Serving God by suing others: Inside the Christian conservative legal movement

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • tonyloaf New York, NY
    Aug. 15, 2017 2:03 p.m.

    Call me obtuse, but what in the comment below qualifies as an "insensitive thought?" Correcting someone on their misinterpretation of the Constitution?

    "@NoNamesAccepted - "There is no right to homosexual marriage."
    @Turtles Run-"Actually, it is written in the Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants homosexuals the same rights as straight couples. "

    Exactly, Mr. Turtles. Gays have the same rights as straights, namely to marry someone of the opposite sex. But Gays weren't happy with having the same rights and wanted a different right, namely to marry someone of the same sex. They wanted special rules for themselves.
    You might say they wanted unequal protection."

  • tonyloaf New York, NY
    Aug. 14, 2017 5:43 p.m.

    "A claim that abortion or same-sex marriage should be illegal for everybody is not a religious liberty claim. It is a claim that conservative Christian morality should be imposed by law on everyone else," [Laycock] said.

    1) This statement is based on the false premise that the only reason to oppose abortion or same-sex marriage is religious, when in fact there are compelling non-religious public policy reasons to do so.
    2) We're to believe that only conservative Christians oppose abortion and same sex marriage? I think Muslims might have something to say about that.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Aug. 10, 2017 9:42 p.m.

    This is a total tranvesty of justice. The ACLU collects over 100 times what these groups get.

    There is nothing civil rights about forcing someone to make a cake for your wedding against their wishes. Especially when it is a baker who refuses to even make cakes for weddings.

    Anyway, to attack the Christian legal groups in that case is unfounded. It was not the Colorado baker who took this case to court, but LGBT activits intent on driving religious believers from the market place.

    Contrary to the implication of this article, people have a right to post scripture in their work place. Banning such would violate both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

    I am very disappointed that the Deseret News has done a hatchet job against people defending religious freedom.

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 3, 2017 10:44 a.m.

    This is nothing new. Liberal organizations have long used the courts to advance their agendas. Both are correct in seeking a legal basis for their narratives. This is why we are a country of laws. The danger lies in SLAPP litigation that prevents legitimate court challenges.

  • Turtles Run Houston, TX
    Aug. 3, 2017 10:07 a.m.

    @NoNamesAccepted - There is no right to homosexual marriage.

    Actually, it is written in the constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants homosexuals the same rights as straight couples. Straight couples cannot be given special rights not afforded to those that are gay. In order to do so the state must prove they have a justifiable reason for denying gay people their constitutional rights. Too bad for you some of the most brilliant conservative legal minds were incapable of coming up with a reason to justify stripping gay people of their constitutional rights.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    Aug. 3, 2017 2:44 a.m.

    Once I saw who was featured in the caption of the photo, I really could not bear to read the article, fearing I might burst a blood vessel.

    These "Christian" groups pick out officials like the hard-to-like Kim, or florists, or bakers, and use them for a front for their cause.

    Such lawsuits only increase the divisiveness in society, and do nothing for actual true Christianity. They are about locking in the power of the evangelical movement.

    Don't feel sorry for Kim, the bakers, the florist -- these so-called Christians make sure that huge donations come their way.

    How Christian can it be to become rich by breaking a law and being unkind to people who came to do business with you in good faith?

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 7:40 p.m.


    ICheck the Wiki article entitled "Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States".

    A dozen States repealed their anti-miscegenation laws before 1887.

    The Cali State Supreme Court overturned its law in 1948. Another dozen States repealed their laws legislatively between then and 1967. Maryland repealed its law, legislatively, in response to the Loving case starting.

    That left 16 States, most part of the old Confederacy, whose laws were voided by Loving. The court followed social and constitutional changes. I've provided a readily findable citation to my claim. Feel free to provide citations to back up yours.

    Yes, the court has ruled. Just as it did in Citizens' United, in Hosanna-Tabar, and in Hobby Lobby.

    Difference is, I don't see any serious right-wing efforts to undo Kitchen. We dislike it, but we comply. Lefties, however, continue their efforts to infringe on free speech as well as on religious freedom by ignoring or subverting the Court rulings with which they disagree.

    Homosexuals have marriage. Now they want to force everyone to celebrate with them rather than letting the rare baker peacefully refrain from supporting their activities.

  • strom thurmond taylorsville, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 7:08 p.m.

    Cause Jesus loved lawyers.

    Anyone read Matthew 23?

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 5:18 p.m.

    No, they weren't. Anti miscegenation laws were struck down by state supreme courts one at a time, until Loving vs Virginia made it to the SCOTUS and they repealed them nationally. I can't find a single example of legislative repeal of those laws(even though the Civil Rights act was passed in 64, it did not include the rollback of those laws.) As for gay marriage, even if you think that the SCOTUS ruling is wrong, they still ruled that way.

  • fliebynight Billings, MT
    Aug. 2, 2017 3:57 p.m.

    Great article, thank you Deseret News and Author! I read parts, browsed others, but I assumed this was a syndicated article picked up by the DNews. I was pleasantly surprised to see it was written by our very own. Very well researched, resourced, with varying points of view. Thank you!

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 3:57 p.m.


    Actually, the bulk of racist laws were repealed legislatively long before courts ruled. Only 16 States still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books when the Supreme Court issued the Loving decision. By the time Brown v Board was handed down, racial segregation was the law in only a minority of States, mostly in one particular region of the nation. The Courts followed and confirmed social norms rather than getting in front and driving them.

    More important legally, in ruling on racial issues, the court was acting in good faith of the original intent of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments which were all clearly written and directed specifically against race based denial of civil rights. So society accepts these decisions.

    Contrast that with the situation on homosexual marriage (or elective abortion). There is no clear constitutional language dealing with elective abortion or marriage. In both cases, the court ruled against the statutes in the majority of the States. So social discord continues.

    @Ranch: There is no right to homosexual marriage. 5 black roped lawyers violated their oaths, original intent, the rights of the citizens in 31 States.

  • Manzanita , 00
    Aug. 2, 2017 3:29 p.m.

    @jsf -

    If your argument is that segregationist Christians in the 1960s aren't the only people using religion and bad science to limit the rights of others, then you'll have no argument from me there.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 2:46 p.m.

    Jim Crow laws weren't overturned by a legislative effort or popular vote. They were overturned in the courts. That's why we have 3 branches of our government. The job of the courts is to protect people when the other two branches fail to protect the rights granted to Americans under the constitution. Like they did with Jim Crow, abortion rights and gay marriage. And if you don't like those my recommendations is don't get an abortion, and don't marry someone of the opposite sex. Frankly, I fail to see the difference between extremist christian groups attempting to codify their beliefs into law and the concept of Sharia Law. This is a secular nation, where no religion is given preference by the government. These groups want to change that, which in my mind makes them incredibly dangerous.

  • CMO Beaver Beaver, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 2:42 p.m.

    hmm what would Jesus do... maybe take legal action against the Pharisees... or maybe just go out and love your neighbor, spread the good news and so on.....

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 2:20 p.m.

    @Manzanita - Up to the 1960s, Eugenics advocates such as Margaret Sanger of California, and the likes of Woodrow Wilson, a progressive liberal, said science dictated segregation of the races be enforced. Easy to say it was just the bible Christians, when it was the atheist scientists that were using science to support their position also. You know those same old Jim Crow laws.

    One just has to love that Hillary said she was a 1920's kind of liberal progressive. And then drops into a "southern racist drawl to pander to the black race" Talk about racist.

    Yes Christians do need to defend themselves from such false narratives.

  • SoonerCougarJr. Tooele, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 2:18 p.m.

    I agree with Laycock. These legal efforts may produce short-term victories for Christian ideals in some cases. But they also stand to undermine religious freedom in the long-term. Remember, "By their fruits ye shall know them." The primary fruits I see growing out of these legal efforts are sour grapes.

    Christian living is not something to be enforced. Its positive merits are self-evident. Defended, yes, and the best defense of Christian ideals is the sweeter fruit that comes from living them quietly, honestly and consistently.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 2:02 p.m.

    Liberal progressives decry Christian legal activists, and then support groups like "The Freedom from Religion Foundation." "The national Foundation has brought more than 85 First Amendment lawsuits since 1977, and keeps several Establishment law challenges in the courts at all times." What they sue people, those darn hypocrites.

    Apparently, liberal progressives don't want Christians to have constitutional access to the courts, and the courts are only available for the anti-religious to prosecute the religious.

  • 112358 Alpine, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 1:59 p.m.


    Your shouting weakens your arguments. So much hatred and intolerance towards faith here.


    DN: Why is the shouting allowed? It's a clear violation of the forum rules: Comment Board Rules and Guidelines
    "3. No all caps shouting..."

    This rule doesn't seem to be enforced for a certain class of comments.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 1:50 p.m.

    Well that comment wasn't going to make it through the moderators.

    "News agency dpa reported that the Brandenburg state court ruled Wednesday the group can't claim the rights of a religious or philosophical community. Judges said its criticism of others' beliefs doesn't constitute a philosophy. The group says that it's a humanist organization and plans to appeal."

    "Stephen Cavanaugh sued the Department of Correctional Services and penitentiary officials in 2014 seeking $5 million and a court order mandating that inmates who practice FSMism receive the same rights and privileges as inmates who practice other religions."

    Apparently @E T Bass - Pastafarians do like and encourage law suites.

  • Manzanita , 00
    Aug. 2, 2017 1:47 p.m.

    During the 1960s in the Jim Crow South, many Christians invoked the Bible as supposed authority for the idea that segregation was approved by God because blacks were an inferior race.

    The U. S. Supreme Court eventually corrected those practices as unlawful violations of the Constitution and our notions of equal protection under the law.

    Groups today that claim a religious authority to deny service to the LGBTQ community are no different from those who refused to seat blacks at the lunch counter and made them drink at separate water fountains.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Aug. 2, 2017 1:44 p.m.

    You folks do realize that these same organizations spoke up in favor of sodomy laws in 2003, and continue to support sodomy laws abroad, right?

    Pretending this is just about cakes is willful ignorance.

    That said, if nondiscrimination laws are such an affront to religious liberty, then you religious folk are the far greater villain here. Sexual ordination isn't covered in even half the states, but religion has been covered nation-wide since 1964.

  • Manzanita , 00
    Aug. 2, 2017 1:41 p.m.

    I am continually dismayed at the hypocrisy of the LDS Church which keeps raising this false flag claiming that its religious freedoms are being abridged, when it the the Church itself that actively supported Proposition 8 - which sought to limit the rights of LGBT couples, many of whom were religious - to partake of the sacrament of marriage, according to the dictates of their own religious beliefs.

    Apparently, the LDS Church and similar groups only support religious freedom when their own religious beliefs are at stake.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Aug. 2, 2017 1:16 p.m.

    Filing a lawsuit does nothing to promote one's morals. It may punish someone with the audacity to disagree with you but in the process it surrenders what moral integrity you may thought you had.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 1:01 p.m.

    neece says:

    "Why cant the people who are offended choose to go somewhere else? What about all the signs that say, "No shirt, no shoes, no service""

    --- First, the shirt/shoes can be remedied easily & it is a potential health hazard. Why should an LGBT couple be expected to "go somewhere else" just because some bigot has his panties in a wad? Your superstitions don't override the civil rights of citizens. WE pay taxes that support businesses (fire, police, roads, education, etc.) WE should all be served equally. If your religion requires bigotry it isn't a good religion in the first place.

    You seem to think that seeing an LGBT couple implies we're "discussing what goes on in the privacy of our house". A-3 "shoved your beliefs" on us. Utah's liquor laws "shove your beliefs on us".


    You are not being asked to participate in anything; we wouldn't want you there anyway.


    Deflection. Doesn't change the fact that Christians are hypocrites and Jesus doesn't like hypocrites.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 12:51 p.m.

    The only difference between man and the other animals is the ability to think. And their physical appearance. All are controlled by the commandment of God to survive in the life they possess. That is the only real commandment and it is written in every cell of every living thing.

    The drive to survive makes life a competition that in the lessor animals is physical ability known as the Law of the Jungle. The ability to think defeats the advantage of physical ability and changes the competition for the Law of the Jungle to the strength of the mental ability.

    In humans, the law of jungle is best shown by business and the accumulation of wealth. Every organized group of human beings has as it's main driving purpose to sustain itself, grow and rule the world. Churches, organized religions, in this world are business operations that refuse to follow the rules of business. Mainly this is refusing to be governed by the society and refusing to support the costs of society.

    All wars are the competition between business groups and probably more people have been murdered and enslaved under religious banners than any other.

  • Thomas Thompson Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 12:31 p.m.

    I would think these groups might lack standing to appear in these cases, as they have no direct stake in the outcome.

  • Thomas Thompson Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 12:27 p.m.

    "The power of this movement will be on display this fall, when Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is argued before the Supreme Court. The potentially far-reaching case asks what should win out when the conscience rights of small-business owners who object to same-sex marriage clash with civil rights protections for the LGBT community."

    This is an interesting case which will severely test the age-old business concept of allowing businesses to "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." It's an important right, too, because shouldn't a bar be able to stop serving a patron who appears to be inebriated? Indeed, isn't that required under the law? But what if, for example, the bar owner refuses to serve a patron because he is black? That would be contrary to the civil rights laws protecting black people from that form of discrimination. The Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to be married as a matter of equal protection and due process. Does that mean that a baker must bake them a cake for their wedding? I believe the question must be answered in the affirmative.

  • CMTM , 00
    Aug. 2, 2017 12:20 p.m.

    RE: Ranch” Jesus told us that hypocrites won't be allowed into the kingdom of heaven.”

    Jesus on the natural, normal relationship: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh [sexual intercourse].’?” (Matthew 19:4-5

    For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another...” (Romans 1:26-27) Homosexual desire is unnatural because it causes a man to abandon the natural sexual compliment God has ordained for him: a woman.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 2, 2017 11:59 a.m.

    Man is a social animal and he may belong to many different groups including religion. It is the behavior of the individuals or group that distinguishes the good from the bad. If one uses the power of the group to unlawfully discipline or control others freedoms and rights, like looking into their bed room, mind control, or like saying I want you to pay your share of taxes to maintain a place for me to operate a profitable business; but I don't want you in my business or personal place because you are different and therefore undesirable. In other words when your religion is used as an instrument of hate, then that is bad.

  • Dave T in Ogden Ogden, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 11:55 a.m.

    Science or religion, are they separate and only one ring true, I say they both go together. Emotions, whether "hate" or "good will" can be between individuals, nations and groups of people, science governs emotions. Newton's Laws dictates how people react to each other. A nice smile and a hello or a rude gesture (actions) will usually get you the same back (reaction). You go through life thinking everyone is rude, you act rude (action) you will get the same rudeness back (reaction.) Then you will be right, people are nasty! Though if you have a JESUS moment and realize you have been too nasty to people. You start being nice to those around you - smile and give others nice hellos (actions) - you will notice a change (reactions.) People are usually nice. So let us pray that JESUS will reach Trump's heart, to repent from his nasty ways, say nice things even to those he disagrees.
    Second I believe God works through us all from time to time, sometimes this force touches all lives to say something that can help others. That person may be an Atheist, Muslim, homeless, drug addict, this force does not judge of who gets picked to say the right thing. If we only not judge ourselves.

  • neece Logan, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 11:54 a.m.

    Yesssssss! It is about time. I should be able to choose who serve or not. Why cant the people who are offended choose to go somewhere else? What about all the signs that say, "No shirt, no shoes, no service" wow they are discriminating against someone with out shoes? It is their establishment and should be able to choose who, how and when things happen in their business.

    Personally I think the LBGTQ is trying to get into our faces so badly it isn't funny. I honestly do not care one way or another who you choose to marry or your sexual preference, However... I don't discuss what goes on in the "privacy" of my house and don't personally want to know your's either. I don't believe people should live together without marriage, but have many friends who do... I don't shove my beliefs on them nor they to us... you just want your own belief's, comments and choices without reprisal.

    As Rodney King said "Why can't we all just get along?"

  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    Aug. 2, 2017 11:51 a.m.

    Pretty ridiculous to compare "honor killings" with a legal right not to be forced to participate in a gay wedding under the justification of Religious Freedom. Very dishonest comparrison.

    As always, Christians are not asking to be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians as a group, they just dont want to be forced to participate in a practise that is against their sincere religious beliefs.

    I still think, for now, caterers etc should tell gay couples that they dont serve or participate in gay weddings because of their religious beliefs but that they can arrange to outsource the service if the couple forces them to. This is the minimum that Judge Roberts should tell us would be allowed under the law as he did with taxes and Obamacare.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Aug. 2, 2017 11:48 a.m.

    I am never suprised by the lengths to which religeous extremists will go to attempt to force their world view onto others.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 11:35 a.m.

    Danny Chipman says:

    "...faiths and the faithful will always need to be defended."

    --- Even when they're not following the rules of their own god? Like "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"?

    When the "faithful" tried to deny religious freedom to LGBT couples and those religions supporting SSM, did you defend these faithful? No, you didn't. That is hypocritical and Jesus told us that hypocrites won't be allowed into the kingdom of heaven.

    NoNames says:

    "The usual anti-religious posters continue to act as if they are victims while the faithful are the aggressors."

    ---Are you serious? Who was it that fought against the rights of LGBT? Who was it that prevents Muslims building Mosques? Who was it that denies women the right to control their own bodies? Oh, right, it is the "religious". You ARE the agressors.

    Nobody is asking for "pro-homosexual" cakes, they're asking for WEDDING cakes.

    31 of 50 states VIOLATED the Constitution and the rights of LGBT CITIZENS.


    You reap what you sow.

  • Mick , 00
    Aug. 2, 2017 11:34 a.m.

    How is it that the christians are the ones who should "do unto others?" If you don't declare a moral code, do you not need to follow one.

    How about those who are gay and would like to be married find one of the hundreds of bakers who would bake their cake? But they always seem to find the one that won't and make an example out of them. IMHO, they are doing unto others as is done unto them.

  • viejogeezer CARLSBAD, CA
    Aug. 2, 2017 11:30 a.m.

    I am curious, how does refusal to serve someone cake because they are gay differ from refusal to serve someone lunch in Nashville in 1960 because they are black?

  • neece Logan, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 11:14 a.m.

    skeptic - Phoenix, AZ

    Just because I believe in and am a part of religion... why does that make me or others "finatics?"

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 2, 2017 11:03 a.m.

    It is ironic that the USA has sacrificed over ten years, billions of dollars and thousands of lives combatting religious fanatics to win freedom in other countries and now we are confronted with the same sickness in our own country just under a different banner.

  • CMTM , 00
    Aug. 2, 2017 10:56 a.m.

    RE: Impartial7 "do unto others", not "take others to court to make them abide by your religious views".

    Should Christians take non-Christians to court over civil matters? If it can be avoided, no. However, in some instances, such as the protection of our own rights . E.g….,

    Acts chapters 21–22, Paul is being arrested and wrongfully accused of a crime he did not commit. The Romans arrested him and “the commander brought Paul inside and ordered him lashed with whips to make him confess his crime. Paul used the Roman law and his citizenship to protect himself.

    There is nothing wrong with using the court system as long as it is done with a right motive and a pure heart.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 10:52 a.m.

    The hypocrisy of the left is beyond astounding. Virtually every gain the sexual minorities have made in society have come through suits and judicial fiat.

    Those who cite polls claiming that society supports marriage benefits for homosexuals clearly don't and didn't believe their own rhetoric, instead running to the courts for what the public would not grant. Hawaii passed the first State Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a man and a woman in 1998 in response to a Hawaii court decision granting homosexual marriage benefits.

    Ultimately, 31 of the 50 States passed Defense of Marriage amendments. The results were not even close. In most States the vote was 60-40 or better in favor of defining marriage as a man and a woman. The closest vote was 52-48, still a decisive victory.

    Not a single State created homosexual marriage benefits via constitutional amendment. Only Maine granted homosexual marriage benefits via popular vote.

    Yet the anti-religion, liberal posters have the gall to suggest that Christian interests should not be using the judicial system? Some are so blinded they don't even see their own hypocrisy.

  • 112358 Alpine, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 10:42 a.m.

    The animus towards faith displayed in these comments alone shows why legal defense is necessary.

    Under the Obama administration, the First Amendment suffered attack after attack. His administration persecuted and sued everyone from nuns to mom and pop bakers for following their deeply held religious beliefs. One might imagine that Obama would have thought twice about attacking nuns, but he pressed the legal attack all the way to the Supreme Court. (Imagine the press coverage if Trump had done the same.)

    The Constitutional protection of religious freedom is absolutely explicit. In spite of this, the political left wishes to subordinate religious freedom to their preferred definition of sexual freedom. Moreover, they wish to short circuit our Constitution to achieve their aims.

    If the left wishes to rewrite the Constitution, they should do it properly -- by removing the First Amendment, which is their real aim. Until then, the explicit freedom guaranteed in the Constitution stands.

    The left can name-call religious freedom all they want, but freedom is what the Constitution guarantees -- even if they don't like how people exercise that freedom.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 10:37 a.m.

    The usual anti-religious posters continue to act as if they are victims while the faithful are the aggressors.

    When someone walks into a baker and asks for a cake with an anti-homosexual message, the baker is free to refuse. But they want to force bakers to provide cakes with pro-homosexual messages.

    Notice the inherent dishonesty in how the issue is posed by the anti-religious posters. Which bakers have refused service to homosexual individuals? Have they refused to sell birthday cakes or cookies for a PTA meeting? No. Bakers have merely declined to use creative talent to support homosexual events.

    Pro-homosexual and atheist groups exist on almost every public and most private college campuses in the nation. They get access to student fees. And with the rarest of exceptions, Christians don't join or otherwise try to disrupt their operations. But if a Christian group applies for status on campus, homosexuals and atheists try to deny them equal access to funding. They will demand that the groups allow anti-Christians to serve in leadership positions.

  • Tyler D Prescott, AZ
    Aug. 2, 2017 10:32 a.m.

    It’s not hard to imagine any one of the legal arguments made today by the so-called “religious liberty” crowd being employed in future cases by Muslims who want to “freely exercise” their own beliefs – beliefs about honor killings, female circumcision, gays, apostasy, blasphemy, Sharia Law, etc.

    If this sounds alarmist, I suggest reading Douglas Murray’s new book – The Strange Death of Europe – for a glimpse into our possible (not-too-distant) future.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 10:28 a.m.

    Flying Spaghetti Monster has never encouraged lawsuits.

  • Danny Chipman Lehi, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 10:22 a.m.

    Specific cases aside, faiths and the faithful will always need to be defended.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 10:03 a.m.

    I thought Jesus taught "do unto others", not "take others to court to make them abide by your religious views".

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 9:47 a.m.

    Oh, and don't forget to send money. God needs your money.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 7:19 a.m.

    Do we offer them the other cheek?
    No, we go after them. Today's religion is about the acquisition of power and money in the here and now, and nothing to do with the hereafter.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 2, 2017 7:04 a.m.

    Religion isn't a legitimate excuse for discrimination. Ever.

    It's pretty hypocritical to claim "religious freedom" after spending decades denying it to others.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Aug. 2, 2017 6:21 a.m.

    Gannam states that his organization is taking the long view. IMO, this part of the article reflects the long view:

    "Younger Americans, in particular, seem to be wary of conscience rights. In a recent Public Religion Research Institute survey, only 1 in 4 Americans ages 18 to 29 (24 percent) favored allowing small-business owners to refuse to provide products or services to the LGBT community for religious reasons, compared to around one-third of Americans ages 30 to 64..."

    One reason for the wariness, IMO, is that business owners like the owner of Masterpiece Bakery are asking gay couples to bear the burden of their beliefs. If you've voluntarily entered the public square (where all are equal) to sell your wares, it simply isn't just to look at a group and say, "Because my religious beliefs say X, you must allow me not to treat you like every other customer." No. Your religious beliefs and any complications arising from them are YOUR problem, not the public's or any one group's.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Aug. 2, 2017 6:03 a.m.

    Let us be perfectly clear. From the piece: ""We are distinctively Christian, but the religious liberties we secure and vindicate are for everyone, not just for Christians," Gannam said."

    Mr Gannam and his fellow advocates seek to make discrimination legal, be it for Christians or Hindus, Muslims or Jews.

    The wedge issue this mentality uses is cake baking for same sex wedding parties. However, the long goal is just that. Legalized discrimination. I wonder if Christians really considered that this can bite back, and hurt.

    Is this the America we want?