Bipartisanship is mostly absent from state-level religious freedom debates

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Juan E. Otaiza J. BROAD BROOK, CT
    July 14, 2018 12:11 a.m.

    You can see that your right eye has an image of what surrounds you totally different from the left eye, but, what better to see reality with both eyes, right?

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    July 9, 2018 9:02 p.m.

    Thid Baker,

    Allow me to introduce myself. I am neither a liberal nor a Democrat.

    You are wrong, as usual. Get out of your bubble.

  • Sportsfan123 Herriman, UT
    July 9, 2018 11:27 a.m.

    Liberalcommontator

    Said poster stated "we dont have the right to tell a person what they can or cant do with their own body", you know your are right on that. Noone has the right to tell anyone what they can or cant do with your body, like tatoo's and piercing's, or sunbathing, or simply working out or overeating.

    Said poster said, "when was this human born?, and why isnt anyone being arrested for the murder of this human?

    1st you should google pic's of aborted babies, its horrific. Anyone that can look at those pic's and say they aren't human is very wrong, just because someone isnt born doesn't disqualify them as being human. A woman has a right to her own body but she doesnt have the right to take the life if her unborn baby.

    As far as cases for murder of an unborn child, look no further than charles manson and his gang for the murder of actress sharon tate and her unborn child - 2 counts of murder in that case.

    Said poster is making assumptions that religion has anything to do with my stance on abortion. And of course noone gets arrested for it, its legal.

    Facts are you dont have to be born to be human, the law may be on your side but it doesnt make it right.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 9, 2018 11:05 a.m.

    "While I am 100 percent opposed to discrimination against any group or person, you've got to strike a balance and you can't trample on the religious liberty rights of business owners," he said.

    -- So, what you're saying is that religious business owners who believe the races should be separate should be allowed to refuse to serve black customers? If it's okay to refuse to serve LGBT customers for "religious" reasons, it's okay to refuse to serve blacks, Mormons, Jews, Catholics, etc. You can't have the one without the others or you have a state "established" religion.

    "Marriage sends a message of legitimacy, that is why civil unions with all legal benefits of marriage were not sufficient."

    -- First, Utah prevented LGBT couples from having CU's at all (read A-3's text).
    -- Second; CU's did NOT provide all the legal benefits of marriage.
    -- Third; it is NONE of your business who someone else chooses to marry.

    @ERB;

    You don't even have to marry Non-worthy MEMBERS in your temples; there's no way you'd have to marry LGBT couples. You're trying to scare others with that kind of nonsense.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    July 9, 2018 10:32 a.m.

    @Thid Baker
    "Well, it would be really easy to prove me wrong. Just introduce me to an atheist who is not also and liberal Democrat!"
    Check out the article "Yes, Atheism and Conservatism Are Compatible " by Charles Cooke on National Review from 2014.

    And in case you want to dismiss those specific examples as too anecdotal, check out the "party affiliation" section of Pew's "religious landscape study". 23% of "religious nones" are Republican/lean Republican, and 5% of Republicans/lean Republicans are explicitly atheist (a more specific category then "religious none").

    Yes, conservatives/Republicans are more likely to be religious then liberals/Democrats. But just as there are religious liberals/Democrats, there are atheists conservatives/Republicans. Your experiences are not univeral.

  • ConservativeCommonTater West Valley City, UT
    July 9, 2018 10:24 a.m.

    Sportsfan123

    "Yet the left claims moral high ground in regards to abortion claiming noone has the right to tell a woman what they can do with their own body and dehumanises the phetus by claiming it's a blob of cells and has no value. Yet we all know abortion is effectively killing a human being."

    first, it's "fetus"

    You claim that YOU have the right to tell another person what they can and can't do with their own body. Thus, your "rights" are somehow superior to someone else's rights? Why can't their rights be superior to yours?

    "Yet we all know abortion is effectively killing a human being."

    You are making presumptions that are unsupported. Your religious beliefs don't cover the majority of the country that believes abortion is a woman's choice, not the choice of MEN.

    You also claim that abortion is killing a human being. When was this human being born? Why isn't someone arrested for the murder of this unborn human being? It's because they are not a human being. Your comment is based on your religious belief that you want to impose on others.

    See the errors of your "thinking?" We have law on our side. You have nothing.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 9, 2018 10:19 a.m.

    there isn't much left in the Democrat party regarding respect for religious liberty. From college campuses to the halls of congress the Democrats seem intent on killing the first amendment.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    July 9, 2018 10:16 a.m.

    @NoNamesAccepted
    "I will do passport photos or birthday cakes for anyone."
    So why is your religious freedom more important then the religious freedom of "Take the Cake" from Toledo, Ohio (cancelled order for birthday cake after e-stalking the customer to find out if she was a lesbian)?

    Or the religious freedom of "Dieseltec" from Grandville, Michigan who doesn't want any gay customers at his auto repair shop?

    Or the religious freedom of all those taxi drivers that keep kicking out gay folk?

    Drawing the line at "wedding services" is only popular in court rooms. You shouldn't fault folks for noticing.

    @ERB
    "Simply, how long before a gay couple sues to get married in a temple."
    This is settled law. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, you can't force a church to rent out it's space to any given group.

    That said, the infamous New Jersey case had such an extenuating circumstnace in that they sought and accepted a tax break to renovate their outdoor pavillion on the condition that it would be open to the public. Then they reneged on their part of the deal.

    "Also, if gays can marry due to love, why can't polygamists marry in the open."
    Because Christians won't let them.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    July 9, 2018 10:00 a.m.

    When was the last time one of these "religious liberty" laws that would allow someone to cite their God while refusing me service *also* allow me to cite their God while refusing them service?

    If you guessed "never", you got it!

    The simple fact is that the "reilgious liberty" laws of the last couple of years have never been about religion, they have always been about anti-gay. If they were about *religion*, then they would protect more then just anti-gay religious beliefs.

  • ConservativeCommonTater West Valley City, UT
    July 9, 2018 9:44 a.m.

    The reason for a lack of support from one side to another is easy to understand.

    Republicans want to claim "religious freedom" to discriminate against others and take away the rights of those they disagree with.

    "Liberals want to prevent discrimination based on "religious freedoms" Dems want everyone to have equality, not one "special" group claiming they have rights to take away rights and equality from others.

    Religious beliefs have no legitimate place in secular law or government.

  • Thomas Jefferson Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 9, 2018 9:41 a.m.

    Light and Liberty said:

    "bluesman503: Perhaps a brief study of history will help you realize that most laws that govern this and other nations are based on Christian teachings."

    I challenge you to name of few of these "most laws..based on xian teachings".
    I bet you cannot.

    "And yet, if you want to humanize all laws, then what are you going to do with a mob that decides that sacrificing children is showing devotion?"

    Its easy to see that you are a xian. And yet your example of what would be the worst thing possible is exactly what 'god' demanded Abraham do in the founding document of your religion? What is up with that? Have you actually read the bible?

    "Also, the misguided, misinformed, and ignorant notion that 'separation of church and state' meant that citizens can't express their religious convictions in the public square is the exact opposite of its intended meaning."

    And out come the strawmen.
    Not one person has proposed that you cant walk the sidewalks with your sandwich board sign telling everyone they are going to burn for eternity.
    The separation of church and state just means the state cannot favor one religion over any other. Not your silly strawman.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    July 9, 2018 9:24 a.m.

    If someone's religious beliefs prevent them from doing their job they should find another job.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2018 10:39 p.m.

    @ERB
    "Simply, how long before a gay couple sues to get married in a temple. That's coming sooner than later."

    Depends on how long it is before a lawyer is dumb enough to advise a gay couple to engage in a lawsuit that would be laughed out of court because of how utterly flawed it'd be.

    "Also, if gays can marry due to love, why can't polygamists marry in the open. "

    Interracial marriage was the precedent court ruling but I imagine you're okay with that (at least I hope you are) so you aren't going to attribute any theoretical slippery slope to that one.

    "20 years ago this country was not even close to having gay marriage. I don't know the numbers, but I'm guessing 10-15 % of Americans wanted gay marriage then."

    27-68 Gallup poll 1996. 60-37 in 2015.

    @Tekakaromatagi
    "His assumption was that if a Chrisitian had a conscience objection that it was therefore a sign that the Christian was bigoted."

    Refusing to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple is bigoted. But Mike Huckabee championed it when Kim Davis refused it... he calls it bigoted though when his daughter is refused service.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    July 8, 2018 9:41 p.m.

    "Religious Freedom" bills aren't really about religious freedom because there is nothing that stops religions from practicing. "Religious Freedom" bills are about allowing religious people to discriminate against others. Today it's a cake, tomorrow it's healthcare.

  • Pugsley53 Riverdale, UT
    July 8, 2018 8:31 p.m.

    @bluesman 503 You speak well of the objections of each side and what's most interesting, you can replace "religion" for "secular" and vice versa clearly state what each side objects to.

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    July 8, 2018 8:19 p.m.

    Christians need to let others live their lives without interference, AND other groups need to let Christians live their lives without interference. Nobody should be forced to perform an action that is contrary to their beliefs.

  • Fullypresent Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2018 6:46 p.m.

    If they put country and fellow Americans before party they would work together in everyone's best interest. Do the right thing and you can and will work together if your country matters more to you than your party.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    July 8, 2018 5:10 p.m.

    Utahbluedevil: "your comment is not only extremely judgemental (sic)... but equally I’ll imformed (sic)

    Well, it would be really easy to prove me wrong. Just introduce me to an atheist who is not also and liberal Democrat! While your at it, remember the 2012 Democratic convention when Democrats voted to remove any reference to God from their platform? It was caught on national TV!

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    July 8, 2018 4:04 p.m.

    Considering that "religious freedom" laws are pretty much just ways to get around non-discrimination laws so people can discriminate (mostly) against LGBT people it's admirable that Democrats don't push them.

  • "Hakuna Matata" Vernal, UT
    July 8, 2018 3:43 p.m.

    Here is a plain and simple answer:

    Republicans and Democrats = Party loyalty or "We the people" (The United States of America).

    Also, they just don't want to work on Religious Freedom but not on all the bills they have sitting right in front of them in the chamber but just on the ones that they see would be lucrative for their bank accounts, privileges and power accessibilities.

  • Light and Liberty St George, UT
    July 8, 2018 1:48 p.m.

    bluesman503: Perhaps a brief study of history will help you realize that most laws that govern this and other nations are based on Christian teachings. And yet, if you want to humanize all laws, then what are you going to do with a mob that decides that sacrificing children is showing devotion? Who or what is going to demand that your viewpoint is 'higher' than their viewpoint?
    Also, the misguided, misinformed, and ignorant notion that 'separation of church and state' meant that citizens can't express their religious convictions in the public square is the exact opposite of its intended meaning. I'm fine with anyone coming up with their own version of what 'separation of church and state' means, but I am not fine with them thinking this is what the founders meant when they rightfully expressed that the their should be no such thing as a state religion, thus a 'separation of church and state'.

  • bluesman503 south Jordan, Utah
    July 8, 2018 1:22 p.m.

    Knowing that some people get comfort and relief from fear by the exercise of faith I have no strong objection to the individual use of faith as a way to cope with reality. It is when the religious come together in huge groups and then insist that everyone live according to their faith, their standards of morality, and the truth as taught by their religion that I object most strongly.

    If a church is going to insist that their beliefs be incorporated into our laws, if they are going to establish societal taboos, if they are going to deny any rights to any person based on their beliefs, then they should be required to prove empirically the existence of their god. It is not enough for their leadership to say this is what our god says, or commands, or demands.

    Our founders insisted on the separation of church and state for good and valid reasons. It is treasonous in my opinion to base any laws on religious beliefs. That is why the constitution and bill of rights were written in such a way as to guarantee that we would remain a secular country devoid of religious influence in the formation and operation of our government….

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2018 1:14 p.m.

    Thid Barker - Victor, ID, contrary to the rhetoric. We as a nation are accountable to The Constitution and the secular laws that govern all, not any religion.

    We have so far as honest, decent, and moral citizens resisted the radical rights agenda to place their version of God into our secular laws. Your version of God is a lot different than mine, and most people that I know who have informed themselves.

    I do believe that my version of God is a better version than the Evangelicals and others who voted for Trump. A lot more Christlike and honest!

  • Sportsfan123 Herriman, UT
    July 8, 2018 1:09 p.m.

    There is a falsehood amongst the left that most havnt touched on, and that is the left claims a moral high ground thru moral relativism. The very definition of moral relativism in a nut shell is that there is no universal moral or ethical code, basically everyone is different some agree others disagree about morals. So the concept is that everyone is different therefore we should all be tolerant of others and find compromise.

    Yet the left claims moral high ground in regards to abortion claiming noone has the right to tell a woman what they can do with their own body and dehumanises the phetus by claiming it's a blob of cells and has no value. Yet we all know abortion is effectively killing a human being.

    The left also uses political correctness to portray a negative light on conservatives. Case in point when trump spoke out about the charlottesville riots where the white supremicists, antifa and blm all contributed to the violence, trump blamed all parties and denounced all violence yet the left called out trump for not just blaiming the the white supremicist group as if antifa and blm did nothing wrong.

    The left is selling lies & propaganda and the right is feckless and lost.

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2018 12:49 p.m.

    threedegreecougar - Kaysville, UT

    "1) The LDS church wields enormous political power and any religious topic gets passed into law in Utah only with its blessing. Multiple legislators are on the record stating this."

    Wielding enormous power really means sharing common values.

    "2) The LDS church had no interest in "compromise" in legislation until in late 2014 it lost its decades long attempt to solidify the partisan position of denying LGBT marriage rights. Once that battle was lost, which many would construe to deny civil rights to others, it switched to a strategy of compromise in order to protect its own civil rights."

    The Family Proclamation in 1995 stated the LDS position on this issue. It has not changed. The ultimate goal of LGBT lobbying is to deny tax exempt status to anyone or institution that does not conform to their orthodoxy and life style.

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    July 8, 2018 12:01 p.m.

    Thid... your comment is not only extremely judgemental... but equally I’ll imformed. It represents everything that is wrong with people who live in a bubble and don’t associate with others much. To say that your brothers and sisters seek to destroy God simply because they don’t vote like you is more a statement about you more than it is a reflection based in reality of any one else.

    I know many who are not only not American, but are also not even Christian who are deeply God loving people who dedicate their lives to following Christ’s first and greatest commandment - even if they don’t know who Christ is.

    Not sure how anyone can claim either moral nor spiritual superiority when they themselves seem to disrespect their felllow brother and sisters simply because they don’t vote in synch

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    July 8, 2018 8:43 a.m.

    Why do Democrats and Republicans not work together on religious issues! Liberals believe we are accountable to the state, not to God! Therefore, God is competition and must be eliminated! Conservative Republicans believe just the opposite! That's the ultimate difference!

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 8, 2018 8:09 a.m.

    About a month ago the Deseret News reported that 49 states had GOP state legislators, governors, etc who had made intolerant comments about Moslems. The Democrats are not so squeaky clean on the diversity issue. Democrats have their own intolerances and stereotypes directed at Christians. When New York legalized same gender marriage a county district attorney immediately issued a statement that clerks, etc who declined to fill out marriage licenses because of their "bigotry" would be subject to fines or prison terms. His assumption was that if a Chrisitian had a conscience objection that it was therefore a sign that the Christian was bigoted. Various Democrat governors, mayors etc have expressed similar views equating Christian moral belief with bigotry.

    So it is doubtful that they would suddenly change. Their party and various groups that fund Democrat campaigns would not permit them.

    There is more to being liberal than having intolerance directed at different groups than Donald Trump.

  • countryvoice3 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2018 8:07 a.m.

    "Could it be that perhaps some churches and society are suffering of a "cultural gap". Perhaps the laws of the land have moved faster than the ability of some groups to adapt?"

    It really does boil down to this. We long ago crossed the bridge of denying public service to someone because of their race or gender. It wasn't easy and didn't go without a horrific fight, but it did go.

    Why did society eventually decide against the property/business owner? Basically the discrimination was based on an inherent human trait, not the choice of the individual. It's clear even religions have acquiesced this point...not here, not yet.

    The difference is this issue and discrimination is firmly rooted in religion. The battle has actually just begun as one side attempts to prove (for a variety of reasons not just this) that like gender or color, sexual orientation is rooted in the inherent nature of the individual, and the religious side takes various positions of opposition to that in an attempt to justify themselves.

    Problem will be earlier fights were based on self evident truths, this will be discovered evidence for which religion is reluctant.

  • ERB Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 8, 2018 8:03 a.m.

    Bacchus asks the DN how the LGQBT threatens religion. Simply, how long before a gay couple sues to get married in a temple. That's coming sooner than later. Also, if gays can marry due to love, why can't polygamists marry in the open. Then open it up to why is polygamy illegal now. Love is love, right. At least in polygamy children can come naturally. BTW, I'm in no way pushing polygamy. Just asking how that's different. And where does this stop. 20 years ago this country was not even close to having gay marriage. I don't know the numbers, but I'm guessing 10-15 % of Americans wanted gay marriage then. But after 20 years of Hollywood and liberals pushing the "gay agenda", by one SCOTUS, vote, we have gay marriage. What's next?

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2018 7:19 a.m.

    The best post here today is the one asking for any documentation of anyone losing their "religious freedoms"?

    Not a single religious bigotry, discriination, or false doctirne is lost. Not one. Those who are screaming for "religious freedom" are doing so because their foothold, (or strangulation) of other's civil and legal rights has been brought into question. And rightly so.

    As for those who feel that business can not support someones' "agenda". Get out of business. Now! You are shamelessly promoting bigorty and hatred within the secular business world that has no right to discriminate.

    Im sure that even the most radical right poster here has family who is LBGTQ. Sadly they are never going to realize real happiness with that family due to this bigotry. Those who suffer under this family member, church member, Conservative, or Liberal who degrades them for who they are, I'm truly sorry for you.

    Again, can anyone name one religious freedom they have lost? I can't name one that I have lost. Not one. However some of my bigotries, including race when I was younger have been changed due to education and witnessing civil unrest.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 8, 2018 7:03 a.m.

    We'll see our politicians be willing to work across party lines again when we voters allow them to. I see/hear some movement in this direction, as those in the middle tire of the tribalism and extremism. Pay attention to what the libertarian and secular humanist thought leaders are doing/talking about and who is listening to them. They're mostly young-ish (30's to 50's) and they represent what I consider to be a truer reflection of America: people with a mix of conservative and liberal leanings (and beliefs about religion).

    While many focus on the D.C. circus, these people are convening for podcasts, debates and forums in which the goal is to flesh out ideas and find common ground. I find their efforts a lot more constructive, informative, and rational than anything one might see on cable news. And they're the future, not the folks currently with their clutches on power.

    @ Thid

    "Mention God to a liberal and watch their anger!"

    The following can be said as easily and with as much validity: Mention "liberal" to a conservative and watch their anger! But where do either get us?

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    July 8, 2018 6:44 a.m.

    I care little about what anyone does in their places of worship. Even less about what someone does in the privacy of their own home, their private club or other non-public associations.

    I care greatly how a person in treated in public. Either we treat everyone exactly the same or we don't. Either we are governed by law or we are governed by personal faith (which is astonishingly different person to person).

    The conflict over same sex marriage and "religious freedom" is a ginned up controversy exploited by so-called Conservatives to scare an anxious public who see society changing every day. The newly minted "religious freedom" bills are merely attempts to keep the controversy alive, most especially since the younger generation seems to accept same sex marriage as normal.

    IMO, a decade or so from now, these bills will seem as archaic as Jim Crow laws are seen now. I wonder if that is the legacy that religious fundamentalists who use same sex marriage oppositon as a weapon want for their children and grandchildren? A legacy of unmerited discrimination against a minority.

  • mightymite , 00
    July 7, 2018 10:51 p.m.

    They can’t work anything out. Why focus on this. We at a a low In what a republic is really defined as. So sad.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    July 7, 2018 5:53 p.m.

    @Furry1993: "If a business/proprietor provides a good/service to some people, the same good/service should be available to all people."

    Should a nurse who starts an IV for some patients, be required to start an IV for a completely elective abortion?

    Should a doctor who prescribes drugs for an assisted suicide be required to prescribe drugs for a state-ordered execution?

    Should a pharmacist be required to carry abortion inducing drugs? If he sells opioides to anyone, should he be required to sell them to the state for use in an execution?

    Should a drug maker who happily accepts Medicare and Medicaid payments for its drugs, be required to sell drugs to the State of Utah for use in executions?

    If a reception hall is rented out for private parties, must the owner also rent to skin heads, Republicans, and the NRA?

    Should a business be free to ban lawfully carried firearms? What other behavior can he ban?

    The problem we have is that this far, anti-discrimination laws have largely imposed leftist values on conservatives while leaving liberals free to live their values in the public sphere. It is time for level footing so both sides have reason to seek reasonable compromise.

  • rlynn Brandon, FL
    July 7, 2018 5:12 p.m.

    The message I received from this article is that religion freedom is under attack because of the LGBTQ community. If this is so it is because of prejudice, bigotry and homophobia . I don't ask you to change your believe, but I do ask you to respect the law, my marriage and religious beliefs, just as I respect yours. Because of my religious believe/doctrine I find wearing or having a tattoo of the crucifix very offensive, but I always serve those who wear one.
    From my point of view and experiences in my life, the people who cry that religious freedom is under attack, are those who want everyone to believe as they do and forces them to do so.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    July 7, 2018 4:32 p.m.

    Utahbluedevil,

    "To believe there is only one way - is most pompous."

    Indeed, it is a violation of metaphysics, ethics, and humanity! It is the greatest lie foisted upon mankind, and the source of so much oppression, suffering, and error.

    Preach it from North Carolina to South Provo!

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    July 7, 2018 4:27 p.m.

    @Y Ask Y

    "Many religious people are arrogant jerks who play favorites, discriminate against others, and think they are more righteous amd worthy than others."

    You've got to be kidding me, right? Do you really think that this exact same comment does not apply to the LBGT community as well? Or, for that matter, anyone else with a strong, passionate view, for or against a particular subject? Come back to the real world.

  • uterebel50 West Valley, UT
    July 7, 2018 3:53 p.m.

    Thid Barker: "Mention God to a liberal and watch their anger."

    That might be the most rediculous comment I've ever read in the DNews. I know many liberal thinking members of various churches, including LDS, who act in a more Christlike manner toward their fellow man than your comment indicates about you. Way too much hatred in your post.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 7, 2018 3:32 p.m.

    The answer is simple. “Religious Freedom” bills are seldom about either. They are the “Jim Crow” laws of the 21st Century, the purpose of which is to allow one to deny another of equality under the law. That the ones insisting they are on the side of “morality, family values, and God” are the very ones looking to relegate their fellow citizens to second- class citizenship status is tragically ironic.

  • Holy-Schamoly-What Baloney Kaysville, UT
    July 7, 2018 3:02 p.m.

    The photo needs the caption corrected as Elder L. Tom Perry is seated, not speaking. (You'd think the DesNews would catch that error.)

    The title of the article states that "Republicans and and Democrats rarely work together on religious freedom bills" but it needs to be corrected to read: "Republicans and Democrats rarely work together on bills!" They're polarized on everything, not just religious freedom bills. And each party keeps re-electing their same leadership in DC once they're seated for a new Congress. Why can't that change? If one of us common folk performed our jobs the way the US Congress does theirs, we'd be summarily fired and lucky to have been employed for an entire week.

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    July 7, 2018 2:56 p.m.

    " Mention God to a liberal and watch their anger!"

    @Thid - I do, all the time..... and to your surprise..... no anger. He is my Stake President and actually he issue with God. Go figure Thid. You need to crawl out of your partisan hole once in a while an realize that those horrible God hating liberals you imagine really aren't all that much different than you. That high horse must be getting really hard to get on now....

    I just finished reading another book on Jefferson and Adams. These two men had opposing views on so much, and yet agreed on so much more. They viewed the world through completely different lenses - and yet exchanged letters more than 150 times discussing and debating different issues.

    Why today's self anointed now feel they don't need to associate, less alone collaborate, with those on the other side is most puzzling. To believe there is only one way - is most pompous. We could learn much from our forefathers that were willing to set aside differences - and they had huge differences between them equal or surpassing todays issues -

  • threedegreecougar Kaysville, UT
    July 7, 2018 1:48 p.m.

    "Elder L. Tom Perry of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints speaks during an announcement of a historic piece of legislation that will protect Utah’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community from discrimination in housing and employment while maintaining equal protection for the expression of religious beliefs at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on Wednesday, March 4, 2015."
    The article uses a picture to indicate the involvement of the LDS church in the so-called Utah compromise bill on LGBT rights. The article fails to include any commentary on the history LDS church's involvement. This might include:
    1) The LDS church wields enormous political power and any religious topic gets passed into law in Utah only with its blessing. Multiple legislators are on the record stating this.
    2) The LDS church had no interest in "compromise" in legislation until in late 2014 it lost its decades long attempt to solidify the partisan position of denying LGBT marriage rights. Once that battle was lost, which many would construe to deny civil rights to others, it switched to a strategy of compromise in order to protect its own civil rights.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    July 7, 2018 1:24 p.m.

    @Furry1993: "If a business/proprietor provides a good/service to some people, the same good/service should be available to all people."

    Really? So a divorce lawyer who specializes in representing men must also represent women? An actor must accept all roles since he accepts some roles? It should be illegal for an ad agency to specialize in progressive issues? You would require them to use their talents to advance conservative causes they abhor?

    Nobody should be denied general goods and services over race, gender, religious or political affiliation, sexual orientation, or lawful possession of a firearm. Simultaneously, nobody should be required to support a message they oppose.

    Marriage sends a message of legitimacy, that is why civil unions with all legal benefits of marriage were not sufficient. You wanted to send a message. Now you want to compel me to support that message.

    I will do passport photos or birthday cakes for anyone. Don't expect me to pose a same sex couple for wedding photographs or bake a custom cake for a homosexual wedding. I cannot adavance that message. I cannot do justice to their big day. Respect my right to peacefully decline while a earning a living.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    July 7, 2018 12:42 p.m.

    "Why Republicans and Democrats rarely work together on religious freedom bills"? Because for extremist, leftists Democrats, their new state religion is irreligion! Its why they work to remove any and all references to God either written or spoken! Need proof? Mention God to a liberal and watch their anger!

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    July 7, 2018 12:33 p.m.

    As I wrote in my previous post, I don't see this supposed conflict between LGBT and Religion. Perhaps in my naivete I am overlooking something. I would like to ask the Deseret News, which is the news venue where I read about this issue, is to do some research and write an informative and descriptive article on how the LGBT community is threatening religion in this country.

    The instances that in my experience, perhaps could be misconstrued or maliciously used as an attack to religion, are those cases in which LGBT have complained about discrimination in "the market arena". Notably the case of the baker.

    But if we take the case of the baker. We cannot claim is an attack against religion as many religious individuals and religious sects agree with the LGBT plaintiffs.

    Could it be that perhaps some churches and society are suffering of a "cultural gap". Perhaps the laws of the land have moved faster than the ability of some groups to adapt?

    I sincerely ask the DN to present a case of threats to the religious community. I see many articles stating that "religious freedom are threatened", as a foregone conclusion without much evidence. Please DN..

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    July 7, 2018 12:06 p.m.

    I must be extremely naive I don't get all this talk of conflict. The article states: "The polarization that defines today's politics has poisoned faith-related policy debates, especially legislative battles over legal protections for LGBT and religious Americans."

    As a gay man I have no problem with religious organizations, beliefs, creeds, etc. etc. of anybody. Not only that, I am a fairly religious person myself, I read the scriptures, pray daily, and deeply miss attending the church of my youth. I visit different denominations and get my spiritual charge that way. There are thousand or perhaps millions of LGBT who feel in similar way.

    There are commenters here who are LGBT and are very critical of the role of religion. But there are heterosexual people (perhaps more) that share the same position when it comes to religion.

    Many religious people who feel threatened by the LGBT community talk about "The LGBT Agenda". I have always wondered what is that agenda. I am a gay man but have never received the Memo with the agenda.

    When it comes to civil and secular interaction we just want to be treated as equals, the same responsibilities and the same privileges for all.

  • Y Ask Y Provo, UT
    July 7, 2018 9:33 a.m.

    What does "Religious freedom" even mean?

    In this article, we have a little more definition: "faith in the public square".

    But still, what does that really look like?

    Should an LDS Chief of Police be "free" to hire only LDS officers and staff?

    Should a public school teacher be "free" to require her students tho face east and quote from the Q'uran each morning?

    Should a surgeon have the freedom to refuse to operate on persons whose lifestyle contributed to their ailment (refuse to help people who don't follow "the word of wisdom")?

    Should parents be free to teach their children not to be friends with "non-members" or "inactives"?

    Many of these questions have different answers if by "free" we mean it should be illegal, or it should be socially frowned upon.

    Many religious people are arrogant jerks who play favorites, discriminate against others, and think they are more righteous amd worthy than others. But should there be laws against such? That's not a simple answer!

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 7, 2018 9:24 a.m.

    This should be a very easy issue to resolve. The issue is activity in the civil/secular marketplace, and has nothing to do with religion impacting or controlling that activity. If a business/proprietor provides a good/service to some people, the same good/service should be available to all people. If a business/proprietor declines to provide a good/service to some people, the same good/service should be unavailable to all people. Serve the same good/service to all or none.

    But, if a business/proprietor is allowed to practice prejudicial discrimination, that fact MUST be made apparent to all potential customers so the people to whom the good/service would be refused would know up-front, and know to find another place with which to do business. Require that, in order to be eligible to practice prejudicial discrimination, the business/proprietor must advertise that prominently in the place of business and in all advertisements for the business. If no notice of prejudicial discrimination is posted or included, the business/proprietor must serve everyone equally. That way the right of the business to discrimination and the right to be free from discrimination would be equal.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 7, 2018 9:07 a.m.

    @Twin Lights - July 7, 2018 7:44 a.m.
    Viewing the "other side" as the enemy does the country no good.
    ---------------

    That's something the entity in the White House needs to learn, and practice.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    July 7, 2018 7:44 a.m.

    Viewing the "other side" as the enemy does the country no good.