good/service to all people. Religious belief does not enter this arena; if people have a religious bias against serving some; they must serve none.

  • TheJester American Fork, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 9:16 a.m.

    @lost in DC

    First, yes it is just you. You have no idea who Karen is or what her beliefs are but it doesn't stop you from judging her as unworthy and ungodly.

    Second, I have never seen a more powerful group of "put upon" people in this country as Christians. Christians control every lever of power in the federal government. All three branches are led by Christians. Barack Obama is a Christian, and yet you would have the world believe that somehow this powerful group is in danger in America. Please.

    Based on your (many, many) posts I have come to the conclusion that you aren't interested in having a voice in the public square, you are determined that only your voice must be heard and all who disagree with you are somehow less patriotic. I take issue with this sentiment.

    If churches want to be politicized, as our President would have them be, then by all means they are welcome to pay the income and property taxes that citizens pay for the right to participate.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 9:08 a.m.

    Bottom line - the laws must protect the religious rights of those who do not agree with same-sex marriage. In other words, a person cannot be discriminated against because of his/her views on same-sex marriage or gender identity period.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 8:49 a.m.

    Re lostinDC

    Contraception used to be illegal in various states in this country because of religious sentement. .. Until the Supreme Court interveniend.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 8:05 a.m.

    delasalle
    you are free to practice your religion, unless you are Christian. That is what I learned from the BO administration and the liberal jurists he appointed.

    cjb
    which religion is working to make contraception illegal? there is a difference between forcing an employer to buy it and making it illegal.

    Karen
    maybe it's just me, but your refusal to capitalize the word "God" tells me you would not think much of any God, regardless.

    IsTM
    withholding contracts from businesses that do not meet rules constructed to force religious employers to hire people who do not meet their standard, or buy contraceptives contrary to their beliefs IS making a law establishing religion. Federal contracting should provide the taxpayer with the most bang for the buck. It should NOT be used to promote or discourage any thought or religious belief. It SHOULD require adherence to laws, such as requiring employees be legal residents, follow safety regulations, etc.

    LOU,
    yes, BO and harry taught us that by their examples.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 8:00 a.m.

    Regardless of the circumstance, religion should lose its' tax exempt status.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 3, 2017 7:55 a.m.

    Yar.." However, there are some beliefs that we have that we just don't desire to break, lest we offend the deities we worship."

    Understood. So don't drink coffee, don't have extramarital sex, don't practice same sex attraction, and don't have an abortion. Likewise preach against such activities to your hearts content....even stand on the corner and do so. Just don't confuse your obligation as a citizen of this country with your beliefs.

    It is a confabulation to think your God will be offended by your civic association with those who disagree with your beliefs. In fact Jesus was disposed to engage sinners in the public arena. He obviously opposed their behaviors and preached against them but engaged them.

    What has changed over the past 2000 years that you now belief he will be offended by you civic engagement with the sinner?

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Feb. 3, 2017 7:52 a.m.

    One would think that members of the LDS, whose early history was rife with discrimination and violence against them, would have more sympathy for another underdog.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    Feb. 3, 2017 7:05 a.m.

    Power corrupts.

  • vern001 Castle Rock, CO
    Feb. 3, 2017 5:15 a.m.

    I'm a person of faith, but this goes too far. How would we Mormons feel if someone refused to serve us in a restaurant or store because they don't believe we're Christian? Or if a Muslim store owner refused to allow unveiled and unaccompanied women into his establishment?

    And please, don't get rid of the Johnson Amendment! Do you want your tax dollars going to a church that promotes white supremacy, for example? Churches already have the right to speak out on moral issues--they just can't endorse a candidate. I don't think we need to politicize religion.

  • IsTM Huntingtown, MD
    Feb. 3, 2017 4:31 a.m.

    Tuttle said "They're [Federal Agencies] constrained by statutes." He's forgetting that the government is constrained by the Constitution. We the people established the constitution with the directive that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, for most Christians - sharing the good news of the gospel is part of their religion. That includes on a personal basis between friends and acquaintances, trying to urge each other to repent, or try to join their church, and try to follow the teachings of the scriptures as they understand them. This includes outreach to whatever community is out there. The LGBT community does not want to be told that their behavior is immoral or against the commandments. It obviously is not comfortable as it is not for anyone who is being preached to. But to establish laws such that the government to prevent us as people from teaching or promoting their religious views, mainly through anti-discrimination laws, has the effect of muzzling people who would otherwise be free to speak out and perhaps even gain some converts.

  • cougar engineer Alpine, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 1:25 a.m.

    Why aren't more people expressing concern about the fact that we keep having "leaked" preliminary documents, and private telephone conversations. We should be protesting real final documents and speeches and activities that we disagree with. Who among us has not considered momentarily wrong actions, or violent thoughts, before calming down and doing and saying the right thing. Just getting a little tired of all the "leaks".

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 3, 2017 12:14 a.m.

    @ Yar

    The argument that your god(s) might be offended if earthly laws prevent you from denying services or employment to certain people isn't very compelling as it describes a being that would judge you based not on what you believe, but on the constraints Caesar happens to place you under. A god that would do this doesn't strike me as a just god. Or it doesn't know what's in your heart. I believe this is contrary to the claims most believers make about their deities.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 3, 2017 12:07 a.m.

    Religious leaders ought to be just as free as anyone else to speak freely.

    They need to resist the temptation to impose their purely religious views on others though. An example of this would be a religion working to make contraception illegal.

    If churches abuse this freedom they will lose it

  • delasalle Sandy, UT
    Feb. 2, 2017 10:53 p.m.

    Yes, you are free to practice your religion, as long as you aren't a Muslim. I think that's what I've learned from this presidency.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    Feb. 2, 2017 10:14 p.m.

    @sashabill

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts to me! I do apologize if my thoughts sound extreme or something. Religious freedom has always been a subject I'm very passionate about. I just wish it was something to solve instantly. And I do tend to get impatient with the world, sometimes. Often times, I would wonder "How long must I wait until the issue gets resolved?". Perhaps I have much to learn, myself.

  • sashabill Morgan Hill, CA
    Feb. 2, 2017 9:17 p.m.

    Yar,

    There is also one other "option": which people of faith would have if it ever should become necessary. This is the option of civil disobedience. This, of course, would be a "last resort," or "shotgun in the attic," if other means fail to preserve the conscience rights of religious people. Also, for LDS members, this is not likely something which would be officially endorsed or supported by the LDS Church.

    Nonetheless, civil disobedience, motivated by faith and conscience, has a long history in America and elsewhere (including peaceful action by conscientious objectors and by civil rights activists of decades past). Mormons practicing plural marriage in the 19th century also engaged in what could be described as civil disobedience (including being sent to prison or driven into hiding) in response to federal government action.

    This is just a possibility, worthy of consideration and discussion, if circumstances and political/social trends should ever justify it.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    Feb. 2, 2017 8:30 p.m.

    Please Trump strikes the balance correctly. This issue has gone for far too long.

    I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again. All we religious people want is to follow our religion. Yes I do recognize that some religious people are mean to LGBT people (and I really wish they would stop doing that) but at the same time, there are religious people like me who have absolutely no desire, whatsoever, to harass, name-call, or otherwise abuse LGBT people in any way at all. I've always tried to be kind to every person around me, regardless of their beliefs or lifestyles. However, there are some beliefs that we have that we just don't desire to break, lest we offend the deities we worship.

    I keep telling a lot of people that. Yet they still won't listen just because they think our beliefs are homophobic, anti-gay, bigoted, etc. I know our beliefs aren't exactly pleasant, but it's something we consider important. That's why we want religious freedom protects. To protect us from unjust punishment for following our religion. Until people learn to listen, that's our only option we have.

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Feb. 2, 2017 7:40 p.m.

    This is insanely dangerous.

    It specifically says members of one religion can mistreat other American Citizens based on feeling and whim.

    It specifically replaces the Constitutional Rule of Law with tiers of law based on the religion of one person and their feelings about their perception of other Citizens.

    This is not a "slippery slope." This is a huge leap into theocratic government and the destruction of America as a nation.

    Trump's bombastic and random threats, his unvetted cabinet, his massive conflicts of interest pale in comparison to this.

    If passed, and if upheld, the land of the free will be replaced with a religious state reigning in blood and horror.