@ Counter"Why is it that Apple..."
refuse to offer another vendor’s product/artistic creations in its store?
Are the baker/florist being compelled to do this? No. You’re confusing
two different issues.So, wrong again about what I think and why.
There’s a shocker. And I've answered your question. I’d now
ask you to answer mine, but I think I exposed your argument’s pretty
substantial flaws, so that seems pointless. Unless you think you can rehab it
– I’m happy to hear it if you think you can.But if you
can’t, then please answer this question instead: You claim that I engaged
in "intellectual obfuscation." I'm curious to know what I said
that you think qualifies. Can you point to something specific and articulate
why you think it’s obfuscating? (If the answer is, “Everything
generally,” then again, please explain how. If you can’t, then I
have no way to distinguish your claim from, “Nothing you said agrees with
my position, therefore you are wrong and motivated by intolerance.”)
@ Karen ROnce again you did a spectacular job of intellectual
obfuscation; but you did not answer my query. Why is is that Apple computer has
the right to a corporate conscience and choose to ban the hosting of apps for
religious groups that they do not like because of their position on
homosexuality, But a baker (Photographer, florist) cannot make a decision to not
be actively involved in an event based upon their beliefs (in most of those
cases the vendors DID serve homosexuals - then simply chose not to be involved
in the event - a fact that critics routinely ignore). Particularly when hosting
an app requires less effort than making a cake and involves NO artistic
decisionsI think the answer is apparent: Apple conforms to your
world view - the others do not. Therefore Apple should be forgiven, others
should not. Because everyone has a right to live by YOUR and only YOUR
conscience; not their own - because you are tolerant and they are not. Which is
the personification of intolerance
I suppose the biggest unknown is what the "+" will come to stand for in
Unintended consequences. That’s what I’m afraid of.Utah’s LBGT anti-discrimination in housing and employment is a good
model for any national law. The proposed Federal law goes beyond this. Very
far.Is it going to be criminal to force us all to use all those
self-identifying gender pronouns? That alone would bring modern civilization to
its knees, because of the burdern of keeping track of the ever evolving numbers
of new pronouns, under the threat of fines and criminalization of innocent
@John Pack Lambert of Michigan - Ypsilanti, MI"This is not a goal to
exclude from all services but to not be forced to support specific
events."Then you need to amend the CRA (1964), because the status quo,
for over fifty years now, is that you can't say "I oppose Christian
weddings" and refuse them service on that ground.
As long as I have the option of another provider for a service. If you want to
block me because you have some religious objections about it. Go for it.I also have the right to not serve you because it is against my beliefs
to serve someone who believes in "witchcraft/superstition."It can go both ways right?I would think this law will protect both
sides just fine.
@John Pack Lambert“People do not refuse to serve marriages
because of sexual orientation but because they believe only certain sex is
ok.”They’ll serve a wedding where a heterosexual couple
engaged in premarital or adulterous sex before the marriage but will not serve
a celibate homosexual couple. Nope, it’s about sexual
@NN, CI, et.al.;Your attempts to separate the issue of black/lgbt is
simply a backhanded way of saying "choice/behavior" shouldn't be
covered; the CRA already nullified that argument since religion is without a
doubt "choice/behavior" and is covered.Your position is:
"Religious Freedom" requires business owners (bo's) be allowed to
discriminate against LGBT.The racist business owner's position
was: "Religious Freedom" req's BO's be allowed to discriminate
against blacks.The ONLY variable is the 'who'.
"Religious Freedom req's BOs' be allowed to discriminate against
'n' ", where n=[blacks, LGBT, women, Mormons, Jews, disabled,
etc.].Therefore this is an Either/Or situation. Either BO's
are allowed to discriminate against ALL 'n' or NO 'n'.
(14th Amendment - equal protection).There is one thing that is
irrefutable though. ALL 'n' = People. My position is thus:
"BO's should NOT be able to use "RF" to discriminate against
ANY 'n' (people)".Also, NN, your gun analogy is lame
(ftr, I am a gun owner too).@JPL;Unless you were invited
to the wedding, you're not "supporting" anything; you're
selling a product. Nothing more.
People do not refuse to serve marriages because of sexual orientation but
because they believe only certain sex is ok. This is not a goal to exclude from
all services but to not be forced to support specific events. The analogy to
what the civil rights act went after is flawed.
Phillips was willing to sell any existing goods for the homosexual commitment
ceremony, he was kust not willing to create a work.Even worse the
Colorado "civil rights" commission found against him in a case where
someone asked for a cake celebrating an anniversery of their "gender"
transition with a blue outside and a pink inside sending the message the person
is truly female. No word yet on weather the decline of an asked for Satan's
birthday cake with sex toy from the same person violated rights.
The shield claim depends on a belief religious freedom is invoked insincerely.
This is not the case and the leftists pushing this law consistently fail to even
try to understand why people do not want to be compelled to celebrate things
that go against their religion.
Let us examine this newly minted claim of an infringement on "freedom of
association" which our Conservative brothers/sisters insist on bringing
up.Per Cornell Law School: "Freedom of association as a concept
thus grew out of a series of cases in the 1950s and 1960s in which certain
states were attempting to curb the activities of the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People."There you have it. Freedom
of association is not cataloged in the US Constitution. It was manufactured for
the purpose of discrimination. Social Conservatism has corrupted the original
intent of the Constitution and founded a principle of dubious origins to be used
as a cudgel against disfavored minorities.So much for the
Conservative notion of "originalism", as if it where intended by the
founders (indeed irony compounded).
This is a bad bill that sets forth "protection" of certain groups at the
expense of the freedom and protection of others.
The nondiscrimination rules for gender identity in this Act are less discussed
but also problematic, in terms of not being able to separate bathrooms, locker
rooms, shower rooms, student dorms and sports teams based on biological sex
despite gender identity.
Justifying discrimination against gays in the name of religion worship at the
altar of martyrs who were killed in the name of their beliefs. Ironic.
It's pretty simple: if the Equality Act would impinge on your
"religious freedom", then the Civil Rights Act (1964) already does.And if you're okay with the Civil Rights Act impinging on your
"religious freedom", but not okay with the Equality Act doing so? Then
your objection isn't about religious freedom, it's about gay
people.So c'mon. No special rights. Either support the
Equality Act, and be as obligated as I already am, or call for the repeal of the
CRA and let me as free as you already are. But you don't get to be free to
discriminate against me while I'm obligated to serve you. That hypocrisy
is untenable in the long run.
@ Counter"A gay white male cannot become a racial minority woman
by changes in thoughts, feelings and behaviors alone..."If he
could, should he then feel an obligation to try to change so as to avoid
offending a business owner with religious objections to his race? Also,
mixed-faith couples can very easily change religions, but they aren't asked
to do so to avoid offending the wedding service vendor. The vendor is the one
required to exercise tolerance. So even if your view of sexual orientation is
correct, why do you think the burden shifts?
I find it humorous that people keep trying to find some type of compromise for
this issue. There is no middle ground between religious freedom and those who
want to impose their new values on "all" of society. It's freedom
to associate or it's no freedom to associate. You can't be almost
free, or mostly free to associate.The only answer for a fair society
moving forward is to eliminate the entire concept of "civil rights" for
private individuals because it tramples on the superior concept of
"individual rights" and individual freedom. I'm
religious, but if you don't want to serve me at your restaurant because of
it - I'm OK with that. I'll just start checking websites to see which
restaurants are religious friendly before I go.IMHO, all other
frameworks simply divide us into factions where the largest mob rules the
lawmakers, and people troll businesses for artificial lawsuits based on no
The Equality Act is a stealth attack on the First Amendment. It not
only curtails freedom of religion, but also freedom of speech and freedom of the
press. Even if it passed, reasonable judges would have to strike it down as
unconstitutional. Supporters of the Equality Act need to make it a
Constitutional Amendment as it will be used to significantly curtail relatively
wide-open freedoms of speech, press and religion. Not to be
argumentative, but the Equality Act really does have more in common with the
Laws of the Soviet Union than US Constitutional government. The Equality Act is
inherently anti-First Amendment. But, it’s most ardent supporters will not
tell you this. The American people are free to choose. But, Equality
Act supporters should do this honestly and constitutionally, with integrity, and
not by stealth.
I have a question for those of you who are against the "Equality
Act".What services or products can be refused to Married same
sex couples based on religious beliefs?In Indiana this year, a tax
preparer refused to process the tax return of a married same sex couple filing a
joint tax return. Is that OK? How about an airline that might fly them to a
honeymoon destination? A resort or hotel? Grocery stores, gas stations, banks,
restaurants, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, lawyers, doctors, hospitals,
Universities (married student housing) etc,etc? Can they all deny services to
people who are married and the same sex? Would they be endorsing their marriage
by providing their services in some way? Where does this end, and who gets to
decide? "There is no "right" to require a private party
to conduct ANY business"That's true, but once a private
party chooses to conduct business, they have to accommodate everyone.
@NoNamesAccepted - St. George, UTMarch 14, 2019 10:47 a.m."The
New Mexico wedding photographer case and the Colorado wedding baker case both
show what happens when anti-discrimination laws include sexual orientation
without providing protections for religious beliefs"What exactly
did these cases show? Elane Photography lost their appeal to the New Mexico
Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The US
Supreme court did not rule in favor of the Baker's alleged religious
beliefs and freedom. In fact, they didn't rule on that aspect at all.
They kicked the can down the road on that ruling. So, I really wonder what you
think that the rulings in these 2 case actually shows."In Elane
Photography v. Willock,1 the court unanimously upheld a ruling against a small
company, Elane Photography LLC, for declining to shoot a same-sex commitment
ceremony due to the owners’ beliefs on marriage. The New Mexico Supreme
Court rejected the photographer’s arguments that the company’s
rights to freedom of speech and religious liberty under federal and state law
protected it from being forced to produce images"
@Ranch and othersComparing sexual orientation to racism is an amoral smear
tactic.A gay white male cannot become a racial minority woman by changes
in thoughts, feelings and behaviors alone - but changes in feelings will and do
indicate changes in orientation. If disagreeing with feelings is equal to
racism - then everyone who disagrees with me must be a racist.@unrepentant progressiveYour argument that religion is fine as long as
it is kept silent, is typical left-wing intolerance. When the same argument is
made about orientation you quickly scream "victim"@Lilly
MunsterOne only needs to look to Canada to see that your allegations are
not accurate@The AtheistYou certainly have the right to NOT
believe in any religion - but you do not have the right to force your
non-belief, aka atheism, onto others as a government mandated religion@othersAs soon as you demand that APPLE (with a gay CEO) is driven out
of business because of its refusal to host apps from religious organizations
that they do not like (because of theology re. homosexuality), then you will
have credibility, otherwise you are major hypocrites (hosting an app requires
less work than baking a cake)
Re: Lilly Munster. "Lilly", I enjoyed the late Yvonne
DeCarlo, as well as Fred Gwynne (Herman Munster, and after he was
"Muldoon" on "Car 54, where are you?"), and, of course, Sister
Pat Priest, whom resided here in the Sacramento area for years before retiring
to Idaho. "Lilly", you're no Yvonne (DeCarlo) Margaret
Middleton. The issue isn't necessarily protecting against
discrimination of LDS folks by supporting these ill-considered laws. Be assured
that those advocating these laws have every intention of discriminating against
LDS and other religious groups, and intend to use them as a weapon in their
anti-religious bigotry. The issue is to preserve First Amendment rights and the
inherent right to (dis)associate with persons of our choosing. Conducting
commerce doesn't carry with it the legal obligation to take all comers.
It is not just 'if' the LDS church, and all other churches, will be
required to not teach doctrine, it is when. That 'when' will be
sooner than you think with nonsense like this comes on board. Those who are
members of the church that support this are also those who think that the church
is just a man made organization that needs to change with the times. Talk about
deception and irony. Active in a church, claiming membership in a church, that
they really have no commitment to its teachings, but want the image of belonging
to. How is that suppose to fit in with integrity and honesty?
re: T-money$$$ - Salt Lake City, UTExtremely FALSE and DISINGENUOUS
analogy, T-money$$ to liken attitudes towards interracial marriage in the 1960s
and applicable laws (struck down entirely in Loving v. VA, 1967) towards the
proposed "equality" laws. However, the reason to have seen Loving as a
good and necessary SCOTUS ruling is the same as to oppose (or at least want
sufficient language to allay concerns) these so-called "equality" laws:
Freedom of (dis)association.With these "equality" laws,
there is insufficient protection for persons to avoid their own inherent right
to associate, or NOT, and would force many, in the course of normal and routine
business, to make a choice of upholding religious principles or these nebulous
"laws". In the case of small businesses providing services, like
wedding cakes, photography, or flowers, the Founders would have considered it
preposterous and tyrannical to compel a proprietor to take on customers that
(s)he did not want to serve. There is no "right" to require a private
party to conduct ANY business, and these laws would be construed to do exactly
One need to look no further than Canada where Christian colleges were
dis-accredited if they kept to their stated purpose of supporting traditional
one man one woman marriage (even though everyone knew that was a underlying
principle for even applying for the college).This no longer about
tolerance - it is about silencing dissent The victims have become
the perpetrators The "Jussie"ing of tolerance
I think objectors to LGBT equal rights expose a belief that religion should have
a special status when they worry about losing taxpayer money for their
institutions/programs. For example, the religion-based adoption agencies that
take government money, but don't want to adopt out to gay couples. Imagine
if it were instead secular agencies that genuinely believed it would be harmful
to place children with families that actively worshiped gods and believed in
devils. In each instance the beliefs of the organizations are genuine and
unsupported by the evidence. Yet only believers are protected from this insult
to their character and dignity. Only gay people are forced to support a program
that expressly excludes them as unfit. (And counter to the evidence!)IMO, there IS a compromise and we reached it in 1964. We are not asking
people, businesses and organizations today to constrain their religious exercise
any more than we did 55 years ago. There is no good reason not to. As those
against mixed-race and mixed-faith marriage can tell you, it hasn't stopped
them from believing and disapproving as they will, and belonging to religions
that agree with them.
@Spangs:"Q: What religious liberty does one give up by supporting the
Equality Act? A: The religious liberty to justify discrimination based
upon religious beliefs. "It is important to note how The
Liberal-Left is employing Orwellian Newspeak on this issue. In particular, a
debasement of the word and concept "discrimination". Racial
discrimination has always been "morally wrong". There may have been
racists within religions, but they were always going directly against the
teachings of every significant Church. It has never been considered
"immoral" to "Be Black". Even those who may have believed in a
Biblical "Mark of Caine" would have to note that God placed the Mark of
Caine as a mark of protection, so that Caine's descendants would not be
persecuted. "Discrimination" is not immoral in itself. We "discriminate" against things all the time. Every moral choice
involves "discrimination" between right and wrong.In fact
"Immorality" is "the class of things we should discriminate
@Ranch: "...against LGBT couples, then it's a good enough excuse to
discriminate against blacks."False analogy on two fronts.1-Nobody is asking to discriminate against sexual minorities. We are
standing firm in our right not to attend nor promote an event we find
offensive.Nobody should be denied any off-the-shelf good or service.
And nobody should be forced to attend an event that offends him, nor use
creative talent to promote an event he disagrees with. If you refuse me service
because I'm LDS, you've discriminated. If, however, you decline to
take photos at a church wedding or to apply your graphic design talents to
promote a Missionary event, that is fine. 2-Black is not a behavior.
Nobody can tell me how black or inter-racial behavior differs from any other
conduct. Indeed, science now tells us that race is a mere social construct. But
same sex intimacy is fundamentally, biologically different that heterosexual.You remain happy to deny service to those lawfully carrying a gun.
Don't expect me to attend and promote an event I find disagreeable.You don't want me at your party anyway. Stop trying to put me out
of business for declinnig to attend.
The New Mexico wedding photographer case and the Colorado wedding baker case
both show what happens when anti-discrimination laws include sexual orientation
without providing protections for religious beliefs. The left has made clear
their desire to use student loans and grants to students who attend any
religously owned colleges as the leverage to end all religious based conduct
codes at those schools. Homosexual activists have also demonstrated they'd
rather see adoption services shut down than allow churches to only adopt into
heterosexual homes.Utah already protects in housing and employment.
We should protect both sexual minorities and gun carriers in retail
establishments. We must do so without forcing small business owners or providers
of essential charity services out of the market.If society can
permit billion dollar, international drug companies who sell to
Medicaid/Medicare, to refuse to sell their drugs for use in legal state
executions, and credit card companies to deny service to licensed gun dealers,
then we can tolerate a few small business owners not catering to same-sex
weddings and religious colleges maintaining codes of conduct that offend some
In the 1960's there was this "radical" idea of a white man marrying
a black woman and interracial marriage not only was a violation of religious
freedom for many but surely would mark the decline of society's moral
backbone. Funny how history tends to repeat itself.
A problem with religion freedom is that for religion it is expedient for
religion to see the dirt on others faces and inexpedient for religion to
recognize the dirt on religion's face. This is especially incidental
among extreme dogmatic church groups.
Quote from Elder Bednar: "...there are people who push on the edges of what
is legally allowable, and they use the courts to try to make additional progress
to their particular point of view. Therefore, if you have a church, and it does
not recognize same-gender marriage, then that is discriminatory....It is not
just wild and crazy to suggest that there could be sanctions against the
teaching of our doctrine"This is one of the dangers I see in the
Equality Act. The LDS Church could have discrimination suits brought against it
because of their stand and doctrine on SSM and LGBT.
"I continue to have concerns that the Equality Act has serious flaws —
namely its failure to protect religious liberty,” - Sen. Mike Lee,
R-Utah.Q: What religious liberty does one give up by supporting the
Equality Act? A: The religious liberty to justify discrimination
based upon religious beliefs. Just because a person feels
justified doing harm to another person based upon religious beliefs doesn't
make it right or just. Is female mutilation acceptable just because certain
religions favor its practice? Hardly.
The fundamental question seems to be: "What is really a "right" ?
We should all have all our "rights" protected...right? The "Right to free exercise of religion" is clearly delineated in the
Constitution. The "Right to redefine society's oldest and
most fundamental institution to accommodate one minority's sexual
preferences" ....can't find it stated or implied anywhere. I think there is a difference.
Everyone's rights should be protected...equally.That's the
definition of "America".When you start singling out certain
groups for "special protection" that is the beginning of Orwellian
thought control. The Left is already foisting Newspeak upon us, with
new definitions of imagined "rights" that are really just "socialist
wish-lists". We oldthinkers unbellyfeel this wrongthink. It is doubleplus
My first reaction to this article is that it does a good job of presenting both
sides of the argument. My second reaction is that those opposing LGBT
nondiscrimination laws on religious grounds are losing the argument. You
can't demand constitutional protections for yourselves while denying them
I don't believe that calling yourself a victim is the way to hope and
healing. Suicide can't be blamed on religious beliefs. The minute you
take away someone's right to choose, you have created a victim and a state
that is authoritarian. This legislation will only make suicide rates increase
because the challenges they face are fundamental questions that government can
resolve. Those who really want to affect the suicide rates need to promote
those things that will actually help, rather than legislation that only values
one outcome and disregards everything that brings healing and hope. All that
happens with this legislation is more suicide and an iron first to force
religion into their camp. Lee is right on target. He actually cares about the
LGBTQ, and the Democrats can only appear as helping them. Sad day for the
LGBTQ. They aim for relief, but will only suffer greater pain searching for
something that can't be found by a amoral government agency.
If it doesn’t protect everyone then it’s not a good law. Equality is
becoming a social construct meaning if you don’t do it my way then
you’re discriminating. It must not only protect the gay couple but the
baker who has his beliefs too. If not it’s no good.
@Hawk and KSM's Dad:You both nailed it. Thank you for your
important and thoughtful comments.Clearly, there needs to be balance
in this issue. The rights of religious adherents and the rights of LGBTQ
citizens need to be respected and not infringed upon by either side. Obviously,
the two sides will not agree on every single aspect of this question - that is
impossible. But reasonable people can come up with reasonable compromises. We must also not ever believe that we can have compromise without some
feeling offended in some of the application of the balancing of rights - but
that is totally okay. In life there are tradeoffs and times when some personal
sacrifices become necessary - and that applies to the folks on both sides of
this whole issue!We must be very cautious to ensure a fairness to
all approach and at all costs we must preserve freedom of conscience, freedom of
expression and freedom of religion or the freedom to choose no religion.
In truth, "unrepentant progressive":We do have the right,
and the citizen responsibility, to discriminate, using a myriad of measuring
sticks, religion being one of them.There is no freedom of religion,
speech, press, assembly or petition without agency to ascertain or make
distinctions - or discriminations. What we do to others who
discriminate differently than ourselves becomes one of the marks of a civil or
failed society.Webster's 1828:DISCRIM'INATE,
verb intransitive To make a difference or distinction; as, in the application of
law, and the punishment of crimes, the judge should discriminate between degrees
of guilt.2. To observe or note a difference; to distinguish; as, in
judging of evidence, we should be careful to discriminate between probability
and slight presumption.
When Congress puts a name to a bill, be aware, the bill will have the opposite
effect. Private religious institutions and private business owners will lose.
And the greying of religion continues. Religion is dying a slow
death. The attitudes of many of these posters is one of the reasons why.
Those clapping tell me this is bad.
In the US and most democratic countries, so-called "religious freedom"
is a faked and politicized concept religionists are using to preserve their
hegemony.In many other countries, however, there are legitimate and
pressing "religious freedom" issues caused by one religion oppressing
all those not if that religion, including non-believers of all kinds.And finally, there are a few countries in which the secular state restricts
all religions in the public square much more than we do here. If
religionists take off their blinders and advocate for "freedom FROM
religion" among with "religious freedom", they may find common cause
with humanists who are powerful allies!
I'm amazed with the lack of historical understanding of the constitution,
as evidenced by Utefan60's comment, "The Constitution is there to keep
religion from entering the secular portions of our nation, our government, and
our businesses."That was never the intent of the constitution.
The framers were a diverse bunch, but most (if not all) realize that biblical
morality was critical to self government. Washington stated that ,
“Religion and morality are indispensible supports” for “it is
impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”The constitution had measures to assure that one religion was not
favored over the other, the framers realizing that concentrated power (such as a
state sponsored religion) often leads to tyranny. The concept of
"separation of church and state" was introduced by a bill in Virginia a
couple of years after the constitution was ratified, which was passed to keep
government out of religion, not (as Utefan60 states) the other way around.
Targeted discrimination flows both ways. LGBT advocates use laws and
protections they enjoy to discriminate against others just as they claim happens
to them. Targeting anyone to force them to support a lifestyle or belief is
wrong. Forcing a business owner to create a work of art counter to their
beliefs is just as wrong as evicting a person because of orientation. This is a
slippery slope that may have elements he violate religious freedoms. @utefan60, you need to better understand the constitution. It wasn’t
established to protect people “from” religion, in fact it was the
opposite. It was to protect religious freedoms because of the forced religion
that existed in England at the time. It was to keep government out of
Didn't the CRA do the same thing this article complains of when it made it
illegal to discriminate against blacks in public or mixed-race couples?If religion is a good enough excuse to discriminate against LGBT couples, then
it's a good enough excuse to discriminate against blacks. If it isn't
a good enough excuse for the one, it isn't a good enough excuse of for the
other either.Furthermore, if you want to use religion to
discriminate against LGBT people, you should be willing to give up your own
non-discrimination protections - after all, equality for all, right?
Once again we have way too many laws. Now they want to force a law that protects
a minority of people on the majority of people. Just enforce what’s on the
Your freedom to worship as you please, believe as you please and behave as you
please are protected. What is not protected is your right to
discriminate. And that is the problem. Every poster so far on this thread is
asking America for the right to discriminate, using their religion, against
those that their religion sanctions in one form or another. This discrimination
is not only for the purposes of the acts of worship/fellowship activities within
the confines of their institutions but also for any public act. Think about that. Religious people want to use their faith tradition as
reason to discriminate against a disfavored minority in every public act. Their
religion has become a tool for oppression.That is not a country I
wish to live in. You are free to believe what you will, worship as you will and
administer your institutions as you will. However, we have declared that some
beliefs are not appropriate (racial discrimination). We seek to expand that
declaration to another disfavored minority. IMHO, when you disfavor one set of
Americans, you disfavor all Americans. Period.
I can't understand how baking a cake can be considered participating and
endorsing a same sex marriage. I can't understand how preparing a joint
tax return for a same sex couple can be considered an endorsement of same sex
marriage. And yet a 40 foot tall Latin cross is not an endorsement
Christianity, but merely a war memorial.
In my previous post, “Business owners, regardless of religious strip are
not about the law.“ should have read “Business owners, regardless of
religious strip, are not above the law.“
@Back Talk"As the article says, Gays should relish and support
people of faith so that they dont have to live in fear that gay rights groups
will sue them out of business for not wanting to participate in a gay
wedding."I know of no backer or florist who has been forced to
participate in a wedding ceremony and I challenge you to name any. Now, if you
sell wedding cakes and floral arraignments and your state anti-discrimination
laws prohibit discrimination against LGBTQ in the market place then be prepared
to serve all under the law or face the consequences. If that means getting sued
out of business, so be it."Supreme Court ruling soon that will
support Religious Freedom for individuals, businesses and Private Educational
Institutions."Religious freedom currently exists for individuals
and private, religious educational institutions (unless they want government
money). Businesses have no religious rights. In fact, businesses have only those
rights conferred upon them by the municipality issuing them their business
It is sad to see that so many LDS Citizens do not understand equality and human
rights, unless they are the victims of discrimination themselves.Reread
LDS history. All of it. We were persecuted, excluded, beaten and killed for
legitimate reasons: someone else's "sincerely held religious
beliefs" declared LDS Americans unworthy of respect, safety and courtesy.
Be careful what you demand, when you wish to give ANY person, religious or
not, the power to exclude anyone. It can and will easily be turned on you.
Our family has owned several types of businesses. We have never turned
anyone away, for any reason. We sincerely believe (because we have been told)
that our generosity, fairness and cheerful service has left a very good
impression and gratitude from our thousands of non-LDS customers. We are not
God, a Judge or a Jury. Which is more Christlike? To say get out of our
shop, because we are righteous and you are not? Or.....we will gladly serve
you, because LDS People are the soul of hospitality and comfort? it really
comes down to those two choices. Ugly recriminations, or sharing the loaves
and fishes, as Christ did.
Why is it that when the notion of non-discrimination comes up, religious folks
are the first to clinch their fists? Probably just a coincidence.
So they are telling us that we can have religious freedom so long as Democrats
agree with the kind of religious freedom we want.As the article
says, Gays should relish and support people of faith so that they dont have to
live in fear that gay rights groups will sue them out of business for not
wanting to participate in a gay wedding. Hope we can get a Supreme
Court ruling soon that will support Religious Freedom for individuals,
businesses and Private Educational Institutions.
I appreciate the Dems desires to protect LGBT folks from discrimination, but
this is the wrong approach to take. I know that religion has been used to abuse
otherwise good people, but not everything is black and white. Jack
Phillip's case certainly was not a black and white case. I think a better
approach to this is to apply these anti-discrimination measures on a case by
case standard. Look at what actually happened and then apply them accordingly.
This bill does not use that approach and that is its most fatal flaw. If the
Dems want to accomplish their goals of eliminating hatred of minorities,
they’ll have to do much better than that. Consider using Utah's
approach to the issue for example or Idaho's. Both of those state's
versions are balanced, considerate of both sides, and does not assume ill will
against either side.
I cannot believe that God fearing people do not "see" what this law is
about. It is not about protecting a groups rights, but weakening religious
worship. Any law that takes God out of the driver's seat and places him in
the back is a bad law. There are consequences for turning away from He who
rules the Universe.
@J2 "First, "equality" is not a right."It most certainly is and that's the problem. The religious majority has
had "special rights" for so long they are unwilling to give them up."Life, liberty, and property are rights."For all,
not just the "religious" among us."no private business
owner should ever be compelled to transact with a client he/she doesn't
want to."Private business owners are required to follow the law
under which their license to practice is based."Where is the
consideration of the rights of business owners?"They have a
right to be in business or not be in business. If they choose the former they
are expected to obey the laws where they practice their business. Business
owners, regardless of religious strip are not about the law."private religious institutions have no obligation to do anything that
violates their religious values."And we the people are under no
obligation to allow them to dine at Caesar's table on Caesar's dime
while denying equality to all Caesar's people."Why do the
advocates of these appalling measures not understand rights?"Why
does the religious right not understand that we all have rights, not just them?
Any religion that claims "religious freedom" to discriminate against
another group of God's children for whatever reason is not a true religion
of any God that I have read about.Mike Lee can not name one
religious freedom that he has lost. Not one. Constitutional scholar? That is
untrue. The Constitution is there to keep religion from entering the secular
portions of our nation, our government, and our businesses.Mike Lee
can not name one religious freedom he is losing. But I can name hundreds of
examples of the LBGTQ community losing their rights, freedoms, and civil
liberties to these supposed religious. That can not happen and Mike Lee is
completely wrong about this. No truly religious person, and
religion with real values would ever enter the secular arena to discriminate
against any other minority.This is again a wolf in sheeps clothing
by the radical right claiming "religious freedom". Again Mike Lee, tell
us one religious freedom you have lost? Crickets!
The Utah compromise was a fair compromise, striking a reasonable balance between
competing rights. This is not the Utah compromise. BYU and its honor code would
be in violation. Religious organizations like The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints would not be able to limit hiring decisions in accordance with
church principles. Public schools would not be able to limit bathrooms and
locker rooms and even sports teams based on biological sex instead of claimed
gender identity. Religious business owners and charities like adoption agencies
and counseling services would not be able to limit their services to things
compatible with their religious beliefs. It is completely contrary to the spirit
of the first amendment and the religious liberty central to the Constitution.
Disgraceful and anti-American.First, "equality" is not a
right. Equality is a condition which we are all born into inherently, by virtue
of the fact that it is God, and not government, who makes us equal. Life, liberty, and property are rights.Second, no private business
owner should ever be compelled to transact with a client he/she doesn't
want to. Where is the consideration of the rights of business owners?Third, private religious institutions have no obligation to do anything that
violates their religious values.Why do the advocates of these
appalling measures not understand rights?
Titles like "equality act" can be misleading. This bill, while
protecting the rights of the LGBTQ, infringes on the rights of religion-based
schools. Equality to some means to make everyone comply with arbitrary rules.
Congress has to stop trying to rewrite the Constitution. We have already
strayed from it's path to the point that the Founding Fathers would claim
that we've become what the early colonists vehemently opposed and wanted to
escape from, and hoped to prevent from recurring any time in the future. If you
don't like Constitutional rule, go live in Venezuela, what some are trying
to turn America into, and see how Socialism really works.
I am religious person and I support religious freedom. But I believe that the
concept of religious freedom is frequently distorted to excuse discriminatory
practices that aren't legitimately protected under that umbrella. Religious
freedom is the right to live by your beliefs, not to impose them on others.
Lee is our Constitutional scholar, which is why I voted for him and support him.
He is against it; I'm with him. This is typical of the Democrats.
Seeking cover and not wanting to do anything of substance, including seeking
protection for all, LGBTQ and Religious sectors. Irony of all, of course, is
watching their absolute unity on this shallow legislation that hits the mark of
the appearance of good governance without substance, but can't seem to find
even a token voice for the life of the unborn. Perhaps the Democrats can take
up the cause of the latest victims of the Social Justice warriors, the white,
protestant, male. Let there be no mistake here what the real goal of this
community is: Unequivocal acceptance across the board of their lifestyle,
including those who of religious faith don't accept. It is not about
stopping discrimination. It is about acceptance of their lifestyle and
choices. Democrats and many Republicans just don't get it. Libertarians
and independents are on the rise for a reason. Insanity and lack of leadership
by both political parties. You got my vote Lee. Trump is my man, but should
have listened to Lee.
A fitting Orwellian name for an act that would be used to oppress people of
faith for exercising their First Amendment rights. All animals are equal,
It is absolutely NOT true that "if this law is passed, it would take away
religious rights, generate lawsuits, and cause harm to Christians."We
always have our religious rights: to worship as we please, to share our faith
openly, and to organize and run our Churches without outside interference.
That is a given, and is not in jeopardy.What is in jeopardy, is blatant
discrimination in public housing, jobs, and at non-religious businesses that are
licensed to serve ALL customers, citizens and neighbors.No one can deny
goods services to me as an LDS believer. No one can deny services or
merchandise to any Jew, Catholic, Atheist, left handed person, or a tattooed
Presbyterian.If any citizen can be discriminated against because someone
does not approve of their imagined "Lifestyle" then any and all LDS
Citizens can be turned away as well. That's the thing about morality,
justice, equality and decency. They do not single anyone out for punishment or
exclusion. Much as I hate tattoos, dirty hair, body odor, bad breath and bad
manners, my personal dislikes, for any reason, are NOT allowed to be weaponized.
Negative group of people to think all history is oppressive. Wedding cake
lawsuits is what we got with Mr. Obama's two choices on the U.S. Supreme
Court. There is a reason Mr. Trump was elected. Lawsuit nation will never be