Court rules for religious student group in clash between LGBTQ, religious rights

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Silflay Katy, TX
    Feb. 13, 2019 6:56 a.m.

    @ Counter

    "Consider this your offending post..."

    And now you move to another one! Conclusion: You just don't want to acknowledge that my opinions don't fit your preconceived notions.

    Re: LGBT equality in the public square: Your argument requires you to explain why it has been okay to limit the exercise of people's religious beliefs with respect to race and faith. If it's okay to refuse a same-sex couple, then why isn't it okay to refuse a mixed-race or mixed-faith couple? And please don't go with the "sexual orientation isn't immutable." Neither is faith and there is no evidence that we can change the spectrum our orientation covers. (And please don't go to bisexuality in response to this. It's an orientation too.) Also, the courts have already rejected your position on sexual orientation. See Obergefell. Again.

    Every sexual orientation is accompanied by the chemical processes we call emotions. And our emotions can vary for all sorts of reasons. Please tell me why this is only acceptable in the context of a hetero orientation. Please provide ANY evidence - not belief - evidence - that points to a non-hetero orientation being intrinsically wrong or harmful.

  • PostLimitCapped Rio Rancho, NM
    Feb. 12, 2019 9:53 a.m.

    @Cougar_Trojan_Spurs_Fan
    "I was addressing discrimination in general."
    And I'm talking about how your general principle works in application.

    "How do you legislate *all* non-discrimination laws. Which groups are protected? Which ones aren't? Who decides who is in which group? Does the "majority opinion" decide that? What happens when that majority opinion shifts, like it always does, and will continue to do? Will suddenly the groups who were protected lose their protection? Does the "majority opinion" mean I go along with others, even if my beliefs aren't aligned with theirs?"
    In order:
    Legislatures and city councils.
    Nationally: sex, race, ethnicity, country of origin, disability status, religion, marital status, age. In some areas you also get sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, being a police officer, etc. and so-on. Check your local laws.
    Any characteristic not enumerated in federal, state or local laws.
    Legislatures (federal and state) and city councils (local)
    Same answer.
    It's a slow process, not sudden.
    Yes, forcing racists to stop segregating, against their sincerely held beliefs, was literally the point of the CRA (1964).

  • Finn11 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2019 5:07 a.m.

    @ Cougar_etc.

    "I was addressing discrimination in general."

    The courts settled on the definition of discrimination they work from with respect to public accommodations law. You're really not plowing new ground.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2019 5:06 p.m.

    @Ranch

    "You continue to make false claims about LGBT attraction. "

    no - I continue to confront your duplicity
    I am homosexual - my feelings do not change on a whim, neither does my spirituality - but they are feelings and not a physical characteristics like skin tone or genitals Bullying and shaming others into compliance does not change that reality. Even if feelings result in a physical manifestation: Why are your deep rooted feelings more important than mine or anyone else's?

    I am constantly appalled at gay activists and myopic SJW's who demand a level of "tolerance" that they do not offer

  • Cougar_Trojan_Spurs_Fan San Diego, CA
    Feb. 11, 2019 4:51 p.m.

    @EscherEnigma - Ridgecrest, CA
    Feb. 11, 2019 4:34 p.m.
    @Cougar_Trojan_Spurs_Fan

    "But if you get to discriminate against me because of what your god says about gays? Then I had better not be obligated to serve you regardless of what your god says about gays."

    I was addressing discrimination in general. Why does everything always have to be about gay people? Per Merriam-Webster's dictionary, one of the definitions of discrimination is "the act of making or perceiving a difference." Doesn't *every single one of us* do that *every day of our lives*?

    "As such, regardless of your personal sincerity, it obviously doesn't reflect a majority opinion, even among folks opposed non-discrimination laws and policies that cover gay people."

    How do you legislate *all* non-discrimination laws. Which groups are protected? Which ones aren't? Who decides who is in which group? Does the "majority opinion" decide that? What happens when that majority opinion shifts, like it always does, and will continue to do? Will suddenly the groups who were protected lose their protection? Does the "majority opinion" mean I go along with others, even if my beliefs aren't aligned with theirs?

    I sure hope not!

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Feb. 11, 2019 4:34 p.m.

    @Cougar_Trojan_Spurs_Fan
    "Soooo, are you saying that you're all for discrimination, just not against gay people? "
    Nope. I specifically said that I could accept getting rid of *all* non-discrimination laws. I can also accept protecting all.

    But if you get to discriminate against me because of what your god says about gays? Then I had better not be obligated to serve you regardless of what your god says about gays.

    "What exactly is the point you are trying to convey in your post?"
    That I hear similar arguments very often†, but have never seen the logical conclusion from those arguments‡. As such, regardless of your personal sincerity, it obviously doesn't reflect a majority opinion, even among folks opposed non-discrimination laws and policies that cover gay people.

    "Abe Lincoln once said that you attract more flies with a drop of honey than with a gallon of gall."
    And when that failed, he brought cannons.

    Which brings us back to non-discrimination laws: the south had over a hundred years to try "honey". Instead, they brought bricks and fire hoses.
    ________
    †"Why force someone to bend to your beliefs?"
    ‡Serious efforts to repeal all non-discrimination laws and policies.

  • Cougar_Trojan_Spurs_Fan San Diego, CA
    Feb. 11, 2019 3:14 p.m.

    @EscherEnigma - Ridgecrest, CA
    Feb. 11, 2019 2:06 p.m.

    Soooo, are you saying that you're all for discrimination, just not against gay people?

    What exactly is the point you are trying to convey in your post?

    Don't people understand that when you disagree with someone/something, you're discriminating against that person/thing/idea? As a person who supports "religious liberty", you're saying I can discriminate all I want, just not against gays? *scratches head*

    The point I was trying to make in my earlier post is, if you try to force your ideas on me, you can (and should) expect pushback. However, if you can approach the conversation from a place of openness instead of combativeness, then you might be able to win some people to your side. This not an idea I'm trying to "sell" (using your words). This is me speaking what I feel is truth. You can accept it or not, but remember that by making that choice, you're discriminating. Just don't be surprised if the ideas you try and force on me are discriminated against. I have the freedom to think how I want.

    Abe Lincoln once said that you attract more flies with a drop of honey than with a gallon of gall.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 11, 2019 2:56 p.m.

    Cougar_Trojan_Spurs_Fan;

    "I guess the notion of "No shoes, no shirt, no service" is discriminating against those people who are inappropriately dressed for that particular establishment?"

    -- No, since those without shoes & shirt can easily put on the missing items and get the services they need.

    "Why force someone to bend to your beliefs? If a store doesn't support LGBTQ beliefs, why not take your money and support another store who does? I can't understand why they would want to give their money to a store owner who doesn't share the same beliefs."

    -- What beliefs would those be? Also, how do we know they don't hold the same "beliefs" in the first place? They *refuse* to post signs telling us what their "beliefs" are.

    As for your "we all discriminate every day" comment; that's not even comparable and it's a ridiculous argument to make.

    @CI;

    You continue to make false claims about LGBT attraction. Unless you can change your attraction at a whim, it is not simply "emotional". Besides, emotions are physical chemical processes in the brain - which is "physical".

  • Chessermesser West Valley City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2019 2:48 p.m.

    Is it ok for a student who opposes the gay life style for whatever reason, to run and be elected as president of a gay student club? And he hides his true feelings? Does the club have the right to replace said president when his true feelings come out?

    Or is it ok to have a “women only” student club for persons who physically are women?

    Let’s stretch it a little and ask - is it okay for a man, who thinks he is a woman, to compete in women’s sports at the university? He is physically superior as a born-man. Is it really fair? Won’t transgenders just take over women sports? It already happened at that high school level that a boy won a girls’ state event. Who really won in this case? Transgenders? Certainly not the girl whose mother thought she was robbed for finishing second to a boy.

    Discrimination happens all the time. Common sense needs to rule the day.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2019 2:50 p.m.

    @Ranch
    "Not happy with the rules, don't play the game"

    And the ultimate rule is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...."

    Please stop demanding that other people participate in your deeply held beliefs regarding sex - while you trample their deeply held beliefs religious (or not) around a host of items that go way beyond your sex life.

    If you want tolerance - it would be more effective if you occasionally offered it: Unfortunately for most SJW's, it is an entirely one-way concept.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2019 2:36 p.m.

    @Karen R / Silflay

    Unlike you i do not maintain multiple screen names - and I run out of posts
    I also do not archive your responses to go back and reference them for you. But on a directly related item you made the following post:

    "You still did not identify my alleged offending post. Please stop telling me what I think/mean and provide something specific to back it up. And if you can't, then prove your assertion that you're honest and willing to accept what is actually true."

    Consider this your offending post - because it is the same duplicity of your past posts which expects people to subordinate their religious beliefs to your sexual beliefs - then complaining that you are the victimized one when people push back. If you have a right to NOT be forced to be involved in anyone else's religion - then they have a right to not be involved in your secular dogmatism.

    Are you honest and willing to accept that you repeatedly argue that other people have the right to conscience only when it conforms to your conscience: If that's not what you think or mean - then stop restating variations of that theme.

    Now queue the complaints about vitriol and screeching (aka projection)

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Feb. 11, 2019 2:06 p.m.

    @Cougar_Trojan_Spurs_Fan
    Your claim, that all non-discrimination laws are bad, is not an uncommon one.

    Odd then is that despite so many people claiming to be against all non-discrimination laws, and that they aren't singling gay people out for discrimination, all the actual legal efforts (in courts and legislatures) are *just* about singling gay people out for discrimination, while leaving other protected classes safe under the protection of non-discrimination laws.

    So even assuming that you really are on board with not just telling gays to simply go elsewhere, but telling the same to women, blacks, Jews, the Irish, veterans, the deaf, etc. and so-on, it's quite obvious that most people, including "religious liberty" activists, are only on-board with telling that to the gays.

    Your challenge then is this: either (A) convince gay folk and their allies that even though you aren't rolling back the CRA (1964), gays should "take one for the team", or (B) convince "religious liberty" activists to broaden their opposition from non-discrimination laws that cover gay people, to just non-discrimination laws.

    I'm fine with B, personally. Freedom for all! But A is a pretty hard sell.

  • Cougar_Trojan_Spurs_Fan San Diego, CA
    Feb. 11, 2019 12:40 p.m.

    So, I guess the notion of "No shoes, no shirt, no service" is discriminating against those people who are inappropriately dressed for that particular establishment?

    If so, where does it stop?

    In a capitalistic society, you take your money and support stores whose values are in line with yours. Why force someone to bend to your beliefs? If a store doesn't support LGBTQ beliefs, why not take your money and support another store who does? I can't understand why they would want to give their money to a store owner who doesn't share the same beliefs.

    Whether or not you want to admit it, we all discriminate every day of our lives! That's why we make the choices we do. If you chose to be a lawyer, you discriminated against all other professions. Because that is what you feel is best for you! The notion that there are those who *never* discriminate is utterly preposterous! If you're an employer, you discriminate against all job applicants in order to find the best one that would be most beneficial for your company. You're not going to just hire someone based solely on their beliefs without verifying their experience, etc. That would not only be foolish, but not very business savvy.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2019 12:34 p.m.

    Race and gender are physical characteristics (and even then - men and women are blatantly NOT physically equal)
    Sexual orientation is based upon emotional and behavioral characteristics

    There is no more evidence of a gay gene than there is of a God gene (and telling people to just change their beliefs is deemed hateful when applied to orientation so it should be equally hateful when applied to the religious)

    Most people have no problem respecting other peoples deeply held beliefs regarding religion - however they get upset when they are forced to participate in others deeply held religious beliefs (whether it being forced to participate in a public prayer or forced to subsidize an abortion) The same to should apply to sexual feelings and beliefs. I should not have to participate in your sex life.

    The idea that sexually deeply held beliefs trump spiritual deeply held beliefs is a fundamental bigotry of popular culture that should be summarily rejected - particularly when the Constitution specifically calls for religious deference.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Feb. 11, 2019 9:51 a.m.

    @Yar
    "Remember. The issue is not the customer. It’s the request."
    Take the Cake in Toledo, Ohio. Got a commission for a birthday cake, accepted it, design and all. After the customer left, e-stalked the customer, discovered she was a married lesbian. Cancelled the order.

    Dieseltec in Grandville, Michigan. Openly stated that he would refuse customers who are "openly" gay.

    Amyx Hardware in Tennessee. Has a "no gays allowed" sign in the front window for over three years now.

    And these are just the ones that made national news that I can recall off the top of my head. Most cases of discrimination never make the news because people are used to it.

    And of course, there's the minor fact that until Lawrence v. Texas (2003), over a dozen states, Utah included, made it a crime to be gay. Utah's unconstitutional law is still on the books by-the-way. State legislators have considered striking it multiple times, and each time have concluded it's more important to keep moral condemnation of gay folk in the legal code then it is to have a constitutional legal code.

    So regardless of your *personal* views on the matter, no. The problem is very much with the person, not the "request".

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Feb. 11, 2019 9:40 a.m.

    ""The court suspects that some observers will portray this case as a fundamental conflict between nondiscrimination laws and religious liberty. Appealing as that may be, it overinflates the issues before the court," she wrote."
    For example, in the headlines and comment sections of news articles.

    That said, there's one big thing a lot of folks are missing (including Kelsey Dallas): the court did not rule that it is inappropriate or unconstitutional for a university to require student clubs to adhere to the school's non-discrimination policy. In fact, there is quite a bit of precedent that the university can do so, and there have been cases for years on this, including one in which a Mormon student successfully sued for access to a "Christian" club.

    What the court ruled was that the school didn't apply the policy equally, and that arbitrarily enforced policies could not be legitimate.

    So sure. Celebrate your "victory". Your confusion over the ruling was predicted in the ruling itself.

  • Silflay Katy, TX
    Feb. 11, 2019 5:06 a.m.

    @ Back Talk

    "...he would have been the same judge who allowed gay marriage and also ruled that religious freedom includes practicing those principles in the public square."

    And yet he and the Court declined to take that opportunity. Maybe because they understand that it's impossible to allow unrestricted exercise of religious beliefs in the public square and be a nation built on the idea that we're all equal. IMO, that speaks volumes about the limitations of religion. It isn't religion that provides the big tent into which all are unconditionally welcome. That would be the secular tent.

    @ sashabill, Yar, or anyone else

    I would really appreciate someone addressing my question about whether it's right or fair to ask another to bear the burden of your freely chosen belief. I've never meant it as a rhetorical question, yet no one has ever taken it head on.

    @ Yar

    I'd also like to add to my reply post to you that the belief that you are asking gay couples to acquiesce to is the very sort of belief that they see as responsible for the injustices and humiliations LGBTs have historically experienced. So, standing in their shoes, the ask comes across as tone deaf and insulting.

  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    Feb. 10, 2019 1:13 p.m.

    The Supreme Court needs to rule on this issue ASAP. Justice Kennedy should have done so in the gay cake controversy and then he would have been the same judge who allowed gay marriage and also ruled that religious freedom includes practicing those principles in the public square.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 9, 2019 7:37 p.m.

    @Rikitikitavi;

    Not happy with the rules, don't play the game (i.e., start a business where you're not allowed to discriminate, open a club accepting taxpayer funding).

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Feb. 9, 2019 2:45 p.m.

    Not happy with the choice of campus clubs out there.......start your own club.

    Not happy with the choice of businesses out there......start your own business.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 9, 2019 11:16 a.m.

    @Yar;

    I don't believe you; not in the least. You really haven't even tried to put yourself in our shoes.

    We don't know which stores will sell to us and which won't (they won't advertise their bigotry - it's bad for business). We can lose our jobs, residences just for being gay. We have been rejected by medical personnel, florists, bakers, etc. Until you face that kind of bigotry (yes, that is what it is - religion is just an excuse for it) you don't know how you'd react.

    Why should we accept being 2nd class citizens? We pay taxes just like you do.

  • Chessermesser West Valley City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2019 8:39 a.m.

    In the business world I don’t care about sexual orientation. I had three gays out of 15 employees, and one I promoted into management. Sexual orientation had no bearing on employment or promotion. It was about who could do the work best. I detest those who want to make me accept their view on anything that I disagree with. Reasonable discussion is fine to exchange opposing stands. But when we choose “to agree to disagree” it’s over. I don’t want someone continuing to argue the point, and failing at that, often running to other authorities to “force” me to accept their position.

  • Silflay Katy, TX
    Feb. 9, 2019 7:56 a.m.

    Hi Yar. Karen R. here.

    I believe you could do as you say. I could too. But I think it's because we, as heteros, come from a place of abundance. We have no doubt about our status as equals. We've always enjoyed the luxury of NOT being marginalized, disenfranchised, or seen as abnormal. Humans can be very generous when they come from such a place, in part because it causes no real hardship.

    This is not the context that LGBTs come from. They've made some great gains in equality, but they haven't reached the summit. There are still more places in the country than not where they can be legally discriminated against simply because of their sexual orientation. They are still publicly spoken of by some as abnormal, immoral, and/or perverted. We do not face this insecurity and these indignities.

    So when I put myself in their shoes, I don't feel generous. I feel threatened. I feel like I have a tenuous grip on the next rock on the mountain face and now someone is asking me to voluntarily give up ground and for what reason? To spare them the inconvenience of living the consequences of THEIR freely chosen beliefs.

    I ask you again: Does this sound fair or right to you?

  • Yar Springville, UT
    Feb. 8, 2019 10:30 p.m.

    @Karen R.

    I don’t know if this will change your mind or something, but let me tell you this. If a gay baker had a religious belief that only same-sex marriage is OK and opposite-sex marriages are immortal and told me they won’t make the cake for me because of that belief, I would complete understand and respect that (no really I would). I honestly wouldn’t mind his refusal. Instead, I’ll just tell him “That’s OK. Can you recommend me something that won’t violate your beliefs? I'll take anything else.” After that, I’ll either take the recommendation or just find another place (I certainly won’t attack the shopowner). Seriously. I’m cool with that. Remember. The issue is not the customer. It’s the request. That’s the important part.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 8, 2019 5:24 p.m.

    @ sashabill

    "Suppose an LGBT community member owns a printing establishment..."

    If the printer has sold derogatory banners to others, then s/he has no grounds for refusing this customer. If Phillips sells wedding cakes to some, he has no grounds for refusing to sell to others.

    Also, do you honestly think it's fair for people to expect others to bear the consequences of their beliefs? This is what Phillips is doing. He knows what the rules are and he knows the way he is choosing to exercise his personal beliefs conflict with them. But instead of saying, "This is my choice, I have to bear the cost," he's instead saying, "This is my choice and gay couples that enter my shop must bear the cost."

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Feb. 8, 2019 3:39 p.m.

    Try this idea just to see if it flies with no opposition from University or freedom legal fund: "Gay/Lesbian Business Leaders in Christ".
    Seems to me there are choices which will make everyone happy, except those folks who have their own agenda.

  • sashabill , CA
    Feb. 8, 2019 2:27 p.m.

    Suppose an LGBT community member owns a printing establishment, which prints up banners, posters, signs, mailers, flyers, etc. A potential customer comes in and asks for several large, conspicuous banners to be printed up, which contain derogatory statements about LGBT people. These posters will be posted up and displayed all over town during the next Gay Pride parade.

    Should the business owners be compelled to take the job, or be free to decide whether to perform it or not? Should the owner of Masterpiece Cake shop have the same freedom?

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Feb. 8, 2019 2:26 p.m.

    @Misty Mountain: "My five year old really, really wants to bring a loaded gun to Show-and-Tell,.."

    Does she want to vote for President as well? Maybe practice religious beliefs her parents find offensive? Invoke the 5th amd when you ask her about who ate the cookies?

    Is this not the very kind of over-the-top, silly, and counter-productive rhetoric you condemned in a prior comment? Why do you so quickly resort to it rather than trying honest, productive discussion and debate?

    As you say, no right is absolute. I don't get to yell "fire" falsely in a crowded theater without some legal consequences. Marriage does not include siblings. And we all accept age restrictions on RKBA. What I won't accept is that I should endure higher liability for storage of my guns than you will accept for storage of your medications, car keys, gasoline, or other dangerous household items, nor bans on firearms most useful for defense of self and home, nor bans on accessories like suppressors based on Hollywood myths.

    As no right is absolute, neither is there an absolute right to service from businesses. Some allowance for business owners to refuse to promote events that offend them must be respected.

  • Misty Mountain Kent, WA
    Feb. 8, 2019 9:40 a.m.

    @No Names wrote,

    "If court invented rights based on vague language of the 14th amendment are not subject to popular votes, then the specific rights in the 2nd amendment are not subject to popular votes."

    Yes, and it's about time that we realized this. My five year old really, really wants to bring a loaded gun to Show-and-Tell, and the the Second Amendment has no age restriction.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 8, 2019 8:39 a.m.

    @ NoNames

    (cont.)

    I'm willing to consider forgiveness of past transgressions, particularly those committed in our youth. What I want to see is honesty, growth, a capacity to own one's bad moments. And I want to see a record of behavior that solidly counters the bad moments.

    Also, to expect any American's history to be free of moments of bigotry, racism, or just harmful bias or ignorance is to be in denial about American cultural history AND the human condition.

    "If Phillips must bake cakes..."

    As the Beckett Fund keeps getting the courts to reiterate, NoNames, you're simply mistaken about this.

    Gun rights: Even St. Scalia understood that gun rights aren't absolute.

    "If any language the left finds offensive is 'hate speech'..."

    Yeah, I think name-calling is juvenile, that over-the-top rhetoric has unfortunately become a staple of "conversation" these days, and that people on both sides are guilty of being snowflakes, just on different topics.

    "And if crimes against individuals intended to chill the rights of an entire group are 'hate crimes' then we better start protecting non-union workers."

    Speaking of over-the-top rhetoric. Good grief.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 8, 2019 8:44 a.m.

    @ NoNames

    You realize you had to change the subject, right? But I'll go there with you. The topics interest me.

    Virginia debacle: I agree that the left isn't very happy, but we are trying to live up to the tone we have taken. I hope we will, but acknowledge that this remains to be seen. Power often wins out over principle. I am happy, though, that so far I've heard no rationalizations like, "Well, our god wants X to be in office, so all of this mess is okay." If we're going to come up with rationalizations to grant ourselves a pass, I hope we at least work harder at it than this.

    "If we 'believe the woman' without any further evidence..."

    I don't agree with this standard. IMO the standard should be, "Take the accusation seriously and investigate."

    "...if any hint of racism must be handled with zero-tolerance..."

    I think there's a debate over what the standard should be. Mine is similar to what I held for Kavanaugh: (cont.)

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 8, 2019 8:25 a.m.

    They seem to have forgotten that many LGBT people are Christians. They also seem to have forgotten that organizations that utilize taxpayer funded facilities shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against some of those taxpayers.

    “The Supreme Court ruled that the commission had been unfair in its treatment of the Christian baker,...”

    -- And ignored the fact that the baker discriminated against the gay couple. “I want to be free from unfair treatment for my religious beliefs, but I want to use those beliefs to treat others unfairly”. Utter hypocrisy.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 8, 2019 7:44 a.m.

    Re: "Religion had everything to do with it. Remember the "'curse of Cain . . . .'"

    Just another example of leftist newspeak.

    Blaming religion for being the victim of racists who imprinted their bile on a doctrine of equality for all is like blaming Virginia for Northam's racist and vicious anti-life views.

    I know you believe religion to be the "opiate of the people," but allowing that animus to motivate advocacy of transparent sophistry only illustrates the bankruptcy of leftist "philosophy."

  • Nichol Draper West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 8, 2019 5:54 a.m.

    I have a natural lisp. In college I met a guy and we talked a few times. One day he mentioned he needed a ride because his car was in the shop. I offered to help. Afterwards we went out for dinner. He then indicated that he was gay. I'm not. The next time I saw him in class I said hi. He did not respond. With most people you can strike up a friendship and it is OK if you have different views. Apparently not with this guy. Some will say that they support diversity, but diversity requires differences. By not allowing clubs that celebrate and require differences the university is not promoting diversity but destroying it. Did that guy I met in college have to speak to me when he learned I was not gay. No he does not. Freedom of speech and freedom of association are guaranteed in our constitution. That also allows silence and freedom to not associate.

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 11:54 p.m.

    I am glad the court ruled that the lgbt rights can't "trample on the rights of conservative religious students"............... Everyone should be treated equally.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 11:18 p.m.

    @Karen R.: "They're doing great work for my side!"

    Be careful with that celebration. As we're seeing this week in Virginia, the left is not very happy to live under the same rules they try to impose on the right.

    If we "believe the woman" without any further evidence, and if any hint of racism must be handled with zero-tolerance, then all 3 of Virginia's top elected officials--all of them Democrats--must resign immediately.

    If Phillips must bake cakes to celebrate homosexual weddings, then homosexual bakers must be compelled to create cakes celebrating hostility to such relationships, or promoting anti-homosexual religious beliefs.

    If court invented rights based on vague language of the 14th amendment are not subject to popular votes, then the specific rights in the 2nd amendment are not subject to popular votes.

    If any language the left finds offensive is "hate speech" then so too is any language that offends the right.

    And if crimes against individuals intended to chill the rights of an entire group are "hate crimes" then we better start protecting non-union workers.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 11:12 p.m.

    @THEREALND: "What this Christian group is requiring is essentially any student committed to same sex marriage get a divorce to join their club. That's an unreasonable, and in my opinion an unlawful requirement."

    And would the pro-abortion club allow a committed pro-life Evangelical to hold leadership position? Or would they require him to abandon his core religious convictions?

    It is entirely reasonably to require club members and especially club leadership to espouse the positions of the club.

    @THEREALND: "So a Business Leadership club isn't about learning good business management skills?"

    It is about learning good business management skills while living a Christian life, as the group defines "Christian." That means they believe homosexual conduct is immoral. It also probably means they don't think LDS are Christians. And that is fine. I don't need to shut down clubs that believe LDS are not Christian no matter how strongly I disagree with them. I simply won't join; I can form a club more to my liking.

    There is no honest reason to join a club whose principles offend you. This is just an attempt to silence anyone who won't affirm & celebrate homosexual conduct.

  • RiDal Sandy, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 5:11 p.m.

    @Marxist: Anyone who was actually religious and actually read the Bible would know that the "Mark of Caine" was a mark of. *protection* that God placed on Caine's descendants as a reminder to *not* persecute them.

  • NeifyT Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 4:09 p.m.

    @rlynn - "Once again shows that any done in the name freedom of religion is really an attack on the LGBQT community."

    That is clearly not the case. In fact the reverse is true based on the article:

    "In 2017, a gay student reported this leadership requirement to university officials, arguing that Business Leaders in Christ had discriminated against him."

    This is a case that the LGBTQ community was clearly attacking a religious group of students, not the other way around. Anti-discrimination laws don't require a group to associate with others they do not want to associate with; a forced association is equal to slavery.

    Likewise; if the LGBTQ community wanted to setup an LGBTQ student group and not allow "straights" that would be their prerogative; there is nothing stopping them. They have no right, however, to attack others for setting up their groups based on their beliefs.

    A public university should NOT discriminate against students on the basis of religion! Student groups get to pick who they want to associate with as per the First Amendment. Just because they attend a public university doesn't mean they shed their First Amendment rights.

  • water rocket , 00
    Feb. 7, 2019 2:55 p.m.

    It's about time the courts realized that conservative Christians also have "rights", and not just the LGBTQ minority.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 2:30 p.m.

    @pp "As for anti-miscegenation laws? Those laws were passed - by democrats - in slave states trying to fend of abolitionists. Religion had nothing to do with it, yet this is trotted out by the pro gay crowd all the time. "

    Religion had everything to do with it. Remember the "curse of Cain" nonsense? That was all religion and the reason for anti-miscegenation laws.

  • Flipphone , 00
    Feb. 7, 2019 2:20 p.m.

    Liberals have been bashing white Christian Conservatives.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 7, 2019 2:19 p.m.

    "In this week's ruling, Judge Rose agreed that the university's inconsistent application of its human rights policy is a problem.

    "There is no fault to be found with the policy itself. But the Constitution does not tolerate the way (the university) chose to enforce the human rights policy," she wrote."

    I don't know all the intrinsic details of the case. I just know what this article states. If that is the case, then as an LGBT man I totally agree with the ruling. If the University of Iowa was being unfair to this Christian student group, I am glad the judge solved this inconsistency problem.

    That is the way our Democratic system should work.

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
    (Attributed to Voltaire)

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 7, 2019 1:25 p.m.

    "In other words, the ruling won't prevent the University of Iowa from deregistering faith-based student groups in the future. School officials would just need to be more consistent in applying human rights standards."

    Very, very glad to see yet another court upholding the public accommodations standard that Phillips tried to upend in his wedding cake case. This is very encouraging. Maybe I should start contributing to the Beckett Fund, too. They're doing great work for my side!

  • Mayfair Logan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 12:06 p.m.

    THEREALND said "So a Business Leadership club isn't about learning good business management skills? Got it! The only business they are involved in is the business of discrimination."

    The LGBT in question who got the University involved wanted to be a Leader in this organization and saw a 'plum to be picked for crying LGBT discrimination' when he was not allowed to be considered for a leadership position in the club.

    The Court wisely saw this--and that was part of why they ruled as the did.

    You can bet it if had been totally the opposite---a straight Christian person throwing a fit to the University that the campus LGBT club would not allow him a leadership position in it, and the University reacted as it did in this case-- that the Court would have ruled exactly the same way.

    The Miscalculation by both the LGBT person and the University was Assuming LGBT rights tump religious ones in this day and PC climate..... thankfully the Court set them straight that at least in this case, LGBT rights do not yet overrule religious rights.

  • THEREALND Mishawaka, IN
    Feb. 7, 2019 11:29 a.m.

    @Not in Utah-

    Good points, at least as far as this club is concerned. From their University sponsored webpage:

    "About us
    Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC) is on a mission to create a community of followers of Christ within Tippie. Through our organization, you will get to share and gain wisdom on how to practice business that is both Biblical and founded on God's truth. We do this by reading scripture together, hosting Christian business professionals, and serving our community. "

    It really isn't about improving their business leadership skills. If you want that type of club perhaps you join DECA.

  • Impartial8 Sandy, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 11:18 a.m.

    Iowa is doing exactly what they claim to be standing against.

  • Not-in-Utah-anymore , CA
    Feb. 7, 2019 11:08 a.m.

    THEREALND - Mishawaka, IN says: "So a Business Leadership club isn't about learning good business management skills?"

    No, not in this case. Students learn those skills in classrooms and (more likely!) on the job. Clubs like a business leadership club or that are based upon social or political preferences are NOT for teaching and learning skills. They are for networking and making connections and friendships that will either help while in school or afterwards in the job market. It's the same thing with fraternities and sororities. (I'm making the distinction because of the hypothetical chess club example someone else gave, which would be to IMPROVE skills.)

    The ONLY reason I can see for the gay student to join the Christian Leadership club (which he was allowed to do) and then campaign for leadership in it was because of his intolerance for Christians who disagree with the issue of same sex marriage. Surely there were other clubs which would have allowed him to network and make friends. (And because the school bought into his intolerance, they wasted a lot of money on a costly legal battle instead of spending it on things that would have benefited their students.)

  • stand up for truth Lehi, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 10:55 a.m.

    In the name of protection and tolerance so many of the liberal institutions of our day are anything but protective or tolerant to those with different views.

    Hardly anyone these days tries to suggest LGBQT students should be bullied or not given the same considerations as others. But that does not mean that other views should be squashed, as apparently is the case with this university whose policies do not respect or demean individuals and groups with different views. Where is the tolerance on their part?

    I truly love my Gay brother and his companion. But he would never suggest, like so many these days, that others should not have the rights to belong to groups who see things differently. Just as I love and tolerate him even though I do not share the same perspective, he tolerates me to see it differently.

    If this crazy trend continues then who is to say that one political party will eventually pass laws that you can only breathe, think, talk and act as the party dictates or you will be punished. Isn't this what Hitler did?

    Tolerance for all... not just the politically correct group... needs to be granted.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 10:42 a.m.

    One the club did not prevent the gay from joining the club.
    That was not a requirement for entering the club. The club rules only limited the officers of the club to those that held the view and acceptance of its policies.

    And really TT, " nor it is true in our modern era that "an individual's God-give sex is unalterable. it is, as many transgender individuals happily attest."

    Prove and or show one single case or example of just one transgendered person that has changed their God given sex. Can't be done. Their God given sex is forever engrained in their DNA. Does not matter what you do to the packaging or the labeling. Does not matter if the government records are falsified. They still retain their God given sex.

  • sashabill , CA
    Feb. 7, 2019 10:42 a.m.

    Thomas, It's time to abandon this "strawman" of opposition to interracial marriage. Race is not a pattern of action or behavior, and interracial marriage does not change the definition of marriage.

    Patterns of action and behavior, however, are by definition open to the making of moral or value judgments. Religious people are within their rights to make such judgments, and religious groups are within their rights to maintain such standards publicly.

    Marriage ultimately is either a moral construct with a moral definition --or, for all practical purposes, it becomes a non-construct with no definition, just a matter of personal inclination, political expediency, random social factors and cultural trends, or whatever the latest public opinion poll says it is.

  • THEREALND Mishawaka, IN
    Feb. 7, 2019 10:32 a.m.

    @Chessermesser - "You missed my point about the chess club. A 1200 can get better in a club for his/her level. Nobody wants a novice."

    No, I completely understood your point. The chess club doesn't want a novice, but they can join when they are no longer a novice.

    This is a "Business Leadership" club that doesn't want certain people, not because of their business acumen. Not because of their talents. They don't want certain people to join their club because of who they are. That is illegal.

  • PP Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 10:28 a.m.

    Thomas T - your "God given sex is scientifically unalterable" statement is proven false. You can change the wrapper, but science has shown that you need massive medication to suppress nature. without unnatural hormone therapy a persons true gender reasserts itself. The mental belief that you are a different gender does not change physical realities.

    Science and psychology also show that those who get sex changes commit suicide at much higher rates than those who don't. Your claim that they "happily attest otherwise" comment is definitively false - and very dangerous to emotionally struggling people.

  • PP Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 10:29 a.m.

    As for anti-miscegenation laws? Those laws were passed - by democrats - in slave states trying to fend of abolitionists. Religion had nothing to do with it, yet this is trotted out by the pro gay crowd all the time.

    In general, the only reason religions discouraged interracial marriage is because of the difficult social issues the couple might face, thus making the marriage more difficult. In our society today no one cares.

    As for gay marriage - both science and religion are opposed to it. Interracial couples can have children. Gay couples can't. That is a major scientific elephant in the room that leftists always ignore.

    My next statement applies to both religious and non religions people equally. In almost all (if not all) cases religion and science are on the same side. If you don't think that's true your understanding of religion or science is lacking. The Blackstone quote by 4/13/14 is entirely applicable and irrefutable.

  • THEREALND Mishawaka, IN
    Feb. 7, 2019 10:18 a.m.

    @PP - Eagle Mountain- So a Business Leadership club isn't about learning good business management skills? Got it! The only business they are involved in is the business of discrimination. I guess if that's all that they have to offer you must be right. Have fun with that.

  • Light and Liberty St George, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 10:19 a.m.

    Thank God for the Becket Fund! Donate to them, Hillsdale, and other defenders of freedom and liberty, including your church, if it is founded on the principles of Christianity. Thanks to the LDS church for its Proclamation on the Family. Most of those who have called LDS individuals bigoted, intolerant, etc., have stopped short of calling the LDS church the same (since they all feel the church is just another man made organization, they feel that eventually it will drop its 'bigoted' stance), but that day is coming! Stay strong; stay true. Right will win out, eventually.

  • PP Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 10:06 a.m.

    Threland - Chessmasters analogy was actually very good and yours completely misses the mark. The bad chess player loves chess and really want's to be part of the club because they love chess. Why would the gay dude want to join a christian organization that is opposed to living a gay life? You analogy is literally taking away a protected freedom.

    The first amendment says that the govt can't interfere with the practice of religion - which the state sponsored school did by interfering with the christian club. The 4th and 14th say that GOVERNMENT can't discriminate, but does not limit the right of private clubs or individuals to discriminate. And being a school sponsored club does not make the club part of the government.

    Just read the comments here - religious people think that a gay group should be able to have their own club and set their own discriminatory rules - which is not a bad thing BTW, we all discriminate all the time and in most cases it's a good thing. But leftists are continually trying to silence those who have a view opposite their own, and have the courts unconstitutionally support them in their discrimination - Wonder why that is?

  • Chessermesser West Valley City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 10:04 a.m.

    @thereanld

    You missed my point about the chess club. A 1200 can get better in a club for his/her level. Nobody wants a novice. It’s like having a cake decorating club for professional, high-end decorators and a beginner wants in. It won’t work out for both sides. That is why clubs/groups/organizations set rules and guidelines for membership. Yes, they discriminate and it’s not at all rude, demeaning, insulting, or illegal.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 9:54 a.m.

    @Speed_Altitude

    If only it were that simple. Personally, I think it would be great if everyone gets to do what they want to do with their lives. Like having LGBT people not worry about Proposition 8 or laws similar to it coming back and having religious people be free to follow their religion without government harassment at the same time, just to name one example. I want everyone to win. I don’t care about people agreeing with me on religious matters. I just care about mutual peace.

  • Not-in-Utah-anymore , CA
    Feb. 7, 2019 9:50 a.m.

    Latter-daySaintForever - St. George, UT says: "Hallelujah! It is so refreshing to see some common sense play out as crazy as this world is getting."

    The court DIDN'T rule based on the common sense you're talking about. All they did was kick the can down the road again:

    "...the ruling won't prevent the University of Iowa from deregistering faith-based student groups in the future. School officials would just need to be more consistent in applying human rights standards."

    The school lost the court case because they're applying the rules *selectively* by giving preference to certain groups such as the LGBTQP crowd. THAT'S why they lost. The court took the easy way out on this. What is going to be necessary is for the Supreme Court to rule and decide if religion and freedom of conscience for religious persons is still a protected right in this country or not.

    Personally, I can't see why anyone would want to be part of a group with such fundamentally different beliefs. It can only be because they are deliberately trying to cause trouble.

  • RiDal Sandy, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 9:35 a.m.

    It is time to have a conversation about religious liberty in America.
    And this time, the vast majority of normal, religious, moral people of America are not going to be cowed into silence by the extreme Left. They have a "right to be the way they are" but do not have a right to force us all to accept it.

    Religious people have a right to practice their religion, and that practice means they can freely influence government policies and laws, so long as they are not actually violating anyone else's rights.
    And there simply is no "freedom from religion" or a right to "never hear about religion or be influenced by the religious people of society". That is a fantasy that simply does not exist.

  • Speed_Altitude Centerville, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 9:20 a.m.

    Why don't we make all clubs vanilla and not stand for anything unique? In fact, there should only be one club that everyone can join, so no one gets offended. . . . . . . . . . .

    Wait . . . . . what?

  • Latter-daySaintForever St. George, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 8:48 a.m.

    Hallelujah! It is so refreshing to see some common sense play out as crazy as this world is getting.

  • THEREALND Mishawaka, IN
    Feb. 7, 2019 8:39 a.m.

    @Chessermesser- I think that your chess club analogy is a terrible example of what is going on with this club in Iowa.

    This is all about equal access and opportunity. The chess player with the 1200 score has every opportunity to practice and improve their skill to reach the 2000 score requirement.

    What this Christian group is requiring is essentially any student committed to same sex marriage get a divorce to join their club. That's an unreasonable, and in my opinion an unlawful requirement.

    The basically left two wrongs to be wrong.

  • zgomer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 8:31 a.m.

    Someone always like they need to attack Christianity for one reason or another, then they justify it by saying they are offended because the Christian group doesn't agree with the lfbtq community so who gets punished, the Christian group, finally good to see common sense for this one right.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 8:19 a.m.

    @Henry Drummond

    I actually know that. I read the whole article before commenting on this. Regardless, I am happy with the ruling. Hopefully, the university will be a lot more thoughtful in its anti-discrimination policy measures it uses. There is a difference between disagreeing with lifestyle choices LGBT people make and actively trying to bully the LGBT individual because of the choices they make after all. Seriously. The distinction should be obvious when you think about it.

  • 04/13/2014 , 00
    Feb. 7, 2019 8:18 a.m.

    We have lost our original standard.

    "UPON these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." William Blackstone's, Commentaries of the Laws of England.

    Introduced in 1765 and used by the Supreme Court for 150 years.

    As a pilot, if you take a few degree off of center line, and don't take corrections, in time you will be going the opposite direction.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 8:06 a.m.

    Campus organizations should be allowed to set requirements for their own leadership.

    To further protect their identity and mission even at colleges where they are not allowed to set such requirements they ought to consider 4 non religious requirements.

    1-Anyone seeking leadership position should be required to clearly state their beliefs on various core issues. A pro choice advocate would not be barred from leadership in a pro-life organization, but would be required to disclose his positions.

    2-Those seeking leadership should be requires to affirm a commitment to advance the mission of the group. A pro-choicer is eligible for leadership in a pro-life group if he is willing to advance the mission to restrict legal access to elective abortions.

    3-Require some history of participation and service with the group to run for office.

    4-Require a history of participation and service with the organization to gain voting rights.

    Hold elections in the Spring for the next school year. Those who haven't actively participated to advance the mission statement during the school year are not eligible to vote nor seek leadership. This protects from hostile takeover by others.

  • windsor Logan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 7:58 a.m.

    I remembered this case and wondered what had ever happened with it.

    It was most satisfying to read that the Court called the University of Iowa on its ridiculousness.

  • 3grandslams Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 7:49 a.m.

    To practice non-discrimination you must accept things/ideas/ beliefs you don’t agree with. Otherwise, your discriminating. The business group wasn’t asking to ban LGBT groups from campus...that would be discrimination. They just wanted to have their voice/beliefs represented also.

    Tolerance, respect, non- discrimination needs to be practiced by both sides.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Feb. 7, 2019 7:31 a.m.

    LOL! Read the ruling before declaring victory. The Court is criticizing the selective enforcement of its policy - it does not rule that the policy itself is unconstitutional.

  • IJ Hyrum, Ut
    Feb. 7, 2019 6:30 a.m.

    Good for the court! I have never understood why it's OK for you to think and believe they way you do but it's not OK for me to think and believe the way I do. There are those who will never see eye-to-eye on certain topics but all must be allowed their point of view. But that doesn't mean you can crash my party and dictate how it is to be run. Start your own party and run it as you see fit.

  • Chessermesser West Valley City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 5:54 a.m.

    What is bothersome is that this university couldn’t see the obvious. Or maybe they could and just decided to instigate a leftist pogrom against religious groups.

    There is nothing wrong with “agreeing to disagree”.

    What if students organized a club for very serious and successful chess players. Membership required a tournament rating above 2000. Someone who has a 1200 rating could point out that they were denied membership even though they love chess. If the point of the club is about really successful chess players meeting together then including a 1200 player is like letting fourth graders go to the high school’s senior prom.

    Most school districts have an upper age limit for athletic competition. It wouldn’t be fair for a 23-year-old to compete in sports against much younger people. There is discrimination in our various institutions. And wanted as well as needed.

    The University of Iowa needs to take its blinders off and recognize that discriminating groups exist on the Left and Right, not just on the Right, and they need to apply their policies evenly.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 5:45 a.m.

    Congratulations! Glad to see the religious club won that case! Quite frankly, if it was the other way around (a religious person denied membership to a LGBT club because the person believed that homosexual behavior was wrong), that membership denial would actually be justified, since having the religious person joining them without abiding the LGBT club's fundamental principle would have went against the mission of the club. Same thing in this case just won by the Christian club. The issue was not the person's same-sex attraction (or gay status if you will). The issue was the person's willingness to abide to the principles that are fundamental to the club's mission.

  • Thomas Thompson Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 4:37 a.m.

    "The group requires its leaders to affirm that marriage is reserved for unions of one man and one woman and that an individual's God-given sex is unalterable." But any such view flies in the face of what the law allows -- as affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Marriage isn't, as a matter of law -- "reserved for unions of one man and one woman," nor it is true in our modern era that "an individual's God-give sex is unalterable." it is, as many transgender individuals happily attest.

    Not so very long ago, the same people who hold these superannuated views also believed (yes, on religious grounds) that marriage was also reserved for people of the same race, and one state (Virginia) even enacted into its laws a prohibition against black people from marrying white people. So entrenched was this view among certain religionists that the Supreme Court was required to, and did, validate these marriages even in Virginia (whose law prohibiting them was struck down).

    The different results being reached in some courts which permits discrimination against gay people come about entirely because gays are not yet a protected class in America.

    But that's going to change.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    Feb. 7, 2019 4:18 a.m.

    "In 2017, a gay student reported this leadership requirement to university officials, arguing that Business Leaders in Christ had discriminated against him."

    This wasn't about discrimination. It was about a Christian organization's beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. It all comes down to having "the same right as all student groups to express our viewpoints freely on campus, and to be who we are." After all, isn't this exactly what the homosexual community keeps saying?

  • rlynn Brandon, FL
    Feb. 7, 2019 2:47 a.m.

    Once again shows that any done in the name freedom of religion is really an attack on the LGBQT community.

  • toosmartforyou Kaysville, UT
    Feb. 6, 2019 11:01 p.m.

    Iowa is being held hostage by the PC crowd and their policies as enforced has gotten them into trouble with the court. Decertifying religious groups hardly shows tolerance for those who profess faith and I am happy the court ruled the way they did. They'd be wise to follow the law a bit closer and quit listening to just "progressives" which is a buzz word for "socialist, leftist thinking and agendas."

  • Bloodhound Provo, UT
    Feb. 6, 2019 10:23 p.m.

    Glad to see the Becket Fund step up and defend the students. Other groups defending religious freedom in the courts include Alliance Defending Freedom, Liberty Counsel, and the Thomas More Law Center. If you are interested in religious freedom, consider supporting these organizations.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 6, 2019 10:12 p.m.

    At the very least, if a University is going to have a policy of non discrimination, it needs to be applied equally and fairly.

    If its going to allow one group to reject as members people who are anti abortion, it must then allow another group to reject as members people who don't accept gay marriage as legitimate.

    Either you allow student groups to restrict membership according to a members belief system or you don't.

  • sashabill , CA
    Feb. 6, 2019 9:44 p.m.

    This is an example of why I am proud to contribute regularly in support of the Becket Fund, and will continue to do so.