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."
"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.
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.
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.
@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.
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?
@Noodlekaboodle: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.
Cause Jesus loved lawyers.Anyone read Matthew 23?
@NoNamesAcceptedNo, 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.
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!
@Noodlekaboodle: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.
@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.
@NoNamesAccepted 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.
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.....
@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.
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.
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
@Rand/KarenYour 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:
DeseretNews.com Comment Board Rules and Guidelines ... "3.
No all caps shouting..."This rule doesn't seem to be
enforced for a certain class of comments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".@BT;You are not being
asked to participate in anything; we wouldn't want you there anyway.@CMTM;Deflection. Doesn't change the fact that
Christians are hypocrites and Jesus doesn't like hypocrites.
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.
I would think these groups might lack standing to appear in these cases, as they
have no direct stake in the outcome.
"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.
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 19:4-5For 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.
@neece,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.
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.
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?"
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
I am never suprised by the lengths to which religeous extremists will go to
attempt to force their world view onto others.
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.@112358;You
reap what you sow.
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.
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?
skeptic - Phoenix, AZJust because I believe in and am a part of
religion... why does that make me or others "finatics?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Flying Spaghetti Monster has never encouraged lawsuits.
Specific cases aside, faiths and the faithful will always need to be defended.
I thought Jesus taught "do unto others", not "take others to court
to make them abide by your religious views".
Oh, and don't forget to send money. God needs your money.
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.
Religion isn't a legitimate excuse for discrimination. Ever.It's pretty hypocritical to claim "religious freedom" after
spending decades denying it to others.
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.
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?