im not sure why the church should have a say in this matter. they can advise
their members but advise the state? that should not be happening.
The mormon church is not a 'stakeholder'. They run interference at best. If the
church wants a liquor license, fine, but otherwise it's time to separate church
Just say no to ALL liquor licenses.
I currently live in Massachusetts where in this tight economy voters just
elected to keep the sales tax where it is (instead of dropping it to 3%) but
they did vote to drop tax on liquors. Sad.In my voting district a
city official was recently found guilty of taking bribes from an under cover
police agent in return for granting liquor licences. Scary.Utah has
something that is great. I do not want to make room for additional liquor
licences. We have enough problems in society already.
There is no separation of church and state in Utah. Thank goodness for the
How many people will die for each new liquor license granted?
They are talking about restaurant licenses. If none are available, restaurant
chains will pass Utah by, fine dining establishments won't start up and we'll
just get chicken finger emporiums, toddler oriented pizza parlors and fast food
for all future restaurant openings in Utah. Allowing more restaurant licenses is
a win-win. People don't go to these places to get loaded- they go to have a
drink with their dinner, or they go to eat and have a non alcoholic drink. Non
drinkers get the benefit of more restaurant variety and a wider choice of
chains. Otherwise, be happy with Clown Time Kiddie Burgers and Sticky Chicken
baseballmamma: The church doesn't have a say. The governorment officials who
are lds (and most of them are) have the say.
If national chains do not want to start up where there are no liquor licenses,
local enterpreneurs can start businesses that do not serve alchohol.
Utah should realize that it is not going to get hard-core drinkers as tourists,
and seek to attrack more tourists who like Utah for what it is, instead of
trying to attrack tourists who really want to go to Reno. Also, why is
it ok for groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving to be a stake holder in this
discussion, but if it is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints people
go balistic? The fact of the matter is that you need to be willing to discuss
and dialogue with the main institutions in the community in formulating public
policy. It is an inherent misunderstanding of the 1st admendment to
exclude religios groups from public policy discussion. The seperation of Church
and state is a lie that was foisted upon us by a former KKK member, and had
previously been one of the sworn goals of the KKK. I would remind the
nay sayers that legally Utah could ban all sale and use of alchohol.
In fact, since the right of states to regulate the use of alchohol is in an
admendment more recent than the 1st (specifically the one that overturned
federal prohibition) Utah could, and this is not that I am suggesting it but
just stating what can be done, Utah could ban the use of alchohol by anyone in
any situation, including as sacramental wine. I think such a ban would be
unwise, and I would argue it would violate the 11th article of faith, since it
would limit people's rights to worship. However since the constitution
as it is currently written gives states absolute authority to regulate alchohol
use, and since later admendments trump earlier ones, such a law could not be
found to violate the 1st Admendment, because the right to include alchohol in
ones worship has been overturned by the right of the government to regulate all
use of alchohol, which is now in the hands of the state. The best way to
regulate alchohol is another story, but involving all interested parties in the
discussion is the only appropriate approach.
Cedarite, you are a genius. You hit the nail right on its head. Whether we like
it or not, the sale of beer and other alcohol are a huge part of what money the
state earns on tourism. If we have no tourists, there is less money in this
state.When people go to a dining establishment, you must order
something to help with your alcohol, which helps your body absorb the alcohol,
and the waitress/waiter is in control as far as how much you can have.
Religions absolutely should have a place at the table in shaping public policy,
just like other organizations do. No reason to treat them worse than other
organizations. The Establishment Clause in the First amendment should not be
interpreted to mean that any organization has to keep its mouth shut when it
comes to matters that it feels strongly about. And I agree with snowman (what a
great phrase to type!), that when it comes down to it, all these organizations
are really doing is voicing their opinions. The elected leaders are the only
ones making the decisions, and they are free to accept or ignore the views of
The great theocratic state of Utah.Did they go ask the Catholics
what they thought?
Oh course the LDS church wants more liquor licenses. Their new malls will have
some fine dining establishments and they will need the licenses since there are
no more right now.Totally predictable.
Nanny nanny nanny state. If Utah would reject socialism and embrace the free
market this wouldn't be an issue.
The current situation on liquor laws is that it's hurting jobs across the board.
National chains refuse to come here. National conventions refuse to come here.
Just becuase the liquor is served doesn't mean you have to drink it. If you're
so against booze, vote with your wallet, and don't buy it!!! In the meantime we
are given free agency, so let those who choose to buy it do so!!!
Utah drinkers are NOT given free agency?. Nor the people that serve them?.If it's true and the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is
a stakeholder in liquor legislation in Utah, along with Mothers Against Drunk
Driving and the Utah Restaurant Association, plus other groups with an
interest in how the state controls the sale of alcohol, because the state
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission currently has eight
applicants for the dozen full-service restaurant licenses available, out of the
557 allowed under the quota system, is not a reason to toss a
"hissy-fit" over this, because nine applicants for the five available
restaurant licenses limited to beer and wine service, out of the 311 allowed and
ya'll are worried that could lead to overconsumption, and in a restaurant is
the best place to sell alcohol because you have to buy food to get a drink,
you'll kill your over taxed economy in Utah, and that won't create jobs with
tips, just because you have some Republican Mike Lee in your hip pocket now,
fulling knowing That's not the American way, is just wrong, in my view.
One death of a loved one would change everyone's mind in this matter. Think of
the positive consequences.
ADN | 12:28 p.m. Nov. 11, 2010 There are many positive consequences.
You just don't hear about them because it does not sell newspapers. Wine has
been and is a positive in my life. I know I am not alone.
I agree with GB's post at 6:35 am. In our system of government every
organization of free people have a place at the table including religions and
churches.The establishment clause should not be interpreted to
infringe or limit the rights of individuals and organizations including freedom
of speech and free exercise of religion. These rights are as equally, if not
more, important as separation of church and state.No organization or
individual including churches and religious people should have to shut up when
the state decides public policy that impacts them as much as it does anyone
else. If an organization or individual doesn't have a say in our laws or our
policies then they do not have to obey them.Since this isn't a
religious discussion I will talk about the danger of alcohol. Studies have been
done that show alcohol is more deadly than drugs such as marijuana yet one is
legal and the other is not. If alcohol which kills so many people is legal than
it follows that drugs which are less deadly should be as well.So the
choice should be to make alcohol illegal or legalize less dangerous drugs
If the LDS Church is powerful in Utah, it is because a large number of voters
here respect the Church's opinion. There is nothing theocratic about that. Imagine the situation if some popular leader in another nation voiced an
opinion about politics and 99 percent of our voters liked that opinion and voted
accordingly. Would that make such a leader our dictator? Whether
that leader were Satan, God, or a mere mortal somewhere between, the power
remains in us voters. Nothing sinister in that. Ultimate power is in the
ability to persuade. Freedom of conscience, speech, and the press grant all of
us access to that power.
About alcohol regulation--we need to moderate personal opinions to account for
the opinions of our guests and neighbors. I know there is a variety of opinion
about how far to go in this respect. Consider other examples where we must
weigh personal standards against accommodations for others. Should LDS business
owners hire smokers and drinkers? Where do you draw the line in both loving
your child and allowing her the right to make her own choices? Would you refuse
to talk to her ever again if she decided to quit going to church? Let her
visit, but only if she goes to church once a month with the family? Let her
live at home like the others and never indicate disapproval of her choices? A respected teacher of mine had the dilemma of wanting his son to come
back home to live, but the son refused to do so unless he could keep his beer in
the fridge. I don't remember my teacher's, but I sure understand his dilemma.
We are fortunate to live where we can debate and choose our
compromise point in order to live peacefully with each other.
dave | 12:50 p.m. Nov. 11, 2010"There are many positive
consequences. You just don't hear about them because it does not sell
newspapers. Wine has been and is a positive in my life. I know I am not
alone."There are many "positive consequences" of
using drugs such as marijuana but they are still illegal. Just because something
has positive consequences does not mean that it should be readily available. The
negative consequences of alcohol consumption far outweigh the positive
consequences.Society, as a whole, consisting of individuals have a
right to regulate things which have more negative consequences than positive
especially when one of the consequences is death. People die when someone gets
drunk and either walks or drives drunk. What happens when a person who is
impaired by drinking wine stumbles into a street, a father and his three kids
swerve to miss them and hit a tree and die?So go drink your wine in
your home but as soon as you leave it expect that establishments that sell it
will be regulated because your right to drink alcohol does not come before
society's right to protect our children from you.
@Sank You, DoctorThe church understands that more licenses will help boost
that part of the economy, and that if people can get a drink at a restaurant,
they're less likely to get smashed like they would a bar or club. Besides, they
merely own the property at City Creek, they don't own all the restaurants that
will be going in. It's up to the restaurant owners to get the liquor license.
Furthermore they're advocating that businesses should be able to get liquor
licenses more easily, so long as the government is doing it's part to ensure
that abusers are held accountable.
Too many liquor licenses already and too many DUI's happening. too many people
drinking and making bad decisions.
daveThe great thing about this country is that we have different
states and those states have the right to run themselves as the majority of the
residents see fit.You libs would like the federal government to be
in control of everything, but that's not how our country came to be. You can move anytime to California where you will be much more comfortable.
The LDS Church understands that tourist dollars aren't as important as lives. Of
course people should be allowed to drink if they choose. My ancestors had a
still here in Utah, but, on the other hand, Utah has a very low death by drunk
driving rate. I lived in Pittsburgh for a while also, and you can't even buy
beer in stores there (or couldn't, don't know if it's still teh same) and they
also have a very low death by auto rate. But they do sell in restaurants etc.
The Theocracy issue raises it's head when Valentine states that the LDS Church
has a full place at the table when it comes to this type of legislation. What
about his constituents? Valentine's district is 90% Mormon already. Why does he
have to make this bold declaration about the Church having a place at the table?
They already do through their members.It is this type of legislation arrogance
that invites the descriptive term Theocracy. Also, it begs the inevitable
question. How many other legislative issues are passed on first by the Quroum of
12 before being put to the people of Utah?I am not against Valentine's
Liquor position, just his arrogant mixture of Church and State. I wonder if
he'll support removing all of the tax exemptions for all religions?
scojos: none of the legislative issues are passed by the Quroum of the 12 before
the people vote. They see the issues when we do.