Letters to editor

Defend religious freedom

By From page A11 | March 14, 2014

Recent legislation that would allow businesses to deny service to people based on religious beliefs is not prejudicial nor is it based on hate. It’s based on the First Amendment: The government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Several religions believe that same-sex sexual relationships go against the natural order as God created it, and so based on their religious beliefs and the First Amendment they have a right to exercise their beliefs by not condoning or participating in such activity by providing services.

The legislation was designed to protect people from lawsuits who are following their religious beliefs. Or are only the rights of those who are not heterosexuals protected?

Pat Sivigliano


Letter to the Editor


Discussion | 23 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • CD BrooksMarch 14, 2014 - 6:24 am

    Pat Sivigliano, religion is not law. You may practice your faith but you are not legally able to use it to cause harm or treat others badly. I feel so sorry for the abuse you've no doubt incurred for being a white woman of faith. That must be a terrible burden to live with. Stop trying to use the Constitution to justify your misinformed and cruel treatment of fellow citizens.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • First Amendment BelieverMarch 14, 2014 - 6:44 am

    Oh, Boy! The Attack Atheist just had to jump in with his sarcastic dig at the writer and accuses the writer of cruel and harmful treatment of others. Typical atheist blast, all sound and fury signifying nothing but hatred toward people of faith.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksMarch 14, 2014 - 7:15 am

    First Amendment Believer, I always appreciate "good Christian" feedback. Nice.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Teach5thMarch 14, 2014 - 7:15 am

    Just wait, Pat - with the stroke of a pen, Obama and/or his administration will seek to get rid of parts of the first amendment just as they are getting rid/putting on hold parts of the ACA. It will start with freedom of religion and move on to freedom of the press - a.k.a. the "fairness law". Just wait - Obama will use the simple stroke of his pen, as he has done so many times, and promises to do again and again. And to you, C.D., how is Pat's belief in God and thereby her unwillingness to go along with this "anything goes" attitude by society harming her fellow citizens? Is it not true that government is instituted to make sure that everyone's rights and beliefs are held to have value? Why is it always the religious person's rights get trampled? The Arizona law was just 2 pages long. Read it and see what you are fighting against, please, C.D. Don't just believe the bias from the Assoc. Press and others like the NFL who didn't read it either.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895March 14, 2014 - 7:18 am

    Are you really a teacher. In a PUBLIC school? If so, you're in need of inservicing.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinMarch 14, 2014 - 10:19 am

    @Teach?: "unwillingness to go along with this "anything goes" attitude". That is exactly what I think of religion. People stand behind it and claim "its not me, its the good book that is guiding me". What a load of rubbish, this is on you not your ancient mythology. You only draw the line, when it comes to someone else religion, because we all know Jesus helped write the constitution? Yet you always portray yourself as the poor victim, when you try to marginalize someones rights.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodMarch 14, 2014 - 7:00 am

    The First Amendment (as expanded by the 14th) also prohibits the government from putting religious beliefs over secular law (the antiestablishment clause). This does not compel the government to write laws prohibiting discrimination against same-sex married couples, but it makes such laws constitutional.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • PornacMarch 14, 2014 - 7:09 am

    Out of my store you Ginger. We don't serve your kind here. Would Jesus say that?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895March 14, 2014 - 7:14 am

    The laws against discrimination are typically written to protect historically discriminated-against minorities, not majorities. Religious practice is often regulated or even prohibited when it enters the secular world. That may be discrimination too, but not the illegal or even unfair kind.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksMarch 14, 2014 - 7:37 am

    The levels folks of faith will go to in order to defend their behavior is inconceivable. But I'm done here. Hate to varying degrees will always be found in religious circles and thankfully the law will protect us from them.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterMarch 14, 2014 - 7:37 am

    Natural Law dictates that we, individually, have the unlimited right to contract... or not to contract... as we want. "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" is an example of exercising Natural Rights. Contracting with, or not contracting with, anyone for anything for any reason is an exercise of Natural Law and should be supported and defended by the Government... otherwise, what use is government to the people? If Government is of no use to the people, then it is of some use to some other purpose... and that is tyranny of the people. If Government does not defend the Natural Rights of the individual people, then Government is tyrannical and, as Jefferson said, should be altered or destroyed.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895March 14, 2014 - 10:39 am

    You just made that up.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinMarch 14, 2014 - 11:19 am

    @RLW: My guess is that its just a cut and paste job from a red meat email distribution.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895March 14, 2014 - 11:26 pm


    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Jason KnowlesMarch 14, 2014 - 8:57 am

    Arizona's 1062 Senate bill attempted to: set out requirements for what people claiming their religious beliefs are burdened must prove. “1. That the person’s action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief. 2. That the person’s religious belief is sincerely held. 3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs.” It would have changed part of an existing Arizona state law regarding free exercise of religion to broaden protections to nongovernmental entities. The bill would have changed the definition of “person” from referring just to a religious institution to include “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.” It also would have added language that says individuals may use burdens on their religious exercise as a defense in judicial actions even if the government is not a part of the case. This essentially means businesses would have a right to claim a religious objection to providing services to customers. What if an atheist-owned coffee shop told a Christian that they cannot read their Bible in that restaurant and told them to leave? This law would have made that a legal action. I realize this may seem like the "slippery slope" fallacy, but think of the unintended consequences. It was, economically and legally, a ridiculous attempt at legalizing discrimination under the guise of "religious freedom." Teach5th, your BELIEFS are an unassailable aspect of your 1st Amendment freedoms, as are my lack thereof. However, when those beliefs are transferred to BEHAVIORS that violate the law, they take a back seat.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksMarch 14, 2014 - 9:14 am

    Jason, exactly! Contrary to what many of these "good Christians" believe, that discrimination would evolve into mass hating exercises across the board. If you're denying you're lying. Don't think for a second they had a "change of heart" or we "misinterpreted" their message! BTW, AZ still discriminates, nothing has really changed except the notoriety threatened financial difficulties for them so they backed off.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksMarch 14, 2014 - 9:27 am

    Teach5th is notorious for coming in here dropping putrid offerings and slinking off like a burglar in the night. Then acting like we’re dodging the issues or afraid to come back. She says she’s a teacher and a mother. That is a scary thought call CPS! She’s a lot like the alias-burdened FDC and third grader Salty Dog that have absolutely nothing to counter these legitimate claims. Sure, they’ll come in and deflect, accuse US of having nothing and run and hide. But truth? They never knew the meaning and continue following like sheep.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Salty DogMarch 14, 2014 - 2:42 pm

    CD right out of the liberal hand book you start with name calling and try to shout louder then any one else because you have no answers.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksMarch 14, 2014 - 2:54 pm

    Salty Dog, I swear you guys make me look much smarter than I really am. Thanks for once again exposing yourself.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Salty DogMarch 14, 2014 - 4:18 pm

    CD you are only smarter in your own little world. Your comments show the world your bias against christians.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksMarch 14, 2014 - 4:33 pm

    Salty Dog, your comments show the world your immaturity, religious hypocrisy and lack of knowledge regarding the laws we are bound by.. Go do your homework, we don't want you to fail at that too.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Puddin TaneMarch 14, 2014 - 3:11 pm

    A great quote from True Detective: "If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a P O S. And I'd like to get as many of them out in the open as possible. You gotta get together and tell yourself stories that violate every law in the universe just to get through the day? What's that say about your reality?" Judging from the comments from the "religious" folks here (hard to take y'all seriously when y'all can't display an iota of the compassion Christ asks for), I'd say that it says a lot.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinMarch 14, 2014 - 5:09 pm

    I've been saying that for years. The funny thing to me is, no one is in a hurry to reach this utopian afterlife place. Which in it self is more telling. But hey, people want to fall for this nonsense, it make no difference to me. Just don't push your superstition in the public arena(laws, discrimination, school, work).

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Articles

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2016 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.