Quantcast
Opinion

It doesn't have to be hard for liberalism to tolerate religious freedom

Comments

Return To Article
  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 11, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    Religion is on the attack, pitting itself against equality in the secular arena. Religion has no valid reason to deny products or services to customers or employees when those areas are in conflict with the religious person's values. Forcing employees to adhere to one's religious values is as offensive as denying service to customers based on your sense of "religious conscience". The problem is that these "religious conscience" issues are not universally applied, but situationally applied.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 11, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    I see the Taliban and Sharia Law entertwined with Government,
    and
    I see America and our seperation of Church and State.

    I choose the later,
    with all of it's consequences.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    Excuse me, but why do people separate gay people from religion when they bring up religious freedom? Since when have religious people ever had a problem with their freedom? Religious freedom does not mean that you have a right to do anything you want by saying that it is part of your beliefs! That would be absurd! People could do almost anything and say that it is their beliefs and they should be able to do it because of freedom of religion! It is pathetic to see how people use religion to excuse something as bad as discrimination! It is pathetic when somebody hates gay people so much that they can not take a picture or make a cake! I know, growing up Mormon, that I wasn't taught to act so childish and we were all taught to treat people better than that. Give me a break to those of you who are Mormon. I would like you to stand in front of my face and tell me that is what you learned growing up Mormon! It is pathetic and embarrassing that anyone would incorporate discrimination and hatred into their religion! What would the Savior say?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 11, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    ‘It doesn't have to be hard for liberalism to tolerate religious freedom’

    Truth be told,
    tolerance and religous freedom can ONLY exist under liberalism.

    Conservatives would have us all;
    praying to the same God,
    attending the same churches,
    wearing the same clothes,
    eating the same foods,
    drining the same drinks,
    listening to the same music,
    going to the same schools,
    studying the same subjects,
    and
    shunning Science.

    Utah is a perfect example of this....

    Like Henry Ford once said,
    "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black".

    Close minded.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    March 11, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    It's interesting that Liberals direct their "religious intolerance" outrage at Christians, but not nary a word about Muslims. Hmmm?

    Funny, but I haven't heard any outrage from Liberals about the Muslim cab drivers who have been REFUSING service to those passengers who have alcohol in their possession or working guide dogs.

    Although it took place in Canada, Liberals have been strangely silent about the religious intolerance of the Muslim barber in Canada who refused to cut the hair of a lesbian. Take your pick, this Muslim was either discriminating because she was a lesbian or a woman. Now this is a conundrum for Liberals, which group do they support...homosexuals or Muslims?

    Speaking of which, where is the Liberal outrage about the horrible, degrading treatment of women under Sharia Law?

    Nope, Liberals save their "religious intolerance" outrage for really important stuff like a Colorado Baker refusing to bake wedding cakes for homosexual couples.

    Sorry, but when Liberals stay silent on the "intolerance" of Muslims, while castigating Christians, they cannot be taken seriously in their outrage.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 11, 2014 11:42 a.m.

    IMO the problem is that many liberals think that anything short of all out attack on religion equates to government establishing a state religion.

    They can't be neutral.. they have to be AGAINST religion. I don't get where liberals get THAT from the Establishment Clause.

    ===

    The 1st amendment states both...
    -Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... AND
    -Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    Both of these TOGETHER make up the "religion clauses" in our Constitution.

    Liberals over-emphasis the first (to the point of paranoia) and ignore the 2nd. It can be said that religious people focus on the 2nd clause (to the point of paranoia). IMO we need to use them BOTH equally (not just one or the other).

    ===

    IMO... Government should not establish a State Religion... but they should also not prohibit the free exercise of ANY citizen's chosen faith. Even if it offends them.

    Now it gets tricky when the free exercise of one's religion impacts another (jihad, not selling flowers, etc)... But I think we can address these without saying Government must suppress freedom of religion (due to red-herring GLBT issues).

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    March 11, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    Open Minded Mormon said"

    "Truth be told,
    tolerance and religous freedom can ONLY exist under liberalism."

    Yeah, the "tolerance and religious freedom" under liberals has been wonderful!

    Dear Leader and Liberals showed this wonderful tolerance and religious freedom by forcing Christian based religious institutions to offer sterilization, abortion drugs, and contraception services as part of their health insurance plans. Nice try, but this was a direct assault on "tolerance and religious freedom."

    So tell us, will Liberals and Obama force Muslims to comply with these same standards? Will Obama and the Left force Muslims to accept the LGBT lifestyle? ((Crickets))

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 11, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    I much prefer the notion of freedom of religion as opposed to the notion of religious liberty.

    Freedom of religion implies the right and freedom to believe in whatever way a person wishes. It is a personal thing that should mainly be kept within the private sphere of the person and the group of like minded.

    Religious liberty implies the right and freedom to act upon a religious belief in the public sphere, even to the point of imposing that belief upon others.

    The article states: "Liberalism should have the confidence to tolerate institutions, even large ones, that have competing and contrary missions to those of the state."
    America was created by promises the that all men are created equal, have certain rights and would have equal justice. And freedom.

    However, our society is made up of thousands of competing groups vying for control of people according to their own desires. The control groups might include parents, schools, churches, business operations and political governments all the way up to the federal government.

    It seems likely to me that we cannot allow any group to void the promises of our political governments and still have one nation under God.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    Liberalism in no way has any problem with religious freedom. The article is based upon this premise, and I am sure many uninformed folks in the conservative bubble believe this; but it has never been true and never will be. The Arizona law was not about religious freedom. It was about discrimination in the public sphere. Just because you serve a gay person lunch doesn't mean you endorse their lifestyle. This is using a sacred tenet of our American culture (religious freedom) to destroy another sacred tenet (equality).

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 11, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    Any time I read people using phases like "monocultural elite class" or "Liberals direct their "religious intolerance"" it is really easy to decipher what the narrative the writer is trying to promote. Any sense of objectivity are long since history. some of the suppositions being made - that "liberals' are against religion are on their face silly - and at best ignorant. A true liberal would deny no one their right to believe as they please. They would not dictate what real religion is - or isn't. That is the definition of liberalism.

    "Speaking of which, where is the Liberal outrage about the horrible, degrading treatment of women under Sharia Law?"

    "Sorry, but when Liberals stay silent on the "intolerance" of Muslims, while castigating Christians, they cannot be taken seriously in their outrage."

    Kind of like the silence around the mosque in New York City…. is that the intolerance you are speaking of?

    We have gotten so deep into partisan silliness here….show me a Christian that is denied their right to believe… and I will listen. Otherwise this sounds like more of a self persecution complex. Woo is me…. please.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 11, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    THIS Liberal 100% supported the Muslims right to build a Cultural Center in New York City.
    as opposed to
    FoxNews and their Conservative right-wing viewers who did everything they possibly could to stop them.

    Religous Freedom is under attack by the intolerant uber-far-right-wing,
    NOT the Left.

    Sven --
    How does an employer providing a coffee maker at work impose on my religous beliefs?
    No one is FORCING me to drink coffee.
    Therefore, it doesn't.

    Healthcare access for Women?
    Same difference.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2014 12:48 p.m.

    @Sven
    "It's interesting that Liberals direct their "religious intolerance" outrage at Christians, but not nary a word about Muslims."

    Americans are very Ameri-centric. Sometimes detrimentally (when we try and claim we know what's best for people in other nations without understanding a thing about them) but understandably so, after all it's where we live. Muslims make up roughly 1% of Americans. And that's why Christianity gets more attention. The majority of Americans self-identify as Christians of some sort. When unified strongly enough they can influence public policy. Muslims can't. People generally don't care what religions do internally (consider that despite many thinking all-male clergy is sexist, there's really nothing in the manner of protest about it, and the protests that do occur are mostly by members in the church rather than outside it). They care about what religions do externally. Since Christians have this level of influence in this nation, but Muslims don't, and since other nations policy doesn't directly impact us as much as policy in the U.S., that's why there's more attention towards one than the other.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    March 11, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    @Sven

    You said: "It's interesting that Liberals direct their "religious intolerance" outrage at Christians, but not nary a word about Muslims."

    First, given that the majority of Americans, liberal and conservative, profess to be "Christian" in one flavor or another your "religious intolerance" comment is more hyperbole than actual fact.

    Second, I have never had a Muslim admonish me at a community meeting for excluding "Under God" when I repeat the Pledge of Allegiance. To date, no Muslim has ever threatened me with physical harm for refusing to stand for the singing of "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch. Muslims were not behind Arizona's failed attempt to legalize discrimination and are not a part of the many other "hate in the name of religion" initiatives in other states. Muslims do not try to use zoning laws to prevent the building of Christian Worship centers in their neighborhoods. "Good" American "Christians," on the other hand, do all of the above all of the time. Does that help answer your question?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    March 11, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    this liberal also posted on these boards in June of last year he loathed conservative members of his own church. Seems tolerance is only a virtue of the true liberal who then can be intolerant of those with differing opinions because his cause is right.

    As far as who says what school you have to go to, what you have for subjects, what you can and cannot eat or drink, try New York. Not exactly a bastion of conservatives. As far as shunning science, which group says the science is settled and there is no room for discussion.

    How does a government forcing me to provide a coffee maker at work not impose on my religous beliefs?

    Can the government force me to provide for those who do drink coffee. Liberals will tell you the government can force you.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    The editorial is question here gets the topic backwards. The question needs to be framed differently: how should a liberal majority interact with and treat an illiberal minority? Can the pluralistic majority long survive if it refuses to set boundaries on the behavior of an intolerant minority which wishes to discriminate against other members of society?

    At the time of the Loving decision, a majority of Americans opposed interracial marriage. Today, a majority support interracial marriage. Should the majority permit the minority to act in ways which harm inter-racial couples? Catholic teaching opposes divorce. Catholics are allowed to preach against, believe it is wrong, but they are not permitted to outlaw it. What's more American Catholics at least are voting with their lives - and getting divorces.

    Essentially right now we have a minority arguing they have religious reasons for opposing marriage equality and asking to be exempt from treating same sex couples the same as they treat heteorsexual couples. Same sex couples are, rightfully, demanding equal treatment in public accommodations. Which action is more damaging to the community?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    March 11, 2014 2:23 p.m.

    I think religious minorities asking for exemptions in providing services will be a short-lived phenomenon.

    Rosa Parks demonstrated the power of the boycott in sculpting business behavior, and it won't be long before vendors who choose to discriminate will in turn feel the power of discrimination, as customers look elsewhere.

    In 5 years this will be a non-issue.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    March 11, 2014 2:36 p.m.

    @Sven

    Dear Leader and Liberals showed this wonderful tolerance and religious freedom by forcing Christian based religious institutions to offer sterilization, abortion drugs, and contraception services as part of their health insurance plans.

    Simply not true. They are legally allowed exclusions but must make it known that they will use those exclusions. Now, if your idea of “religious tolerance” is about letting for profit entities and their owners force their religious beliefs on their employees through the offered health plan, then yes, I am “intolerant.”

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 11, 2014 2:40 p.m.

    'It doesn't have to be hard for liberalism to tolerate religious freedom'

    =======

    I know that Liberals will support a Religion’s freedom to choose to marry Same-Sex Couples.

    I'm curious if Conservatives are more or less as tolerant in supporting other people's Religious Freedom whether they agree with them or not?

    [ie.e, the true test of tolerance and freedom.]

    Oh and btw --
    'It doesn't have to be hard for conservatives to tolerate religious freedom'

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    March 11, 2014 3:12 p.m.

    On the one hand you have comments by Sven and 2bit that are entirely valid and accurate, but the only argumentation actually in response to them seem to be these conservative/religion-villifying generalizations, and insistances such as "religion being on the offensive" and "illiberal minorities" that are simply not sensible. "Open Minded Mormon", for instance, insists that "conservatives would all have us praying", but this with a mindset drawn from those who would abolish all prayer if it were somehow able.

    The point of the article is that when people espouse "tolerance" and "open-mindedness", they consistantly seem to exclude people or ideas that aren't in harmony with a specific, unified set of cultural ideas or norms that they set. These norms include socialism, denial of free religious expression, and sexual promiscuity, among other things.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    March 11, 2014 3:19 p.m.

    The 17th century Puritans fled intolerance in England to seek religious freedom in the New World. But as they put down roots here, they proceeded to fashion a social order that was anything but tolerant, especially towards those Catholics and Quakers who were foolhardy enough to venture into New England.

    There must be a lesson for us Americans somewhere in there.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    March 11, 2014 3:19 p.m.

    Your freedom ends where mine begins.

    Don't tread on US!

  • sashabill Morgan Hill, CA
    March 11, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    Religious leaders were predominant in the Civil rights movement of the 1960's (Revs. Martin Luther King, Hosea Williams, and Ralph Abernathy, to name a few). The anti-Vietnam War movement also included heavy involvement from religious leaders (Malcolm Boyd, the Barrigan brothers, and others). Curiously, I don't recall any liberals complaining about separation of church and state. It's funny how liberals suddenly "discovered" that issue when people began disagreeing with them. Similarly, the advocacy which liberals once gave for free speech has been replaced with a concern for "hate speech" when anyone voices a perspective which is different from theirs.

    Liberals threw a mighty fit over Mormon involvement in California's Proposition 8 campaign, while they voiced no such objection to Unitarian or Episcopalian involvement in the No on 8 campaign. As a Mormon and former Unitarian, I found that downright laughable, not to mention blatantly hypocritical.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 11, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    Abortifacients ARE NOT part of the ACA mandate.

    Hobby Lobby and others falsely and inaccurately label emergency contraceptives as abortifacients despite there being NO evidence that they cause in-utero loss of a fertilized egg, Therefore they are not classed as abortifacients by scientists or medical experts.

    Should we let non-science groups determine/dictate the findings of science?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    March 11, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    The point of the article is that when people espouse "tolerance" and "open-mindedness", they consistantly seem to exclude people or ideas that are intolerant and closed minded since they aren't about to change, and want to treat others poorly and be socially immune from their behavior.

  • Bleed Crimson Sandy, Utah
    March 11, 2014 4:40 p.m.

    @ Spangs

    "The Arizona law was not about religious freedom. It was about discrimination in the public sphere. Just because you serve a gay person lunch doesn't mean you endorse their lifestyle. This is using a sacred tenet of our American culture (religious freedom) to destroy another sacred tenet (equality)"

    Spangs, what do you think about the gay barber in New Mexico denying service to Governor Martinez because of her beliefs in traditional marriage? Discrimination is not a one way street which most liberals believe it is.

    The Arizona Religious Freedom Law was never designed to discriminate against gays. It was designed to protect Christian businesses from lawsuits that would follow for not catering to gay weddings.

    What I don't understand is why don't gay couples just take their money to another business that would cater for their wedding? Instead, they want to force the Christian businesses even if they have to sue them out of business to cater for their wedding. That is what its all about to these activists.

    It's not about catering for their wedding. It's about full on assault on religious freedom.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    March 11, 2014 4:40 p.m.

    'It doesn't have to be hard for liberalism to tolerate religious freedom'
    ______________________________

    It never has been.

    I’ll give the benefit of the doubt by presuming that the intent of the column title was to be provocative and not to give offense.

  • intervention slc, UT
    March 11, 2014 5:26 p.m.

    It's funny that in the first sentance the author acknowledges that what we are seeing is an "expansive" view of religious freedom by some in our society. Religious individuals have not had the right to discriminate period and religion have not been allowed to discriminate outside their eclisatical duties since the end of segregation. What this group of people are asking for is an expansive abity to discriminate In ways they have not been allowed to in the past.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 11, 2014 5:39 p.m.

    @Bleed Crimson;

    Go read the discussions of the legislators in Arizona about their "religious freedom" bill and them come back and tell me it wasn't about allowing "religious" people to discriminate against gays.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 11, 2014 5:53 p.m.

    It isn't hard for this so called liberal to tolerate religious freedom. As long as we recognise that, either it applies to us all, or the entire concept is a baldfaced lie. Religion, after all, is entirely subjective, so much so as to basically boil down to an individual interpretation equally applicable to each and every person on earth. So, let's all have religious freedom. But don't be surprised when somebody builds a monument to satan in the capitol rotunda, or throws you out of your apartment for being christian. After all, that's the kind of freedom we're seeking, isn't it?

  • Bleed Crimson Sandy, Utah
    March 11, 2014 6:05 p.m.

    @ intervention

    Discrimination is not a one way street! Liberals are just as guilty of discriminating others for opposing beliefs. Example, Governor Martinez of New Mexico was just recently denied service by a gay barber because of her beliefs in traditional marriage. Do you believe that is discrimination? You bet ya! If you don't believe she was discriminated against, then you are a hypocrite! People need to quit singling out Christians as the only group that discriminates. Liberal groups are just as guilty.

  • intervention slc, UT
    March 11, 2014 6:19 p.m.

    @Bleed Crimson

    The hairstylist was wrong to discriminate, no argument from me. however two wrong do not make a right and their actions only reinforce not refute the fact that discrimination should not be sanctioned by passing laws to protect such behaviors.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 11, 2014 8:09 p.m.

    @chris b

    I have seen you on many occasions state your support for religions that have taken stands against gay rights.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    March 11, 2014 8:15 p.m.

    Here in Az they were talking about gay wedding cakes as they passed the bill but after the Governor vetoed it and it looked like it was going to cost the state hundreds of thousands (again) in tourism and conventions they said the bill was about "no shirt no service." HA!

    I thought they were religious? They shouldn't lie about their motives.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 11, 2014 8:27 p.m.

    Bleed Crimson

    Sandy, Utah

    @ intervention

    Discrimination is not a one way street! Liberals are just as guilty of discriminating others for opposing beliefs. Example, Governor Martinez of New Mexico was just recently denied service by a gay barber because of her beliefs in traditional marriage. Do you believe that is discrimination? You bet ya!

    =======

    Yep, discrimination.

    Do you realize that under Arizona's proposed law,
    that sort of stuff would have been 1,000% perfectly legal 24/7 for any and all instances?
    Including not cutting your hair for being Mormon, Jew, White, or Male?

    Is that really the 1920's Jim Crow America you are proposing in 2014?

    You bet ya!

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 11, 2014 8:55 p.m.

    @ Sven: Do you by chance refer to this situation, "In 2007, the Metropolitan Airports Commission in Minneapolis unanimously voted to impose stiff penalties against taxi drivers who refuse to transport passengers carrying liquor or riding with a guide dog. The drivers, again motivated by religious beliefs, could face a two-year revocation of their taxi permits for refusing those passengers service."

    Or perhaps this one, "Comfort Cabs told Sun News it took action after receiving Simmonds’ complaints and told CBC News that most of its cabs can accommodate a guide dog.

    “I sent notices out on our dispatch computer…and reminded them of the rule that anybody with a service animal, don’t even question it, ” Comfort Cabs operations manager Cliff Kowbel said."

    Since the issues were resolved mandating service to all customers, it doesn't really seem as if there is much for liberals to complain about.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2014 9:08 p.m.

    " Liberals are just as guilty of discriminating others for opposing beliefs. Example, Governor Martinez of New Mexico was just recently denied service by a gay barber because of her beliefs in traditional marriage. Do you believe that is discrimination? You bet ya!"

    Uh. . . So you see what the barber did was discrimination, right? And it sure sounds like you think discrimination is a bad thing, right? So then you are against business owners discriminating against gays, and you were against the law in Arizona that would have made it legal for businesses to discriminate, right? You bet ya!

    For the person that worries rather liberals will speak out about the way Muslims treat women, I, for one, think it is horrendous the way women are treated by that religion. Of course, I think it is wrong how women are treated by religion in general.

    It's strange, I wonder if some of you people have ever actually met a liberal in the flesh, or do you create your idea of what a liberal is based on what you hear on talk radio?

  • A Man's Perspective Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2014 9:09 p.m.

    @Open Minded Mormon

    Truth be told,
    tolerance and religous freedom can ONLY exist under liberalism.

    Conservatives would have us all;
    praying to the same God,
    attending the same churches,
    wearing the same clothes,
    eating the same foods,
    drining the same drinks,
    listening to the same music,
    going to the same schools,
    studying the same subjects,
    and
    shunning Science.
    ----------

    Ridiculous nonsense.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    March 11, 2014 9:36 p.m.

    This article only makes any sense if you believe that liberalism and religion are diametrical opposites. While that may be true of some conservative, hierarchical, patriarchal religions, it's not true of all branches of Christianity, let alone all religions.

    Take my religion, for example. Starting from a very early version of the Christian church, the Religious Society of Friends has powerful beliefs centered on Equality, from which its other Testimonies of Peace, Integrity, Community, and Simplicity derive. The manifestations of our egalitarian faith align very strongly with liberal values.

    Women have led us equally with men from the start. Our experiences with imprisonment led us to minister to the imprisoned and push for their humane treatment. Our conflict with slavery led us to man the Underground Railroad. Our belief in equality led us into a leadership role in the Women's Suffrage movement.

    We did all this BECAUSE of religious freedom. There is no conflict between being a strong liberal and being a strong proponent of religious freedom. Where you err is in trying to justify limiting secular freedoms in the name of your religion. That's theocratic tyranny, not freedom.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    March 11, 2014 9:41 p.m.

    to Craig Clark

    "The 17th century Puritans fled intolerance... There must be a lesson..."

    Like how they could not get along with themselves & some fled to what is now RI?

    Or, Massachusetts was quite conservative and now... not so much.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    March 12, 2014 1:30 a.m.

    Okay, I'll ask again:

    Why is it Liberals only seem to muster up enough courage to go after Christians and their faith, but not Muslims? You were outraged at the baker in Colorado who refused to make homosexual couples their wedding cakes. You demanded that these Christians be forced to make these wedding cakes. Liberals were apoplectic at this blatant religious intolerance!

    Okay, so why is it we never hear of Liberals taking on Islam (Sharia Law), and the intolerance of Muslims to both homosexuals and women? I mean, if you get worked up over a cake, wouldn't the Muslim view and treatment of women, homosexuals, and others really be something that would merit your outrage?

    America certainly has a large number of Muslims living here that you express your outrage at.

    “And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world...” -Barak Obama

    Can we look forward to Liberal activists vocally protesting any Muslim businesses in the near future for their religious beliefs?

    ((Crickets))

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 12, 2014 6:54 a.m.

    I'm with A Quaker
    Brooklyn, NY
    on this one --

    Because, truth be told -- Jesus was a Liberal.
    [The Pharisee's were the Conservatives.]

    I'm Liberal BECAUSE I believe in Christ, not in spite of it.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    March 12, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    RanchHand (3/11 10:33am): A patron can refuse to do business with me because of my personal convictions. He can exercise prejudice against me and encourage his associates to boycott me as well. Yet you would deny me the right to choose my business partners. That is blatant discrimination. Business should be conducted between equal partners conducting a mutually beneficial transaction. If both trading partners are not satisfied, there should be no deal.

    OpenMindedMormon: I've rarely seen such close-minded sentiments.

    Absolutes such as ONLY (in all caps no less) are invariably wrong. I challenge your claims. For more than 200 years, America has valued religion and not one of the indicators you mentioned was in evidence, even in Utah. Not everyone prayed to the same God, dressed the same, or listened to the same music. Hollow rhetoric is not a good substitute for truth.

    The truth is exactly opposite of your claims. This new form of liberalism wants us all to act and think alike. There is little indication of tolerance or religious freedom in the liberal movement, unless you agree with their paradigm. If you disagree, show me something besides rhetoric to prove it.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    March 12, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    Here's the deal. Look around you. A conservative environment is hostile toward religious freedom. It is disingenuous for conservatives to say otherwise. There is nothing of significance in the real world to support their argument. Joseph Smith certainly understood this.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    March 12, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    Esquire: You saying something doesn't make it true. Have you anything specific to add that can support your point?

    Tolerance is neither the purview of conservatism or liberalism. Both have elements of tolerance and intolerance. You are trying to establish a link where none exists.

    Led by Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, conservatives attempted to control and even eradicate actions and thoughts that were sympathetic to communism. People had careers ruined and reputations besmirched.

    Today, the new McCarthyism is the liberal stance in favor of SSM. Even the abortion issue never reached the levels of intolerance of the the LGBT agenda. Once again, we have seen careers ruined and reputations besmirched. Once again, we are seeing people afraid of speaking their minds and fearful of consequences. Once again, the government is complicit in this oppression through legislatures and judges. Once again, rights are being trampled. Most germane to this conversation is a blatant intolerance among liberals.

    In short, intolerance is not a function of the political spectrum. It is a function of our human natures. Each of us has biases based on our own ethical and moral codes. To politicize that is merely additional evidence of one's prejudices.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 12, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    @LDS Liberal

    Jesus said, "Render...unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

    He didn't say render everything unto Caesar.

    The fact is, there is a tension between liberty and equality. When the two collide, many of us prefer liberty.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    March 12, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    What about liberal religions like Methodists and Unitarians, they both support gay marriage, why is it ok to override their religious beliefs and stop them from performing gay marriages. Or does religion only count if it espouses conservative beliefs?

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 12, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    religion wants everyone to be tolerant of their intolerance.
    Reasonable people understand that they can't have it both ways.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 12, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    @Joe5

    The first Puritans who settled in New England expelled anybody, including Roger Williams and Ann Hutchison who didn't conform to their religious practices. They also imposed the death penalty on any expelled person who tried to return to the colony.

    Virginia had anti-Quaker laws.

    I would recommend further reading on the early practice of religion in the U.S.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    March 12, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    1aggie: And ... What is your point?

    - Are you trying to say that liberals have never shown intolerance because your examples of religious intolerance certainly don't prove anything of the kind.
    - Are you trying to draw a parallel between religion and conservatism because, again, your examples don't make that point at all.

    I said that intolerance is not a factor of the political spectrum. I have no idea what is the context of your response or how it pertains to my point.

    So... great history lesson for a fifth grade history class, but not really pertinent to this discussion as far as I can see.

    By the way, with respect to religion, it might be interesting to note that every state constitution has reference to a divine being whether they call him Providence or God or Divine Being or whatever. I would recommend further reading of the various state constitutions to better understand the role of deity in our society.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    March 12, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    @ joe5, I am saying, as clear as a bell, that conservatives will restrict your personal religious freedom when it conflicts with their personal views. Your assertion on SSM is a perfect example. However, there are many, many other examples. Conservativism conflicts with personal freedom. Conservativism is more about institutional interests. Is that clear enough?

  • NorthboundZax Makanda, IL
    March 12, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    The author's agenda is all too apparent when he even goes so far as to argue that women should be denied birth control under a single-payer system on the basis of 'religious freedom'. There may be serious problems with a single-payer system but it would straightforwardly address the 'problem' of the poor Catholic Church having to provide plans with birth control for employees whether Catholic or not.

    For some reason, I think even the author would balk at Jehovah's Witnesses denying health care plans that allow blood transfusions. Or Christian Scientists denying all health care plans other than faith healing. After all, those bad health care plans aren't directed specifically enough at women and/or gays to be worth fighting for on the grounds of 'religious liberty'.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    March 12, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    @joe5 - Back in the 60s, lots of segregationists claimed their reputations were besmirched and their careers were ruined and I'm sure they blamed the government and Civil Rights activists.

    The claim that opponents of same-sex marriage are suffering anything like McCarthyism is rhetorical excess. Nodiscrimination laws are nothing like McCarthy and his HUAC hearings.

    Opponents of same-sex marriage treat gay people as if they are less fully human than straight people.

    Same sex couples (and their children if they have them) suffer real-world harm from not being able to legally marry. Gay persons suffer real world harm when other persons refuse to treat them as equal to straight persons - loss of jobs, housing, relationships, added burdens just to do things straight people every day without a second thought. Recent research shows the burden of anti-gay prejudice negatively impacts gay persons' health and life-span.

    It is painful for opponents of same-sex marriage to be accused of being prejudiced especially when they see themselves as decent people. No straight person would ever acquiesce to the idea that he or she does not have a right to marry. Why should gay people?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 12, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    I don't sleep with a pillow or use hair conditioner!
    Why should I have to pay extra for a hotel room that provides pillows and hair conditioners!

    I should have to be forced to pay for something I will not use!

    [See how completely stupid this arguement about Healthcare really and truely is?]

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    March 12, 2014 2:51 p.m.

    LDS Liberal says-

    "I don't sleep with a pillow or use hair conditioner!
    Why should I have to pay extra for a hotel room that provides pillows and hair conditioners!

    I should have to be forced to pay for something I will not use!"

    Who gives a rip about hotel room features? No one is making you rent a hotel room. The government isn't forcing you to rent one, and it isn't forcing your employer to rent one for you. Nor should the government force anyone to buy insurance.

    [See how completely stupid this argument about Healthcare really and truly is?]

    If people want to pay for their health care themselves, and choose which care is worth paying for, or getting insurance for, they should be able to choose without being fined by the overreaching, all powerful, owned by big business government.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    March 12, 2014 3:25 p.m.

    Esquire: Clear but inaccurate.

    Liberals want to restrict my right to bear arms.

    Liberals want to control how I run my business.

    Liberals offer hollow freedoms that dehumanize and subjugate people. They view freedom as having indiscriminate sexual activity, killing unwanted children, and being idle. True freedom is opportunity whose companion is responsibility.

    Blacks, of all people should know this. Liberal policies since the 1960s have stolen billions of dollars of black wealth and have relegated blacks to the slums and tenements as a result. This isn't even debatable when one relies on the facts instead of rhetoric and excuses. But that's not a strong point of liberals.

    Compare national social indicators for blacks 50 years ago to today. Just two for brevity.
    - In 1961, there were more two-parent black families than white families. IN 2014, the two-parent black family is almost extinct.
    - 1n 1961, the median household income ratio between whites and blacks was 2:1; In 2011 it was 4:1.

    What made the difference? Liberal policies (Dodd-Frank being one of the most blatant examples) are designed to impoverish and enslave. That is the opposite of freedom.

    Last post. I guess you get the last word.

  • A Man's Perspective Salt Lake City, UT
    March 12, 2014 9:40 p.m.

    @Noodlekaboodle

    "What about liberal religions like Methodists and Unitarians, they both support gay marriage, why is it ok to override their religious beliefs and stop them from performing gay marriages."

    -----------
    Who is stopping them?

    It is not like conservatives are proposing that non-government sanctioned marriages have police and SWAT teams show up to stop them.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    March 13, 2014 5:38 a.m.

    these posts provide perfect evidence of the illiberalism of modern politically correct liberals who love to lecture on tolerance but never actually do it

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 13, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    The fact of the matter is this --

    You are Free, and your Freedom of Religion to be as intolerant, racist, bigoted, as you want to be remains "WITHIN" the boundaries of your religion.

    However,
    Religous freedoms have boundaries, and those boundaries end in the public square and business sector when you encounter those who do not share those beliefs.

    It's like swinging your arms all you'd like,
    but,
    Your freedom to swing your arms ends when you hit someone else's nose.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    March 13, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    Open Minded Mormon,

    I agree with your prophet, Mormon Prophet Monson, who according to Mormons, speaks for God.

    Its nice to know that Prophet Monson(speaks for God) agrees with me.

    Such a great feeling, and I'm not even Mormon.

    Do you not follow your church leaders? Not only have they said they are against, they've also said it should only be legal for a man and a woman to be able to marry.

    Quite clear from your church leaders. I agree with Mormon prophet Monson

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    March 13, 2014 11:00 a.m.

    Some of you have the wrong idea of what religious freedom is! Here is a description for you:

    Freedom of religion or Freedom of belief is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.[1] The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group —in religious terms called "apostasy" — is also a fundamental part of religious freedom, covered by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[2]

    Some of you self righteous people somehow try to take religious freedom as something that only belongs to you! Gay people have the religious freedom to not believe the degrading beliefs put out there by some people! So, we do need to fight for religious freedom. The freedom that gay people have to live their lives as they please without the discrimination of other religions!

    Now, you should look up what " Religious Discrimination " means because many of you are definitely guilty of it!