Quantcast
Faith

Obama: Religious intolerance has ‘no place in our society’

Comments

Return To Article
  • Pianoman Salt Lake City, UT
    April 14, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    "Religious intolerance has no place in our society," ironically said by the man who intolerantly dismisses the religious view of traditional marriage.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 14, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    @Pianoman;

    You immediately go out and marginalize another group. Isn't there enough hate in this world without adding to it?

    BTW; there are quite a large number of religious organizations that support SSM right along with your "traditional marriage".

    As long as we allow groups (Jewish, Muslim, LGBT, etc.) to be marginalized in our society (and the DN perpetuates this marginalization with all their anti-LGBT articles), these things are going to continue to happen. Enough with the hate already.

  • MichaelNomo Here, UT
    April 14, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    @Pianoman Ironically said by the person who intolerantly thinks that "traditional" marriage is the only correct form of marriage.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    April 14, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    Pianoman - You do realize that marriage is not a zero-sum game, right? When one supports marriage equality that does not, in any way, diminish or dismiss one's tolerance of traditional marriage. In fact, most supporters of marriage equality are like me in that they themselves are in a traditional marriage.

    Of course, I could be mistaken - you could always prove me wrong by pointing out where SSM supporters/Obama have advocated to remove the right to marry from heterosexual couples. I'm sure you must have loads upon loads of evidence to support such a conclusion based on your rather direct comment.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 14, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    No matter what positive message the President delivers, some will respond with hate and cynicism. I would guess they consider themselves religious?

  • Moontan Roanoke, VA
    April 14, 2014 1:38 p.m.

    Speaking of marginalization, notice how Pianoman's opinion is immediately reduced to 'hate' bypassing a whole range of acceptable categories that have nothing to do with hate. Telling, that.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 14, 2014 1:52 p.m.

    @Moontan;

    Notice how you immediately dismiss the hate that allows one to marginalize another group? If it isn't hate it is pretty darn identical.

  • MichaelNomo Here, UT
    April 14, 2014 1:55 p.m.

    @Moontan - sounds like you're committing the fallacy fallacy.

  • Moontan Roanoke, VA
    April 14, 2014 2:18 p.m.

    @Ranch ... One can't dismiss a hatred that marginalizes others until one first establishes that the hate exists. We haven't done that here. Pinaoman may simply believe in traditional marriage as established by God, and that the institution isn't ours to redefine. This isn't hate. While it is unquestionable that hatred for our gay brothers and sisters exists, this isn't obvious from merely a desire to leave traditional marriage intact. The "let me do what I want or you hate me" argument doesn't work.

    @Michael ... No, no fallacy here. For the above reasons.

  • MichaelNomo Here, UT
    April 14, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    @Moontan - or it would be if there was an initial fallacy committed in the first place (the implication being "ad homonym"). I think that no one here has attacked Pianoman's character. It's just that his logic is a bit off. You have to admit that wanting to restrict marriage to a single sexual orientation (heterosexual), is far more intolerant than one who promotes marriage with no respect to sexual orientation. At this point you can only logically argue whether or not this particular case of tolerance is a good thing (it indeed is, especially from a human rights perspective).

  • MichaelNomo Here, UT
    April 14, 2014 2:31 p.m.

    Oops, forgot to edit that "one who promotes" bit. You get the idea though.

  • Moontan Roanoke, VA
    April 14, 2014 2:37 p.m.

    @Michael ... "You have to admit that wanting to restrict marriage to a single sexual orientation (heterosexual), is far more intolerant...". Now THERE is your fallacy, from which any conclusion made is a fallacy. Does abiding by the traditional definition of marriage mean I am intolerant of redefinition's? Is the International Triathlon Union intolerant because they won't give me a gold metal, even though I couldn't run 100 yards without a life-support unit on standby? A simple desire to be considered 'X' without meeting the criteria history associates with 'X' does not entitle me to be considered thus, or mean that those would deny me the desired status are intolerant, bigots, haters, etc.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    April 14, 2014 2:51 p.m.

    Regardless which side anyone falls on this issue, I think I have learned (again) not to underestimate the ability of religious folks to spin and rationalize.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 14, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    "said by the man who intolerantly dismisses the religious view of traditional marriage."

    And in Utah, for 40 years, what constituted "traditional marriage"?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    April 14, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    Obama: Religious intolerance has ‘no place in our society’

    =========

    And I knew I would find "hate all thing Obama" haters chiming in the comments.

    If the President was addressing this toward a right-wing KKK member shooting at a Jewish synagoge in Kansas last weekend,
    there would still be those who would deriv him.

    Pathetic when blind hatred can decern right from wrong.

    Just like with the KKK shooter.

  • MichaelNomo2 Here, UT
    April 14, 2014 3:45 p.m.

    Of course I'm approaching this from a political standpoint--separation of Church and State and all that. This is not a question of "whose beliefs we need to cater to?", it's a question of "does this infringe on someone else's rights?" It does. Does allowing marriage equality infringe on anyone's rights? No, it does not.

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    April 14, 2014 4:05 p.m.

    "But it’s also his deeds, simple yet profound, hugging the homeless man or washing the feet of somebody who, normally, ordinary folks would just pass by on the street. "

    It is so refreshing to see a religious leader doing this!!

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    April 14, 2014 4:06 p.m.

    Moontan - You stated, "A simple desire to be considered 'X' without meeting the criteria history associates with 'X' does not entitle me to be considered thus, or mean that those would deny me the desired status are intolerant, bigots, haters, etc."

    To the first part of your statement, you're actually using the incorrect criteria for making the determination of what does or does not constitute a marriage. History is not the guiding factor (and neither is religion) for determining secular marriage contract policy, rather it is the Constitution of the United States. Now, the COTUS can take into consideration historical realities but the "we've always done it this way so we should keep doing it this way" argument is not convincing in the court of law, particularly when dealing with a fundamental right such as marriage.

    Secondly, when you seek to deny rights to individuals or groups (particularly when you yourself hold those rights and are therefore laboring to create a two-tiered society) that is definitionally intolerant and the pro-active measures to marginalize the group you disagree with is patent bigotry.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 14, 2014 4:07 p.m.

    @Moontan;

    It certainly feels like hate to those on the receiving end and it certainly isn't love. You can claim that it "isn't personal"; but to us it is. To those murdered by a White Supremacist, it was personal. It is motivated by hate and fear. You can believe whatever you want, you CAN NOT violate the rights of your fellow citizens. Hate, no matter how you try to spin it is hate. Intolerance and biogtry are motivated by this hate.

    Believe it or not, I also support "traditional marriage". And you are 100% wrong about the "definition of marriage". It has NEVER excluded same-sex couples - many ancient cultures allowed it - so there is no "redefinition" of the word taking place.

  • MichaelNomo2 Here, UT
    April 14, 2014 4:08 p.m.

    Of course I'm approaching this from a political standpoint--separation of Church and State and all that. This is not a question of whose beliefs we need to cater to, it's a question of "does this infringe on someone else's rights?" It does. Does allowing marriage equality infringe on anyone's rights? No, it does not.

  • MichaelNomo2 Here, UT
    April 14, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    @Moontan -
    I'm not sure where you're getting that fallacy from. Let's take a look at the definition of intolerance (from Merriam Webster) -- unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights. Seems spot on to me. I'm not sure how you could argue that point. Are you sure that you want to argue logic?

    I'm not sure how you can compare marriage to getting a gold medal from the ITU. Seems like you're reaching. So outside of the religious aspect of marriage, what is it that you feel that you are entitled to that non-heterosexuals aren't? I guess you feel that you're entitled to a gold medal because you happen to be sexually attracted to a member of the opposite sex? (I assume that you're a heterosexual, as am I) That same logic was used to oppose interracial marriage in the earlier days of the church.

  • Moontan Roanoke, VA
    April 14, 2014 4:42 p.m.

    @Michael and @Ranch ... This is my last post allowed, so let me cut to the chase. I'm a religious man who happens to support SSM; who believes Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality reflect cultural prejudices of the day. My past in law enforcement & later in hospital admin (when AIDS hit) tell me no man chooses the lifestyle.

    All I am saying here is that before we accuse people of hate, we should see that they are indeed ... hating. A stand against SSM in and of itself does not indicate hatred. Hiring a Caucasian over a minority does not in and of itself indicate racism. Before we accuse people of the lowest of behaviors, let's make sure they are really in the gutter. From Pianoman's post I can logically conclude that he is for traditional marriage and against SSM. I cannot conclude that he hates gays or is intolerant of them, or of the SSM argument, solely by that one post. Several commentators made that conclusion; I cannot. This is my only point.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 14, 2014 5:46 p.m.

    @Pianoman
    "ironically said by the man who intolerantly dismisses the religious view of traditional marriage."

    Obama has given no indication that he opposes churches being able to choose to only practice "traditional marriage" in their churches/temples/mosques/etc.

    @Moontan
    "Does abiding by the traditional definition of marriage mean I am intolerant of redefinition's? "

    Yes, it does. Now, one might be able to argue that being intolerant of ____ is okay like not giving first place medals to a runner like yourself or myself, but that's a separate matter. Personally, I think leaving it how it is in your churches is acceptable but trying to apply that rule nationally (or statewide) is more...imposing.

    @Ranch
    "It has NEVER excluded same-sex couples - many ancient cultures allowed it - so there is no "redefinition" of the word taking place."

    Few and far between and it'd never been recognized in the U.S. I'm not buying the "never excluded" idea. I guess my argument is... what's wrong with "redefinition"? We've redefined marriage in our laws, allowing interracial marriage, ending the laws that practically treated women like property (I forget the term)...

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    April 14, 2014 8:11 p.m.

    "Religious intolerance has no place in our society" really Mr. Obama? Then why does it seem as if you dislike Christian Values that people believe in so much. I would say that you are the intolerant one.

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    April 14, 2014 8:59 p.m.

    It would appear that some people are confusing disagreement with intolerance. What a shame! The extremist attitude of "you must think like I do or else you are clearly hateful and intolerant" is one of the darkest forces attacking our nation in the present day.

    We are stronger as a nation when our citizens recognize that position and motive are not one and the same.

  • GB Silver Spring, MD
    April 14, 2014 9:19 p.m.

    Wow, there are lots of commenters disagreeing with the views of religious people. By their definitions, that means they hate religious people and are intolerant of them. However, I don't agree with their definitions; I doubt they actually hate or are intolerant of religious people. I hope we can all stop using such charged words and communicate respectfully, as we almost certainly would if we were face to face.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    April 14, 2014 10:15 p.m.

    It is interesting that those who would be concerned about laws singling out Mormons are some of the quickest to support laws against gays.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 14, 2014 10:38 p.m.

    Re: "Obama called on the religious leaders to 'keep coming together across faiths to combat the ignorance and intolerance . . . .'"

    Oh, we will.

    Including the liberal ignorance and intolerance that mocks and dismisses the concerns of real people that bloated, unaccountable government now deems it acceptable to force people of faith to embrace doctrines and practices that are contrary to the holy writ of their religious faith.

    We will continue to combat Obamacare's anti-religious mandates. We will continue to combat the unconstitutional mandates instituted by the regime's vote-buying LGBT apologists. We'll continue to combat the ignorance and intolerance that convinces Obama-supporting radicals that it's permissible to buy votes from radical tree huggers by driving the real people of traditional agriculture from their lands and livelihoods. We'll continue to combat the ignorance and intolerance that assures low information voters a subsidized life and a capitulative peace at the price of chains and slavery.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 14, 2014 11:04 p.m.

    Excuse me folks, but I'd like to remind you that this article is not about same-sex marriage, but the killing of three innocent people at two Jewish community centers and our President's pledge of support to their grieving families. Maybe we could stop the partisan bickering for a couple hours and condemn what happened.

  • David Centerville, UT
    April 14, 2014 11:44 p.m.

    I applaud the President for stating that religious intolerance has no place in our society. We must allow people the freedom to express their faith, and live their religion.

    "Among the most inestimable of our blessings is that...of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support" (Thomas Jefferson, 1807).

  • rhappahannock Washington, DC
    April 15, 2014 6:09 a.m.

    Religious liberty should extend to those not willing to violate their conscience by supporting gay marriage, including bakers, photographers, and owners of bed-and-breakfasts. It seems that the gay astroturfers are out in force in this article, trying to squash religious liberty.

    I think gay marriage supporters are in denial that the man boy love association exits, and has existed for 40 years. Abuse has happened by gay priests, gay scout leaders, gay coaches, and gay teachers. Why should society support child abuse?

    Finally, it would be nice to see recognition of the gay persecution of Rev. Charles McIlhenny in San Francisco. Both his church and home have been vandalized and firebombed by gay activists, and he and his family have received numerous death threats. Perhaps Obama would like to also recognize persecution suffered by Rev. McIlhenny when he talks about supporting religious liberty.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2014 6:12 a.m.

    Pianoman points out obamas evolving attitude towards traditional marriage. I did not read anything about pianoman hating a group of people. It was the intolerant and hateful commenters that can't stand it when someone says they support traditional marriage. That is all that was said. How is it hateful to support marriage between a man and a woman?

    Had it been said that he supported co-habitation would that have been hate driven also?

    I support traditional marriage. Now it's your choice how you will treat me. Prove me wrong or prove me right. However, it would be refreshing to be proven wrong by your words and actions.

    It is still a free country where people are allowed to take up positions and express those opinions freely. Even with recent democrat and republican efforts to start censoring peoples opinions. Especially when those opinions go against those in office.

  • rhappahannock Washington, DC
    April 15, 2014 7:29 a.m.

    Here are some people who have suffered religious persecution recently: Olympic gold medalist Peter Vidmar, Elaine Huguenin, Aaron and Melissa Klein, Jack Phillips, and Javascript inventor Brendan Eich. However, there are also others who have had to endure much greater persecution. Chuck and Donna McIlhenny of San Francisco have had their church and home firebombed, and were lucky to escape with their lives. Any guess as to who is persecuting these people for their religion?

    Obama does well to talk about supporting religious liberty. But, is he really willing to side with those who stand for conscience?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    April 15, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    @rhappanock, legalizing same-sex marriage will not legalize child abuse and the firebombing of homes.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    April 15, 2014 8:20 a.m.

    “Nobody should have to worry about their security when gathering with their fellow believers,” Obama told religious leaders at the White House for the annual Easter prayer breakfast. “No one should ever have to fear for their safety when they go to pray.”
    ______________________________

    A timely Easter/Passover message that good people don’t allow to be drowned out by angry shouting voices. As Jesus often said, he who has ears to hear, let him hear.

  • GiuseppeG Murray, Utah
    April 15, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    [“Nobody should have to worry about their security when gathering with their fellow believers,” Obama told religious leaders at the White House for the annual Easter prayer breakfast. “No one should ever have to fear for their safety when they go to pray.]

    idk....maybe Pianoman was just one of those made to fear when trying to worship in CA following Prop 8?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 15, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    @Liberal Ted;

    It isn't hateful to support "traditional marriage" (heck, even I support that). It is hateful to deny others the benefits you enjoy via marriage though. You can have your "positions" but you can' t use them to deny others basic equality.

    @GB;
    Religious people can have their views. They can't force non-religious people to live by them by legislating away the rights of others.

    @rhappahannock;

    Religious liberty does not give you the right to violate the law. There is NOT ONE scripture that tells you to refuse to do business with those you consider "sinners". Not one. You aren't being a good Christian when you refuse to treat others the way you would be treated yourself (as Christ commanded you to do).

    Why did you complain only about "gay" abusers and not the straight ones? Far, far more children have been abused by heterosexuals than gays.

    Why don't you list religious people persecuting LGBT? That list is extremely long.

  • Chris A Salt Lake , UT
    April 15, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    This article wasn't even about homosexuality but since everyone wanted to talk about it.... Just because a country or culture allows same-sex marriage will never make it ok.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    "Does allowing marriage equality infringe on anyone's rights? No, it does not."

    Please explain that to the baker in Colorado and photographer in New Mexico.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    April 15, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    This is great news that he said that. I am glad that he has finally come to his senses. The fact that he seems to have taken a hard turn to the right when it comes to freedom of conscience is down right chilling.

    So I presume that he will shortly do the following to show that he's serious:
    1) Apologize to the minister that the White House excluded from the Inauguration because of his views on traditional marriage,
    2) Announce an attorney general investigation of laws in Oregon, New Mexico and other places that are forcing Christian business owners to violate their beliefs,
    3) change the contraception mandate so that companies owned by religious people do not have to violate their beliefs,
    4) apologize for having the head of the mis-named Human Rights Campaign on his re-election campaign,
    5) Investifate how the donor list of the National Organizatiom of Marriage which was given to the IRS ended up with the mis-named Humam Rights Comapaing,
    6) Investigate if Mozilla broke any federal civil rights laws when they fired their CEO.

    I am looking forward to his change of heart.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    April 15, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    @1978 wrote: "'Does allowing marriage equality infringe on anyone's rights? No, it does not.'

    Please explain that to the baker in Colorado and photographer in New Mexico."

    Colorado does not have marriage equality. And the case in New Mexico pre-dates marriage equality in that state.

    Those cases are about public accommodation discrimination laws, not marriage equality.

  • relientk Saratoga Springs, UT
    April 15, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    What I've learned from these comments is that no matter what stance somebody (especially on the right) takes, they will be labeled as a "hater" by somebody.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 15, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    @airnaut, "If the President was addressing this toward a right-wing KKK member" This comment is false in that the shooter is a democrat and applied to run for political office as a democrat. Historically, the KKK was supported by the democrat party and a high percentage of its members were democrats. The KKK organized against the republican party because newly freed slaves across the south aligned with the republican party. It truly is a hateful organization, but its history is tied deeply with the democratic party. Democrats work hard to hide the facts.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    April 15, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    RE: 1aggie,” I'd like to remind you that this article is not about same-sex marriage, but the killing of three innocent people”. True,

    "You shall not murder”(Ex 20:13 NIV) The verb (ratsakh) refers to the premeditated or accidental taking of the life of another human being; it includes any unauthorized killing (it is used for the punishment of a murderer, but that would not be included in the prohibition). This commandment teaches the sanctity of all human life(abortion). Or Pro-murder.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    April 15, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    @ Ranch: "Why don't you list religious people persecuting LGBT? That list is extremely long."

    Why are you not condemning the examples of LGBT terrorisom that were listed? You cite the golden rule, yet fail to apply it to those you agree with. If gays have been persecuted for so long, why do you silently condone persecution and violence against religious people by gays?

    Or do two wrongs make a right?

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 15, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    Couple of questions:

    1) A gay man walks into your restaurant, is it a sin to refuse him service? Is it a sin to serve him?

    2) Two gay men walk in together to your restaurant, is it a sin to refuse to serve them? Is it a sin to serve them?

    3) A couple in which the woman is already pregnant comes into your cake shop to make a cake for their wedding. Is it a sin to refuse them service? Is it a sin to serve them?

    4) Two gay men walk into your cake shop and want a wedding cake, is it a sin to serve them, or refuse them service?

    May I suggest that unless your answer to each of the four questions is identical throughout, you have inconsistencies in your logic?

  • Objectified Tooele, UT
    April 15, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    And yet Obama won't tolerate other people's religious beliefs by causing them to support birth control while a significantly huge religious Catholic church so highly is opposed to birth control. Forcing such things on private companies is not being religiously tolerant. In fact it seems quite hypocritical.

    @ Ranch and Michaelnomo:

    Disagreeing with someone is not the same thing as hating them. Yet that is the erroneous practice and policy of LGBT advocates in this and similar matters. Using the word "hate" so indiscriminately causes a huge loss in credibility and exposes a weak stance in the matter.

    @ JoeBlow:

    Marriage in Utah, throughout it's entire history has alway been between a man and a woman (or women)... and never involving any form of homosexuality or LGBT, which according to God in the Bible is a gross abomination before Him. (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 and Romans 1:24-27). He makes it very clear to understand.
    Trusting in the Christian God of the Bible is a much better bet than in going along with the current trend of political correctness of man which is always changing from one generation to the next.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    @jsf
    "It truly is a hateful organization, but its history is tied deeply with the democratic party. Democrats work hard to hide the facts."

    And Republicans ignore the fact that the Dixiecrats left the Democrats after LBJ eventually joining the Republican party, and that is why Democrats can't win southern states anymore while pulling a whole 15-20% of the white vote in the region.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 15, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal -

    " . . . Obama supporting radicals?"

    So then you're saying that the people who voted for Obama are radicals.

    In other words, for you, Radicals are the majority of voters.

    That's basically the same argument a lunatic makes when he's defending his views.

    He's not crazy. Everybody else is.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2014 11:58 a.m.

    @Understands Math

    Should a catering business that is run by an Othrodox Jewish owner be forced to cater an event on Saturday which is his Sabbath because he has a public business?

    Should a doctor who is opposed to abortion be forced to perform an abortion for any reason because he is in a public business?

  • lket Bluffdale, UT
    April 15, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    sad people got murdered for any reason no one has the right. and i would defened any of you no matter what i thought of your opinion. thats what is good about our country. the guy live by you might be strange but you would watch out for him because thats what we do.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 15, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    Hey Objectified - A key point you seem to be missing is that in America NO religion has the right to call the shots and tell other Americans what to do.

    Get used to it.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    April 15, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    @1978 wrote: "Should a catering business that is run by an Othrodox Jewish owner be forced to cater an event on Saturday which is his Sabbath because he has a public business?

    Should a doctor who is opposed to abortion be forced to perform an abortion for any reason because he is in a public business?"

    Neither of your scenarios as you put them have anything to do with anti-discrimination laws.

    In the first case, if the Orthodox Jewish owner were so opposed to offering their services on Saturday, then presumably they would not be open on Saturdays at all. It would only be discrimination if they routinely *did* offer their business on that day, but would not offer their services based on the customer's sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or (in states where they are protected) sexual orientation and gender identity.

    In the second case, doctors are allowed wide latitude in what procedures they perform based on freedom of conscience. But again, if the doctor refused to perform an abortion based on any of the classes mentioned above, it would be discrimination.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    @1978
    "Should a catering business that is run by an Othrodox Jewish owner be forced to cater an event on Saturday which is his Sabbath because he has a public business? "

    No, they don't have to work on a Saturday, just like Chik-fil-A doesn't have to be open on Sundays. The issue is treating customers differently based on race, gender, religion, or, in around half the states, sexual orientation. So, say... if the Orthodox Jewish owner refused to cater a Catholic wedding during their normal business hours, that'd be a problem.

    "Should a doctor who is opposed to abortion be forced to perform an abortion for any reason because he is in a public business?"

    No, and I'm not sure why anyone would want a doctor who isn't trained in a particular procedure to perform it, that's just asking for malpractice suits.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    April 15, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    @ Ranch: "There is NOT ONE scripture that tells you to refuse to do business with those you consider "sinners".

    Doing business such as selling them bread in a bakery is one thing, but making a cake especially to celebrate a gay union is quite another.

    @Darrel "May I suggest that unless your answer to each of the four questions is identical throughout, you have inconsistencies in your logic?"

    Actually, I believe that the answer to Q#4 should be different, and that mine is the logical approach. Treating gay people like human beings is the right thing to do. Serve them cheerfully in your cafe, even a gay couple. The hetero pregnant couple should have gotten married before getting pregnant, but better late than never! That's called repentance, and it is to be encouraged and celebrated. But as stated above, creating a cake to celebrate something you believe to be a sin is a different matter altogether.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 15, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    Schnee makes a point of distancing the democrats from their heritage. But my point is the KKK was deeply entrenched with the Democrat party. The republicans worked and brought forward civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960 and 1964. Lyndon opposed the legislation in 1957 and 1960. By 1963 Lyndon swung in support of legislation and signed it into law in 1964. Famous Democrats opposing civil rights include, Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond, Albert Gore, Sr., and J. William Fulbright. Woodrow Wilson is the President that segregated the military and Washington D.C. The point being made is the Democrats have a history of racism entwined with the KKK. As many have posted it is wrong to not own the history.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 15, 2014 1:07 p.m.

    @RG

    So, how is making a gay couple celebrating an anniversary at a cafe any different than making them a cake to celebrate their wedding?

    I am not trying to be difficult, but I fail to see a distinction.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 15, 2014 1:13 p.m.

    Re: "It is hateful to deny others the benefits you enjoy via marriage . . . ."

    Paraphrasing the wisdom of Hollywood -- "You keep using that word [hateful]. I do not think it means what you think it means."

    "Hateful" is a perfectly good English word, with a well-defined meaning -- "arousing, deserving of, or filled with hatred."

    Attempting to redefine the word, as you clearly have, to meet the exigencies of your strawman argument, does not change its real meaning in the minds of real people.

    Like it or not, it's simply not given to you to decide the feelings of others.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 15, 2014 2:07 p.m.

    This coming from the most religiously intolerant (policies, not the man) of my lifetime.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    April 15, 2014 2:12 p.m.

    jsf,

    "....The point being made is the Democrats have a history of racism entwined with the KKK. As many have posted it is wrong to not own the history...."
    ______________________________

    Time for a fact check on some half truths and confused information being passed off as history in a couple of your posts.

    First, the original Klan composed of former Confederate soldiers to terrorize freed slaves disbanded in the 1870s. Second, the reconstituted Klan that started up in the 20th century infiltrated not one but both of our major political parties. Here in Colorado in the 1920s, we had a Republican Governor who was also a Klansman. He is regarded as the most extreme Governor in Colorado history.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2014 3:16 p.m.

    @Understands Math

    Just to be clear I agree with anti discrimination laws that protect people based on their identity. Forced participation in an event that violates someone's religous belief is what I oppose.

    "doctors are allowed wide latitude in what procedures they perform based on freedom of conscience"

    Exactly - I couldn't have said it better myself. Just replace the words doctor with baker or photographer and the word procedure with event.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    April 15, 2014 3:20 p.m.

    Re: Gary O: "A key point you seem to be missing is that in America NO religion has the right to call the shots and tell other Americans what to do."

    Seems to be that Secular Humanism and Atheism are calling a lot of shots these days, and they seem to be fully supported by the Judicial and Executive Branches.

    So I guess "separation of Church and State" is a subjective principle....

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    April 15, 2014 3:50 p.m.

    I can only assume that many of the people posting here would be fine with someone discriminating against them for your religion based on theirs. Where is America then, as we slide back into little groups discriminating against each other? If I decide that being Mormon or another minority religion is against my religion and ban them from my business you would be ok with that?

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    April 15, 2014 4:30 p.m.

    @1978:

    "Exactly - I couldn't have said it better myself. Just replace the words doctor with baker or photographer and the word procedure with event."

    So would you be okay with allowing a photographer to refuse to take pictures of a wedding between a couple of different races? Or do you think that businesses should only be able to refuse service to LGBT people?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 15, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    Redwing said: "So I guess "separation of Church and State" is a subjective principle...."

    Atheism is a religion like Not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    What is it with Conservatives trying to label everything a religion?

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    April 15, 2014 9:39 p.m.

    @LiberalJimmy
    I find pro Obama liberals to be lacking in common sense more than conservatives who have not forgotten how our country was freed.

    "(especially emanating from Tooele)" Seriously??

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    April 16, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    Heretic: Your comparison is simply not correct.

    Belief in no God is just as much a religion as belief in a God. Neither can be proven with empirical evidence alone. You have "faith" that there is no God, just as I have "faith" that there is one.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    April 16, 2014 8:20 a.m.

    RedWings, atheism is not a faith of there not being a god, it is the lack o a sense of a god. It is simply the zero base line of belive and/or faith in a god. It is a neutral .

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 16, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    @Understands Math

    This is my final post on this article so I will summarize by expanding my last comment.

    "Just to be clear I agree with anti discrimination laws that protect people based on their identity." This includes race, religion, sexual orientation etc. That answers your last question.

    Now I have a few questions:

    Is it O.K. to force this photographer to take pictures at a nudist wedding?

    Is it O.K. to force this photographer to take pictures of an elective abortion?

    Is it O.K. to force this photographer to covert to Islam to take pictures for a client who is visiting Mecca?

    After all the Nudist, Abortion doctor and Adherent Muslim might become offended.

    My solution - Find another photographer protect the first ammendment to the constitution.

  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    April 16, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    Words that ring hollow coming from a president whose administration has attacked religious freedom in this country at every opportunity.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 16, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    Esquire,
    Correctly pointing out hypocrisy is responding with hate and cynicism? Nope.

    Scientist
    Regardless which side anyone falls on this issue, I think I have learned (again) not to underestimate the ability of liberals to spin and rationalize

    Airnaut,
    Doesn’t matter who BO was addressing, hypocrisy is hypocrisy

    MichaelNemo
    Your argument is based on the fallacy that marriage is not equal. When you base your argument on fallacy, you get fallacy. The SSM crowd DO infringe on religious rights.

    Moontan,
    Don’t waste your breath with liberals – even if you agree with 99% of their stand, disagreeing with the other 1% labels you a hater.

    Schnee,
    No indication does not mean he doesn’t. Remember, BO originally opposed SSM.

    1aggie,
    I condemn the religious intolerance that appears to be behind the attack at the community center. I also condemn the religious intolerance BO has shown in just about every law or judicial action he sought or opposed.

    Rhappahannock
    If you agree with the left you are a legitimate target

    Understandsmath
    The dates of the misnamed laws are irrelevant – those religious people had their rights violated.

    GaryO
    In America, NO ONE has the right to tell the religious to violate their conscience

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 16, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    Red Wings -

    RedWings
    CLEARFIELD, UT


    "Seems to be that Secular Humanism and Atheism are calling a lot of shots these days . . . "

    Thinks so? I don't see it.

    The "Wall of Separation," (as noted by Jefferson) is as strong now as it's ever been.

    That's America.

    Get used to it.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    April 16, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    lost in DC

    Thanks for doing all the work.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    April 16, 2014 3:29 p.m.

    Skeptic: If atheism is neutral why do atheists do so many things to directly oppose religious belief? Those actions don't seem neutral at all.

    Gary O: There are a number of items that show secular humanism has taken over our country. Here are just a few -

    - Loosening of moral values
    - Erosion of the family as the central support unit in society
    - Reduction of fathers to mere caricatures and jokes
    - Situational ethics
    - Entitlements that are more desirable than hard work

    Family, moral values, fathers as leaders of the home & community, work, and ethical certainty built this country. All were critically important to the First Continental Congress. All of these are now being systematically removed, and it is to our detriment and ultimate fall as a nation.

    For a preview of the future of the USA, please see "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". History repeats because we fail to learn its lessons..

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    April 16, 2014 5:31 p.m.

    RG wrote:

    "Doing business such as selling them bread in a bakery is one thing, but making a cake especially to celebrate a gay union is quite another."

    Oh, I see. The problem is that the gay couple asked for the wrong pastry! They should have asked for a loaf of celebratory bread. It must be the fondant on the cake that makes all the religious difference?

    Who knew?

    lost in DC wrote:

    "Scientist - Regardless which side anyone falls on this issue, I think I have learned (again) not to underestimate the ability of liberals to spin and rationalize."

    I am not a liberal.

    Never have been.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    April 16, 2014 8:24 p.m.

    RedWings, it is definite as neutral in believe/faith in there being or not being a god; not as neutral in action or reaction to persecution or defense against those who believe there is a god and their religious believes.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    It has been hard for me being gay. People sometimes don't realize how much we still believe in God and how important it is for everyone to belong. It is easy to get upset when thinking about this. I had a neighbor who threatened to blow my head off! Sometimes the person is doing it because of his own religious convictions! In his mind, I was worth nothing! I know that I have had to make changes in my life, but I still have a deep love for the church and I miss talking about God with others. I grew up Mormon. Maybe God gives us diversity to teach us how to love! One of the greatest things I was taught came from being Mormon. I do believe that we are all children of God and I remember being taught that we should treat each other that way. I distinctly remember feeling happy because I thought to myself " I can love anybody I want! "
    I think that we can do more than just respect! We can share! Just because I am gay doesn't mean that you can't share your faith with me.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    April 18, 2014 4:22 p.m.

    Religious intolerance and homophobia should no longer be tolerated in these United States of America the land of the free and the brave!