Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Religious freedom

Comments

Return To Article
  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    March 6, 2014 1:50 a.m.

    This letter is a good example of why the Arizona bill was, in my opinion, a misfire and Governor Brewer made the right decision in vetoing it.

    My oldest brother lives in North Carolina, and his daughters will likely want to someday get married in either the Raleigh, NC temple or Washington DC Temple. Suppose when that day comes, they can't find any businesses which will provide them with flowers, a cake or photographer because they chose to marry in an LDS temple?

    With that in mind however, I believe there needs to be a constructive discussion on what in fact is the appropriate line between religious freedom verses the rights of others.

    If, for example, I own a restaurant and tell all my employees they must taste each of the coffees, teas, and wines we serve, regardless of my employee's personal or religious beliefs, would that be okay, or would my employee's rights not to taste all those drinks trump my right to provide, as I see it, top quality customer service?

    Another example, should parents have the right to withdraw their kids from sex ed or maturation classes based on religious beliefs?

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2014 5:57 a.m.

    I apologize. I shouldn't let it get me down so much! You should realize that many of us came from among you! We didn't just wake up one day and decide to be gay and most of us did not just give up our beliefs! It took a lot of years for me to deal with it! I always loved being around other members and sharing my life with them! This so painful to me! I never would have imagined members of the church wanting to pass laws that were meant to hurt me!
    I can honestly tell you that over the years, I have tried with all my heart to be as close to members as possible and I think that very few of them even noticed! It is worse than that, isn't it! I am not going to try any more! it took me so many years of hoping to reach this point! I don't trust Mormons! How can I? life with my partner has been the happy part of my life! That is the truth! People would deny me that also! IT is not right! Oh well

  • ECR Burke, VA
    March 6, 2014 6:21 a.m.

    Well said, Jerry. Thanks for writing.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 6, 2014 6:22 a.m.

    Agreed!

    Thanks Jerry for this fine well articulated letter.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 6, 2014 6:28 a.m.

    I can't believe the DN printed this letter.

    Great Letter, Jerry.

  • Opinionated Sandy, UT
    March 6, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    Hogwash. A business should have every right to do business (or not) with whomever they choose.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    March 6, 2014 7:41 a.m.

    A "celestial" marriage as defined by D&C Section 132 is a polygamous marriage. Probably why the bill is on the books. I don't care one way or the other about polygamy, but it seems important to know this in order to understand the history of this law.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    March 6, 2014 7:49 a.m.

    Excellent and well reasoned letter. Thank you, Jerry Borrowman, for getting "it' right. Good job.

  • alleYcat BATAVIA, IL
    March 6, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    I believe in freedom. I should have the freedom to buy a product or not to buy a product. So it only stands to my reason that if a buyer has the freedom to buy or not buy, then the seller should also have the freedom to sell or not sell. A government that forces a seller to sell against their will is a government that will force a buyer to buy against their will. This is not freedom.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 6, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    Business decisions should be left up to the owner of the business, not the government. The Arizona law was a huge overreach and was quite correctly vetoed. Let the market determine the viability of the business if they refuse service to someone. Death threats, picketing, badmouthing in the media are all in bad form.

  • Demo Dave Holladay, UT
    March 6, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    For a moment there I thought I was reading the Tribune.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    March 6, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    Re: "I believe that a religion which endured great persecution for its views on marriage should be particularly sensitive to laws that give legal authority to discriminate against others in the public sphere."

    Amen. Excellent letter.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    March 6, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    @alleYcat
    What about the social contract? Do you really think that we all live in a bubble, and are totally self sufficent, and that things that the government does like build roads and public transit, provide fire/police/EMT services, water, electricity and an educated workforce do nothing for a business? If you don't why don't you try and open a business in South America or Africa and tell me that those things don't make a successful business. With that said, gay people pay taxes the same way the rest of us do. Why should they pay for roads, schools and all the other things I mentioned, and not be able to patronize business's that take advantage of the government services they help pay for?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 6, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    ClarkHippo,
    Have you even read the Arizona bill? It wasn't about the GLBT community. They are just the most vocal group that was against it.

    I agree it was wrong-headed, but it wasn't what many characterize it to be. But it wasn't needed.

    ===

    If somebody wouldn't sell me flowers because I was married in the temple... I think I'd go to the next flower shop and buy them there. No big deal.

    The persecution Mormons went through back in the day wasn't somebody refusing to sell them flowers or make them a tea shirt they found offensive. It was being run off their property leaving their home, furniture, farm, etc, behind or be killed.

    It's a totally different level of persecution. Don't sell me flowers... I have no problem with that. Threaten to kill me and rape my wife for being Mormon... I have a problem with that.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 6, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    @Noodlekaboodle

    A street leads to your home. Do you think this means that the taxpayers should be able to dictate what you do there? What about the social contract?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    I find that those who shrug off the occurrence of discrimination or trivialize it are those who never face it and never expect to face it even if it were legal...

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 6, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    @2 bits

    If somebody wouldn't sell me flowers because I was married in the temple... I think I'd go to the next flower shop and buy them there. No big deal.

    ================================

    Should I be able to refuse to sell you flowers because you are black? Or white?

    What if I live in no name city, Alabama where there may only be the one flower shop within 50 miles?

    As an American, I should have the right to go to any business, that is open to the public and expect to be treated fairly. If a flower shop doesn't want to sell to Mormons, maybe they shouldn't open a flower shop.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 6, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    Some of you shoudl be just ashamed of your uber-far-wing-wing selves....

    This law the about the closest since the Nazi allowed descrimination of business to Jews, Homosexuals, minorities and and Illegal immigrants in Germany.

    Legallized discrimination was the 1st legal step to the Final Solution...

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    March 6, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    "Should I be able to refuse to sell you flowers because you are black? Or white?"

    Not really the same question is it? I didn't choose to be white or black, like I may have chosen to be Mormon or gay or at least to be gay married. This is the problem. We are comparing apples to oranges. Sad when some bleeding heart has to invent a scenario trying to equate apples to oranges. In a land of freedom, which we not longer have, you should be free to make choices. Those choices should belong to both sides. I personally think a private business should be able to discriminate between black and white. That is freedom, however in an evolved society like we have today, why would a business like that survive. In an environment of freedom, nobody would associate with that business. It really comes down to the leftist nuts desiring to impose their morality on the rest of society, but they forget how much they scream when the shoe is on the other foot. 2bits is exactly right. Denying someone service, isn't the same as assaulting them, or taking away their private property.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    Nate

    Pleasant Grove, UT

    @Noodlekaboodle

    A street leads to your home. Do you think this means that the taxpayers should be able to dictate what you do there? What about the social contract?

    _____________

    Try growing marijuana on your property, or beating your children and wife, or not paying your taxes and see if you can do whatever you want on your own property. There are laws governing your actions and the actions of business owners. They are made for the betterment of society.

    Pretty simple, really.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 6, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    I remember the old Utah liquor laws,
    You could open a business licensed as a "Club" --
    i.e., NOT open to the general public.

    I suppose, if you wanted to open a Business and be able to discriminate,
    I suppose you could license it as a "Private Club just for Bigots", and get away with it,
    But then again --
    I'm not a Lawyer.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    March 6, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is what some businesses post on their windows or walls. Is that actually legal? Yes in some cases and no in others. Legal rulings have established that certain classes are protected from discrimination when seeking employment or business-provided services. You can't discriminate on the basis of race/color, national origin/ancestry, sex/gender, religion/creed, or disability (physical and mental). This is not a complete list, but all that is necessary for this discussion.

    So the question remains as to whether a business can refuse service to customers who behave in a manner that offends the business proprietor's sensibilities or conscience. Are those who engage in engage in same-sex marriage a protected class? That hasn't been established with finality. What about hiring a photographer to take pictures of couples depicting obvious same-sex affection (assuming they're not sexually explicit or even suggestive)? How does that differ from, say, a mixed-race or, more commonly, a mixed religion couple in similar poses? Some businesses may object to some or all of these possibilities.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    March 6, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    Actually, gun confiscation was the 1st legal step to the Final Solution.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    March 6, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" actually, it is probably more like the Jim Crowe laws that the Southern Democrats put into action.

    But the fact remains that something needs to be done to prevent people from being made slaves to people they don't want to do business with.

    IMHO let people discriminate against whoever they want. Gays discriminate against straight people all the time through their militancy in forcing others to accept their behavior. The government discriminates all the time too. If you don't believe me, just think about when the last time was that you filled out a government form and was not asked about your gender or race. If the government can discriminate, why can't the people?

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 6, 2014 1:32 p.m.

    @Hahahaha

    Not really the same question is it? I didn't choose to be white or black, like I may have chosen to be Mormon or gay or at least to be gay married.

    ========

    When did you choose to be straight? Was it a difficult, long thought out process? Or were you like me and said "I think girls are cute" (assuming you are male). You could really move this "science" forward by deciding to be "gay", I mean it is a choice after all right?

    Regardless, it would seem there are two opposing rights, and we must choose with whom lies the greater right; those of a provider, and those of a consumer. I feel in America, that without protections given to a consumer, the provider will take advantage of the consumer; this has been shown in our history.

    If I am taking my family out for a nice Friday night dinner, should I have to worry if the restaurant will serve me and them? If I want to buy flowers for my wife, should I have to worry if the florist will serve me?

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    March 6, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    @Nate
    Have you ever owned a home? Do you really think if you own property in a city that you can do whatever you want there? I live in SLC, they won't let me put broken down cars in the front yard. They make me maintain at least 1/3 of the parkstrip with vegitation. I can't just put an addition on my house without city approval. So ya, it is part of the social contract that I can't do whatever I want on my own property.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 6, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    @2bits;

    What if there is no other business that will sell you flowers? No other business that would bake your cake? What then?

    Frankly, if your religion tells you certain things are a sin and you shouldn't "participate", then you have no business being in business because you will absolutely serve someone, somewhere, somewhen, that violates your "religious beliefs".

    @HaHaHaHa;

    And I didn't choose to be gay, but I am. When did you choose to be straight? Date/time please.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 6, 2014 2:23 p.m.

    @jsf
    Centerville, UT
    Actually, gun confiscation was the 1st legal step to the Final Solution.
    1:06 p.m. March 6, 2014
    ---
    German laws banning guns was part of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles -- German dis-armenment.
    You can thank the Allies for that one, it had nothing to do with Hitler.

    As for those who say you "choose" your sexual orientation or religion,

    Why don't we just prepend that people can un-gay or un-Mormon themselves before going into a Business to avoid any intolerance from the owners....

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 6, 2014 2:34 p.m.

    Opinionated.

    There are no rights or freedoms applicable to a business operation other than those specified in the business license agreement. The rules covering the operation of a business are set by the government(s) of the area of operation.

    AlleYcat.
    Flashback.
    Nate.

    The government cannot force a seller to sell anything, but they can withhold a business license and prevent the business from selling anything. A business operation must agree to follow the rules set for business in that area.

    So.

    The rules of business are generally for the protection of the consumers and employees. However, since businessmen are generally the ones who make the rules, sometimes the rules are made to protect the businessmen profit.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 6, 2014 2:52 p.m.

    For the record --
    Gay bars can not dis-allow Hetero-sexuals...
    and
    I'm pretty sure gays and lesbians working in all sectors of life must serve heterosexual customers.

    Even the LDS Church has addressed it's members to treat others with dignity and respect.
    [i.e., NOT turning away business based on orientaion].

    This all boils down to one thing, and one thing only -- bigotry.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 6, 2014 2:59 p.m.

    Ranch

    RE: "What if there is no other business that will sell you flowers? No other business that would bake your cake? What then?"...

    Obviously I would have to make my own cake. Still no big deal. It's not like they were going to exterminate me and my family if I didn't leave my farm and all my possessions and leave the State. Big difference. No cake... vs kill you if you don't leave. No cake is no big deal.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 6, 2014 3:46 p.m.

    @Lane Myer "There are laws governing your actions and the actions of business owners."

    Exactly. So I'm suggesting we cite the laws, not some ambiguous social contract that I never signed onto, which seems to mean whatever the person invoking it wants it to mean.

    @Noodlekaboodle "So ya, it is part of the social contract that I can't do whatever I want on my own property."

    No, it isn't. It's the law. If you want to have a contract with me, come and talk, and we'll agree on something. If you can't show me where I signed a contract, we don't have one. Simple enough?

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    March 6, 2014 5:16 p.m.

    @Nate,
    It seems that you can't think of a good argument against my point, and so you are now trying to argue semantics. Laws are the social contract, it's insane to say that we should all go sign an individual contract with each other. So the question is, Why should gay people have to pay taxes for government services the business use, and not be allowed to patronize that business because someone doesn't like their lifestyle? We have elected people to represent us that agreed that business can't discriminate against someone because of their race or religion, and in many places also their sexual orientation. That is the social contract.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    March 6, 2014 5:56 p.m.

    @Schnee 10:51 a.m. March 6, 2014

    I find that those who shrug off the occurrence of discrimination or trivialize it are those who never face it and never expect to face it even if it were legal...

    -----------------------

    I know what it is like to be treated as property. That's how women were treated prior to the advent of the women's rights movement and the gains that movement brought to women -- prior to marriage they were considered to be their father's property and then, when they married, ownership was handed over to their husbands. Prior to 1920 they couldn't even vote and, after that, they still couldn't manage the marital property or make decisions about their own concerns. When we married, my husband had to give his permission for me to receive a prescription for contraception and the credit I had so carefully tended prior to marriage was suddenly taken away from me. My husband and I are proud to be two of the workers that made women more equal. As a result, we both are strong advocates for civil equality for the LGBT community.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 6, 2014 6:20 p.m.

    @Nate

    Exactly. So I'm suggesting we cite the laws, not some ambiguous social contract that I never signed onto, which seems to mean whatever the person invoking it wants it to mean.

    ===============

    The term social contract comes from John Locke, a philosopher on whose philosophies we have based our government. In this, a social contract is what a group of people enter into to form a government. We surrender some of our liberties and freedoms, in exchange for the protections and services the government provides. In this case, the social contract is called the Constitution of the United States. This Constitution derives its power from the Sovereign (the people) and in turns empowers a National Government to govern several States.

    If you claim citizenship, you have agreed to be bound by this contract. If you do not claim citizenship, and you reside within its borders, you are here as our guest, and are bound by this contract.

    We all have equal claim to protection under this Constitution (see Ammendment XIV) and the government is empowered to regulate commerce.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 6, 2014 7:43 p.m.

    @Noodlekaboodle

    No, it's more than semantics. We live in a country where individual rights trump majority rule. There are limits to how far the majority can go. As a rule, when I see the social contract being invoked, someone's rights are about to be walked on. I don't recognize any such contract. Our written contract is the U.S. Constitution, the constitution of the state we live in, and the laws passed under them. The fact of driving on public streets or attending public schools doesn't give a majority of voters any right to tell me how I must worship, what I can or cannot say, or with whom I may or may not assemble.

    As I told you before, if you want to argue the relative merits of a particular law, go ahead and do it. But it would be incorrect to assume that just because 50.1% of the people got behind a measure, they are permitted to violate the rights of a free individual.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 6, 2014 9:42 p.m.

    @Darrel

    It should be clear to you that I have no problem with Locke's conception. I won't put up with Rousseau's.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    March 7, 2014 12:55 a.m.

    Re: Opinionated "Hogwash. A business should have every right to do business (or not) with whomever they choose." Opinionated, you should be aware that the theory of the market you presumably venerate assumes non-discrimination. If there is discrimination in a market all bets are off as to market efficiency and optimality. A Marxist shouldn't have to point this out to a conservative.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 7, 2014 6:58 a.m.

    Nate
    Pleasant Grove, UT
    @Noodlekaboodle

    No, it's more than semantics. We live in a country where individual rights trump majority rule.

    ...it would be incorrect to assume that just because 50.1% of the people got behind a measure, they are permitted to violate the rights of a free individual.

    ========

    Funny, you only use this argument when it's support's your agenda, yet are dis-ingenuous when it doesn't...

    because that's precisely why - even with 60% aprroval ratings - Utah's Amendment 3 was struct down,
    and that Arizona's law was corrrectly vetoed.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 7, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    @2 bits;

    Tell that to Matthew Shepherd and the thousands of other men and women who have been beaten or killed in the name of religion for being gay.

    @Nate;

    That social contract you so despise is the reason I pay taxes to pay for the education of YOUR children. You can at least show me the courtesy of providing the service to me that you provide to EVERYONE else.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    March 7, 2014 7:46 a.m.

    Yet again: This has nothing to do with homosexuality: It was opposed by homosexual lobbyists because it was to help protect those whom they are currently and viciously attacking.

    No one's sincere religious beliefs prohibit working with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Yet, if they did, it is there prerogative.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    March 7, 2014 7:52 a.m.

    Sorry for making a second consecutive comment, but as an additional note:

    @Ranch

    If no one will sell you flowers for a gay wedding in America, you do the American thing and start a business that does.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    March 7, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    Ranch makes the comment "Tell that to Matthew Shepherd....who have been beaten or killed in the name of religion for being gay." This is a false premise, evidence shows Shepherd was known by one of his attackers, was involved in the same drug circles, and was beaten over a robbery attempt. Religion was not the motive and his gay lifestyle was not the motive. As provided in an ABC report investigating the motive. His killers were hardly religious, being drug dealers and one actually had same sex relations. I know there are arguments for the cause but ABC does a good job laying out the evidence.

  • Alter Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 7, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    @Open Minded Mormon "Funny, you only use this argument when it's support's your agenda, yet are dis-ingenuous when it doesn't..."

    Can you provide an example? Actual quotes would be great.

    @Ranch "That social contract you so despise..."

    ...doesn't exist as described. I don't have to give up any of my religious rights just because my house is connected to a sewer line and the garbage truck stops at my curb.

    "You can at least show me the courtesy of providing the service to me that you provide to EVERYONE else."

    I don't provide my service to everyone else. I choose whom I do business with, based on all kinds of criteria, and sometimes just on a gut feeling. It's my choice to make.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    March 7, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    D&C 132 does not equate "celestial marriage" with polygamy. Read it for yourself.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    March 7, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    So true...I agree with the letter writer. But I would like to add that we also need to be aware that some forms of marriage can be damaging to women, children and some young men. (Not all polygamy is bad, but the practice can make women become 2nd class citizens) But I believe that any TWO people who are loving and kind to each other (whether different genders or not) can be good marriage partners and good parents.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 7, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    Ranch
    What happened to Matthew Shepherd was already totally illegal (regardless of the Arizona bill). That's a different topic.

    ===

    IMO people who won't sell you a cake are bigots, but being a bigot isn't against the law... yet.

    What happened to Mathew Shepherd was murder (it happens to hundreds of straight people each year too). Doesn't make it OK.

    My suggestion is... if someone won't sell you a cake... go to the next cake shop and buy one.

  • alleYcat BATAVIA, IL
    March 7, 2014 1:05 p.m.

    @ Noodlekaboodle
    There should be a distinction between public services and private transactions of trade. I'd prefer we protected the 'private' nature of personal property and commercial transactions between private parties. While I'm not sure it makes good business sense to alienate market segments based on your religion or belief system, I'd protect the freedom of the private party to make their own decisions on who they trade with. No shirts, no shoes, no service.

    @ Ultra Bob
    I'll concede the point that the government "can" withhold a business license and prevent a business from selling anything. I wonder whether it "should" when the goods/services being privately exchanged have no bearing on public welfare.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    March 7, 2014 2:27 p.m.

    When a business opens to serve the public, and they have willingly accepted the benefits of public infrastructures ie, sidewalks, roads, utilities, education systems, not to mention protection services etc, and their customers are respectful and pay for their services then by law they are obligated to treat each and every customer equally without prejudice based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. When you make an exception for one, you then make exceptions for all. Be careful what you wish for because if you aren't it may come back to haunt you.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 7, 2014 4:49 p.m.

    I will never understand how selling a cake to a person can violate another person's religious rights. It's a cake. If you sell cakes, sell cakes. Selling someone a cake is not about making value judgments. The only thing that should be judged is whether or not you bake tasty cakes.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 7, 2014 6:19 p.m.

    How does a business owner, say a florist or baker, screen potential customers to weed out the adulterers, the liars, etc? Would it not be a grave sin to provide a wedding cake for a wedding involving a man who left his wife to wed his mistress?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    March 7, 2014 8:06 p.m.

    @ClarkHippo:
    "If, for example, I own a restaurant and tell all my employees they must taste each of the coffees, teas, and wines we serve, regardless of my employee's personal or religious beliefs, would that be okay, or would my employee's rights not to taste all those drinks trump my right to provide, as I see it, top quality customer service?"

    Let's say you owned a restaurant and you insisted your employees arrive to work sober. Would that be okay or would your employees have the right to imbibe what and when they want?

    @alleYcat:
    "A government that forces a seller to sell against their will is a government that will force a buyer to buy against their will."

    We're already there. Have you not heard of Obamacare? You gotta buy insurance or face a fine (er, tax). Maybe even jail.

    @HaHaHaHa:
    "We are comparing apples to oranges."

    True. A restaurant can refuse service to someone not dressed appropriately such as no shirt of shoes. But a restaurant cannot refuse to serve an African-American. What's the difference? The guy with no shoes can remedy the situation. The African-American can't change his race.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    March 8, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    It would only be a matter of time before the "no coloreds allowed" signs would pop back up if the law were passed.

    It was a dumb law and thankfully Brewer vetoed it. That it got through the state legislature is an absolute embarrassment.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    March 9, 2014 10:52 p.m.

    @Darrel:
    "I mean it is a choice after all right?"

    Life is full of choices. Sometimes choices that must be made to get along in this world go against natural propensities.

    "If I am taking my family out for a nice Friday night dinner, should I have to worry if the restaurant will serve me and them?"

    You should dress appropriately. Many restaurants are prone to not serve folks who enter without shoes or shirts.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 10, 2014 4:58 p.m.

    dang… not sure how I missed this one, but well reasoned and stated. One can not protect their own rights by denying another of their rights.