Why religious freedom is important to both Democrats and Republicans in Gorsuch hearings

Return To Article

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


  • Thomas Thompson SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 30, 2017 9:19 a.m.

    No pure ideologue should ever be confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Neil Gorsuch -- despite his fine paper credentials -- is just exactly what we do not need on the Court.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 27, 2017 12:53 p.m.

    @Yar; you said:

    "Religious freedom is a fundamental right that has benefited this nation for over 200 years. Those who insist that it's "code word for hate" are misunderstanding the point. There do exist religious folk like me who want to do no harm to anyone whatsoever but do not desire to displease the deities they worship. If you want to live a lifestyle that I believe is not moral or correct, I'm OK with that. I'm serious. It's your choice. I won't hold your choices or beliefs against you. Just don't take my beliefs personally and please don't force me to violate my beliefs."

    Then:

    "I'm afraid I'm not the right person to ask. Maybe try asking another religious person. Perhaps they might answer your question better than I can. In the meantime, I'm gonna do some research on the subject."

    --- Shouldn't you have made certain of your deity's position BEFORE you made the ridiculous claim that It might be 'displeased' in the first place?

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    March 27, 2017 11:18 a.m.

    @wrz
    I'll believe that "corporations are people" when Texas executes one.

    @UtahBlueDevil
    I hope you're right about Gorsuch, but his writing on the supposed "sanctity of life" (in the context of assisted suicide laws) worries me.

    @wrz
    Well, he also has a disdain for unenumerated rights, so any argument born out of the 9th or 10th amendments is probably going to fail with him.

    @Yar
    " If you want to live a lifestyle that I believe is not moral or correct, I'm OK with that."
    That's nice. Maybe you, and the rest of America's religious folk, could have come to that conclusion *before* you were dragged to court in Griswold v. Connecticut, Loving v. Virginia, Roe v. Wade, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, Windsor v. United States, and Obergefel v. Hodges? Fact is, America's religious folk have never played by "live and let live". So given the long history of your team forcing your values on people that disagree, even if I take your words as true, why should I ever believe you speak for the team as a whole? And if you're unwilling to speak for everyone, why do you insist on speaking in defense of everyone?

  • Yar Springville, UT
    March 27, 2017 10:55 a.m.

    @Ranch

    Well, I'm afraid I'm not the right person to ask. Maybe try asking another religious person. Perhaps they might answer your question better than I can. In the meantime, I'm gonna do some research on the subject. Hopefully, I can find an answer. Have a great day!

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 27, 2017 10:05 a.m.

    @Yar;

    You didn't answer the question I asked. However, don't you think the scripture you posted: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." is telling you that your deity WANTS you to treat ALL people well? It doesn't want you to discriminate against anyone.

    Don't you think your deity will be MORE angry at you for REFUSING to "love thy neighbor as thyself"?

    Please just stop with the "we don't want to offend our deity" nonsense. Because that is what it is. Nonsense. The ONLY reason to refuse service to someone is personal dislike; stop blaming it on your deity.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 27, 2017 10:05 a.m.

    @Yar;

    You didn't answer the question I asked. However, don't you think the scripture you posted: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." is telling you that your deity WANTS you to treat ALL people well? It doesn't want you to discriminate against anyone.

    Don't you think your deity will be MORE angry at you for REFUSING to "love thy neighbor as thyself"?

    Please just stop with the "we don't want to offend our deity" nonsense. Because that is what it is. Nonsense. The ONLY reason to refuse service to someone is personal dislike; stop blaming it on your deity.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    March 27, 2017 9:41 a.m.

    @Ranch

    This is probably not the best scripture (and this is not from the Bible) but here's the closest one that comes to mind:

    "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it."

    Doctrine & Covenants 59:6

    As for your concerns about a double standard we are accused of, I'm not sure how to address this one. I suppose, based on what I reading here, we could deny service to all who break any of the commandments and don't repent if we are to be consistent. I don't know. Maybe some other religious person can explain to you how we reconcile with it.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 27, 2017 8:21 a.m.

    @Yar;

    Will you PLEASE provide ANY scriptural references where your deity will be "displeased" if you provide your businesses' product or service to an LGBT couple.

    And, don't you think that if your deity would be so upset at you for providing that service to an LGBT couple, wouldn't it be equally displeased if you were to provide that service to an adulterous couple? Or a fornicating couple? Or even a thief, murderer, liar, Sabbath breaker? Those were actually things that the Judeo/Christian god made direct statements about in the top 10 Thou Shalt Nots.

    Isn't it hypocritical to tell the one "sinner" that you can't serve them because your deity will be offended, but to turn around and serve others It equally despises?

    You have yet to answer this question and you KEEP bring up the "we don't want to offend god" nonsense.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 27, 2017 7:53 a.m.

    @Hiatis

    here is one idea lets stop demonizing an entire religion based on the actions of a small group of extremist that kill more people from that religion then all other religion combined. secondly lets base or defense on the facts not irrational fear mongering that only furthers the terrorist agenda. Lets build as many bridges as possible towards anyone that is not part of the extremist groups so that these groups become more isolated and less able to recruit In other words lets stop being part of the problem.

  • Hiatis GRANGER, UT
    March 27, 2017 12:11 a.m.

    Religious Freedom is important to most if not all faiths and contributes to the happiness of every Nation that has or seeks it. This is not our grand parents or even our parents time of peace anymore and the World is in turmoil over many issues, religion is one of them. When any religion threatens the peace and safety of any nation or people with violence and death then action has to be taken to quell or eliminate the danger to the Citizens of that nation. This is the problem facing many nations including the US right now and most of these nations have waited to long to act trying to give those responsible for the problems time to adjust but to no avail. It is very apparent that many people in every affected Country doesn't comprehend the gravity of the situation and wants terrorist coming into their Country at any cost, regardless of the consequences, to protect religious freedom. So how do you get these threats out of a Country? First of all you have to stop the flow coming in........... then start the flow going out. Simple as that...... don't use religion use their Citizenship and affiliation. Unless someone has a better idea.......

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    March 26, 2017 4:50 p.m.

    Many rightwing conservatives gave President Obama a lot of criticism because he was in the congregation of Jeremiah Wright, whose controversial statements were supposed to have tainted President Obama somehow.

    But no rightwing conservatives are questioning Gorsuch, who is apparently a Catholic apostate who worships with a politically liberal congregation at St. John's Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. This congregation bans guns from its campus, condemns harsh rhetoric about Muslims, and welcomes gays and lesbians. Its rector, the Rev. Susan Springer, attended the Women's March in Denver.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 26, 2017 4:26 p.m.

    A"Gorsuch ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby,..."

    --- Indicating that to Gorsuch, the "religious freedom" of the corporation is more important than the religious freedom of the employees of the corporation.

    "...any sincerely held religious belief cannot be abridged by the government without a compelling reason..." &
    ""We have a free exercise clause that protects the free exercise of religious liberties by all persons in this country," Gorsuch said. "I will apply the law faithfully and fearlessly and without regard to persons."

    --- He's willing to let businesses discriminate against certain groups of customers.

    @wrz;

    When corporations can go to prison for their crimes, they can be considered "people".

    @Yar;

    You keep saying you don't want to displease the deities you worship; PLEASE show me ANY scriptures that say the deities would be "displeased" if you serve an LGBT couple. One scripture would do! All that nonsense is, is a reason to discriminate against customers that the "religious" find offensive. Period.

    Again, I ask you for a scriptural reference for the displeasure of your deities.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    March 26, 2017 12:56 p.m.

    Religious freedom is a fundamental right that has benefited this nation for over 200 years. Those who insist that it's "code word for hate" are misunderstanding the point. There do exist religious folk like me who want to do no harm to anyone whatsoever but do not desire to displease the deities they worship. If you want to live a lifestyle that I believe is not moral or correct, I'm OK with that. I'm serious. It's your choice. I won't hold your choices or beliefs against you. Just don't take my beliefs personally and please don't force me to violate my beliefs.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 26, 2017 11:35 a.m.

    @wrz
    The argument that regulations on abortion are a states right under the10th amendment has been argued and rejected by the courts many times and is part of the settled law. I know it's hard to imagain but you have not discovered some new angle missed by everyone else 40 plus years.

  • wrz Springville, UT
    March 25, 2017 11:29 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil:
    "For example, he has clearly stated that he feels that abortion is settled law."

    Abortion might be settled (federal) law. But, if the Constitution is followed, such a law is unconstitutional... according to the 10th Amendment which limits federal powers to those listed in that document. And there's nothing there that sez anything about abortion. That jurisdiction falls within the powers of the various states.

    "Anyone believing he is the swing vote to make a difference... you will be sorely disappointed."

    He certainly will be the swing vote in the Trump Executive Order travel ban is it gets to the Supreme Court... and it will.

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    March 25, 2017 10:45 p.m.

    This article is partisan nonsense:

    "...conservative lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee [brought up religious freedom] to praise Gorsuch, while those on the left looked for opportunities to trip him up."

    Why then is it a fact that Democrats are responsible for the RFRA? Schumer, Kennedy, and Bill Clinton led its passage in 1993.

    This article is "fake news" trying to push a partisan agenda at the expense of truth.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 25, 2017 10:25 p.m.

    It is pretty obvious that not many actually watched any of the testimony or his positions, because he is clearly not as to the right as many on the left here are claiming, and he really isn't as right as many on the right wish him to be.

    For example, he has clearly stated that he feels that abortion is settled law. He has no intentions of trying to overturn 50 years of precedent. Anyone believing he is the swing vote to make a difference... you will be sorely disappointed. He is far more along the lines of a Kennedy - one who will be willing to vote both ways depending on the case.

    What is being described here reflects nothing of what the man has actually said... or done.

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    March 25, 2017 8:24 p.m.

    "religious freedom" is fine just as long as you don't attempt to legislate your religious beliefs on the non believers, like many LDS did during prop 8 here in California. Than it becomes religious oppression!

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    March 25, 2017 7:29 p.m.

    I don't know why Republicans and Trump just come right out and say it. We all know it is true.

    Gorsuch was nominated because he will be a reliable ultra-Conservative justice. He will allow people and corporations to discriminate with almost any claim of free exercise of religion. He is the candidate of the fundamentalists and evangelicals, their dream pick. He is a consistent corporate apologist for almost any half baked claim corporate American will put before him. He is proof to the ultra-Conservatives in the Republican party that Trump is their "man".

    In all probability he will be on the Supreme Court, McConnell will see to it. However, he will always be in the Garland seat as long as I am alive. It was stolen.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    March 25, 2017 6:10 p.m.

    Remember folks . . . Gorsuch is Putin's choice for the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Putin's choice should not be America's choice.

  • Alfred Springville, UT
    March 25, 2017 3:28 p.m.

    @Impartial7:
    "Where were you when Republicans, including Orrin Hatch, refused to consider Merrick Garland?"

    Republicans didn't necessarily refuse to consider Garland. The Constitution gives the Senate the power and authority to 'advise and consent' on Supreme Court judges. Their 'advice' was to wait for a new president to make a nomination... just as Senator Schumer advised several years ago.

    "They certainly were playing politics..."

    That's what politicians do... they play politics.

  • wrz Springville, UT
    March 25, 2017 3:21 p.m.

    Hutterite:
    "I still don't get how a non sentient organization, a corporation, can practice religion if it requires belief."

    The law sez that corporations are persons and persons have rights. If Congress didn't want corporations in be involved in religion it should have not made them 'persons.'

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 25, 2017 2:50 p.m.

    I still don't get how a non sentient organisation, a corporation, can practice religion if it requires belief.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2017 2:23 p.m.

    Merrick Garland, who was nominated by President Obama would have been a very good Supreme Court Justice BYU Alum.......so why wasn't he at least given a vote?

    The GOP held this country hostage and were against anything that our Previous President wanted done. Even Hatch said Garland was a good choice but then even he sided with politics.

    Sad that the GOP did what it did to a qualified man and now they don't expect the same treatment?

    BYU Alum, how is this administration doing so far? Not very good! In fact the most disliked President so far in our history. Romney wasn't wrong in his first evaluation of Trump. But he even changed sides when it was expedient.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    March 25, 2017 2:21 p.m.

    @BYUalum;
    " Dems who oppose him now (when they confirmed him to the 10th Circuit Court almost unanimously) are playing politics against President Donald Trump! These are the people who need to be replaced!"

    Where were you when Republicans, including Orrin Hatch, refused to consider Merrick Garland? A very qualified judge whom Hatch supported years earlier. They certainly were playing politics and never heard you or other "conservatives" calling for their replacement.

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    March 25, 2017 1:33 p.m.

    The Supreme Court will get the "real deal" when Neil Gorsuch is confirmed to the bench.

    I don't think you could find a better pick anywhere right now. Dems who oppose him now (when they confirmed him to the 10th Circuit Court almost unanimously) are playing politics against President Donald Trump! These are the people who need to be replaced!

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    March 25, 2017 11:48 a.m.

    Religious freedom and freedom from religion mean different things to Democrats and Republicans. Ever since the GOP embraced right wing evangelists, religion freedom seems to mean freedom to discriminate against others based on religious beliefs. They also want to impose their brand of christianity on everyone in the country. Democrats seem to understand that you are free to practice your religion, and everyone else is free to practice theirs, too. As long as your religion doesn't infringe on the rights of others.