I think their assessment of their support is way over estimated.
Why this event was scheduled at the same time the Emery and Carbon County GOP
Conventions was surprising. Cherilyn Eagar went there, where she had committed
to go. I am sure Randy Eagar did fine representing her. In
March of 2009 Senator Bob Bennett was rated one of the ten most liberal
Republicans in the Senate by Human Events based on the American Conservative
Union Ratings for 2008. Why Bennett spent $2 million to
convince voters he is Conservative is beyond me? I believe that
Cherilyn Eagar is the only one running who has supported and been active in
fighting for conservative values for the last 30 years at the local, state,
national and international level. She gets my vote.
If the Log Cabin kids want less government influence in their personal lives,
why are they support the Republicans, especially on this issue? Talk about a
waste of time and effort.But Bennett is right about the "states
rights" issue. It is a cover for states violating our rights and it always has
been, including slavery and the expulsion of the Mormons. The blood shed in the
Civil War and by Lincoln should have settled the issue, but the conservative
crowd won't accept it. Shame.
Dear Utah_1: It's sure is a lot cheaper for campaigns to use blogs rather than
paying for advertising, isn't it.
What I liked was they touched on 4 different issues, the middle east,
entitlements like social security, the one major social issue in the state and
federal spending. It was interesting to see that although they mostly agreed on
everything each candidate had very different ideas on how to implement changes.
" if we're talking about employment, renting, or patronage for example, you have
the right to choose who to hire, rent to, or sell to. Even if your
standards are arbitrary, such as excluding all people with blue eyes."Oh really? Try hanging a "No Blacks Allowed" or "Irish need not apply" sign in
your window and see how long you have your business license.
'…the GOP platform makes clear that the party favors defining marriage as
between a man and a woman…'- Article So, a persons marriage is
because of a 'party favor?' Was it a 'party favor' to allow these
candidates to marry? That logic is so seriously flawed. As if it is not a
'special' or 'favor' to them to marry, why is it suddenly special for a gay
person to? And Poli, it is not your 'right' to discriminate. Please cite
where that is located in the constitution. No, I'm being serious.
You have the right to associate, but association does not really apply in the
business world. You don't WANT to associate with people who you want to do
business with. You need to, to continue to have a business. Let’s
use your example. No blue eyes. Let’s say you have blue eyes, and I have
the job you want. Suddenly doesn’t seem very fair, does it? If
discrimination was acceptable, then why are Mormons allowed in Utah and what of
Native Americans? What a world it would be, if we based things of ability
to perform, instead of association we prefer.
@poli sighI am going take a (very safe) risk here and guess you are very
early in your education (or lack there of) if you really believe you have the
right to discriminate in the ways you suggest.
To Utah_1 | 12:41 a.m.Ms. Eager doesn't support "conservative"
values -- she supports radial far-right authoritarian positions. That is the
anthesis of what Barry Goldwater ("Mr. Conservative" -- the man who defined
conservatism) believed. He wanted no part of the far-right authoritarians and,
consequently, would want no part of Ms. Eager. Quoting Senator Goldwater in The
Betrayal of America by Vincent Bugliosi, 2001, speaking to the Republican right
wing: "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and
you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."--
Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Az) I concur with that evaluation.
'To discriminate is foolish, but nothing precludes people from doing so. If I do
not want to sell my house to a white person, nobody can force me to sell.' -
9:36 a.m. We the people, I disagree. Does not Affirmative
action require schools to have 'X' amount of minorities? How about
workplaces? Having 'X' amount of minorities not only makes good business sense
(appeal to said minority to use your business) but also avoids lawsuit if you
can prove you have hired 'X' minority before. And last the government can
very much force you to sell your property. It has been done before in Highway
expansions and will be done again. Regardless of your personal prefference. If you operate a business in this country, you are at the mercy of its laws.
As you use the countries rights and protections to continue your business. (i.e.
in a truly communist country, many of your profits and proceeds would go to the
country.) The only way to stop that, is to start you own country.
Good luck with that.
PLEASE GET RID OF BENNETT!!!!! Do the country a favor, both Bennett and Hatch
have been in D.C. too long. It would be nice to get rid of McCain too as well as
Boxer and some of the other Senators that have been there for ages.
you really have never heard of the anti discrimination laws and ordinances?
really people this is not rocket science.
* Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits
employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin; * the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women
who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based
wage discrimination; * the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older; *
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which
prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with
disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
* Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit
discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the
federal government; and * the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among
other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment
US Code Chapter 45 - Fair Housing -Subchapter I, Section 3604Home > Legal
Research > FHA 3604. Discrimination in the sale or rental of
housing and other prohibited practices.As made applicable by section
3603 of this title and except as exempted by sections 3603(b) and 3607 of this
title, it shall be unlawful -(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the
making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental
of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of
race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.(b)
To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of
sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in
connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or
Will someone please explain earmarks to me? I don't understand why Bennett is
the only one who supports them.From my understanding getting rid of
earmarks would not cut federal spending, it will only allow Obama and the
federal government to have more money. As an example (please correct
me if I'm wrong) A bill is proposed and it costs $10 billion dollars. A
Senator for New York looks at is and says "I want $50 million to go to my state"
so he writes in an earmark for $50 million. The bill is still at $10 billion
(as opposed to $10,050,000) That clearly takes money out of the
federal governments hands and puts it in the states.I'm not trying
to argue here, please correct me if I'm wrong. Chaffetz has said he's against
earmarks, which is great for his publicity, but is it really helping Utah?
Utah state law: 34A-5-106. Discriminatory or prohibited employment
practices -- Permitted practices. (1) It is a discriminatory or
prohibited employment practice to take any action described in Subsections
(1)(a) through (f). (a) (i) An employer may not refuse to hire,
promote, discharge, demote, or terminate any person, or to retaliate against,
harass, or discriminate in matters of compensation or in terms, privileges, and
conditions of employment against any person otherwise qualified, because of: (A) race; (B) color; (C) sex; (D)
pregnancy, childbirth, or pregnancy-related conditions; (E) age, if
the individual is 40 years of age or older; (F) religion;
(G) national origin; or (H) disability.
The Antidiscrimination & Labor Division's Fair Housing focus is to administer
and enforce Utah's Fair Housing Act found in Utah Code Annotated 57-21-1. The
Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, sex,
national origin, familial status, disability or source of income in the rental,
purchase and sale of real property.
park city and Salt lake City both have fair housing and employment ordinances
protecting all the above listed groups and the LGBT community. Really none of
this should be news to any of you.
Thanks for the info George!
@GeorgeYou have listed several violations of property rights but you
have given no argument as to why they're justified.The fact that
rights are violated does not mean that the violation is justified.Again, tell me why I don't have property rights in this arena? It's a simple
question, not rocket science.
' If I do not want to sell my house to a white person, nobody can force me to
sell.' - 11:26 a.m. We the people, First you said a
person. What do you think the goverment is made of? Pixies? Second, your
claim that being forced to sell to the goverment is not comparable to being
forced to sell to a white person is simply smenatics. What? Does a persons
color, orientation stop when you work for the goverment? It does not. And
it should not affect the selling process. This is why laws are created. Not
because people act in the way they should. But because they do not.
Title VII, EPA, ADEA, ADA, CRA, and Utah anti-discriminatory laws: Violate the
right of contract between employer and employee. They discriminate against the
employer. (They are justified in the public sector only.)Fair
Housing violates the right of contract between vendor and buyer.A
government is instituted to protect life, liberty, and property. Nobody has the
right to my life, my property, or my liberty to use it how I please. However, I
agree that they do violate my rights with some frequency and under the pretense
of legality, benevolence, and "fairness."Theft by brute force was
never fair or just and yet it is somehow justified to you because it is used to
enforce your opinion of what is are good or poor hiring practices.Using force against someone who is not using force against anyone else is
unjustified. And I bet you pretend to be a pacifist too. Your just a thug who
happens to have a majority of people agree to enforce his opinions.The tactics you support are nothing more than a return to brutish tribal
behavior where whoever is in power can enforce his "wisdom" or opinions on all
others. Real impressive.
Poli sigh I have a question: Is operating a business a right or a privilege? You
need a business license. Is this is a right or a privilege?
@poli sightheir being a violation of your rights is purely your opinion
and not one held by the courts or the majority of the population that has
repeatedly but the politicians in office to pass these laws and keep them on the
George,Thanks for all the references. It's important to note that in
SLC extension of fair employment and housing practices to LGBT only covers
larger businesses and multiple-property owners, so mom and pop shops and
single-unit landlords are not affected.
JFFR - an earmark is an appropriation(money)that congress instructs how it is to
be used. There are good and bad earmarks; a good one is when say Congress says
You can't cut the Aries rocket from NASA which they want and we have funded
before. A bad one is when Congress gave Connecticut 100 million for hospital
upgrade to get their Senator to vote for Health Care reform. That is a simple
explanation but I think you see the point. Congress is supposed to be in charge
of the money but they usually pass generic funding and then let the President or
other branches do what they want with the lump sums.
'But these laws do not apply generally to an individual engaging in private
transactions.' - 1:01 p.m. Generally. So, there is exception
to your rule We the people? ' If I do not want to sell my house to a white
person, nobody can force me to sell.' - 11:26 a.m. ...unless that person
happens to work for the federal goverment, the goverment you used the rules for
to buy said home in the first place, and uses 'Eminent Domain' and happens to be
white? I will agree with you on one point. You have every right to
discriminate in private transactions. And by 'private' I mean, yourself. I
realize this is only my interpritation. But when you allow others, by no
specific criteria, they are typically called the 'public.' Do not lie to
yourself that you have a right to deny something to others only because you say
so. They outnumber you.
Simple question. If a gay person buys a home, does that affect you?
Religiously, morally, personally, Financially, etc? No? So, why deny
Cherilyn Eagar is for promoting and protecting Traditional marriage. I did find
this statement prior to running for senate:"Personally I've worked
in the performing arts for most of my life and consider my gay friends some of
the best and most talented. I've lost some good friends to AIDS. Fifty percent
of my NYC-based company employees were gay. I would never, ever do anything to
treat them unfairly in the workplace or in my personal associations with
them."The thing that bugged me about the event was that it was
created at the same time as 2 county conventions. It could have been done
earlier in the day, so that candidates could go to all 3, or another day without
@florwoodgood point that is true with those two ordinances, thank you
That headline would be good for Jay Leno...It makes one wonder why the
candidates are so appealling to the gay rights activists.
'It makes one wonder why the candidates are so appealing to the gay rights
activists.' - 2:57 p.m. They do not. Just as there are
straight Republicans and Democrats, there are gay R&D voters. Hearing some
of the logic some of the candidates are using (party favors = gay marriage?) I
have to wonder why some of these candidates are appealing to STRAIGHT people!
Bennett appears to be a very week supporter of traditional marriage. If the
Supreme Court rules that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstiutional, he won't
attempt to overturn the court's decision. True lovers of life and true
conservatives have been trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade for nearly 40 years.
This is typical Bennett--always on the defensive. Once a another chunk of our
Judeo-Christian heritage and Constitution are tossed overboard, Senator Bennett
moves on to defending another basic principle until there are no more left. As
Winston Churchill said: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it
will eat him last."
"Bennett appears to be a very week supporter of traditional marriage. If the
Supreme Court rules that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstiutional, he won't
attempt to overturn the court's decision."As well as he
should... the Supreme Court is the governing body that decides what is and what
isn't constitutional... they kinda’ have the final say.
@Poli Sigh - you are failing to make a distinction between corporations and
privately held companies.Privately held companies - sole
proprietorships, partnerships, non=incorporated companies - are run by
individuals who have inalienable rights. The government has little authority to
tell them what to do.Corporations exist solely by the act of the
government, and have no inherent rights - they have only the rights granted to
them by government, which is their "creator". The government, as their creator,
has the right to place whatever regulations they wish to place upon
corporations.Don't want to be subject to government regulation? Take
your company private.
you know poli sigh if I am going to have to hold your hand through this whole
process and spoon feed you the rational behind the 14 amendment and the laws
that flow out it I am going to have to start to charge you tuition.
"Friedbaum said the GOP platform makes clear that the party favors defining
marriage as between a man and a woman, and if gay delegates disagree with that
and didn't state it, they were elected improperly."Excuse me, but
unless the Republican Party isn't part of a democracy, Friedbaum’s
comments are idiotic. Republic-Democracy isn't driven from so called political
leaders, but from the people. Delegates are supposed to represent them, not the
self-imposed leaders.This is one of the problems with the Republican
Party in Utah or the Democrats at the Federal level. We need balance.
@ GeorgeSo I think that can be summed up as another ad hominem.Refute my argument, please Professor. Why are property rights suspended
in this arena?Let me show you how to do this, Abe Sarvis says
corporations don't have rights.I could just say "The Supreme Court
just ruled that they do." However, for that to be a refutation of his argument
I would first need to prove the infallablility of the Supreme Court, which I
have not done.An argument would be something along the lines of "I
concur with that decision as they are a group of individuals and should
therefore have the same rights as any single individual or you would, by
default, be removing rights from the individual members of the group."Got it Prof? Now you give it a try.
@ Poli Sigh: Business is in the public sector. Whether you are selling or
buying a home, running a business, renting property, or whatever else, you are
acting in the public sector.Once you enter the public sector, you
are subject to its rules and regulations - you also enjoy the benefits of its
protections.The many policies listed by George govern actions in the
public sphere. The purpose of government is to protect and order society. This
extends to governing actions in the public sphere and making sure all citizens
have equal access to the public sphere and the opportunity to participate in it
Sorry Poli, looks like your the only one who thinks your above the goverment.
@MaudineI disagree with your intitial premises. Business conducted
by two private parties is what we call the "private sector." For
regulation that violates property rights on an individual level to be justified
the property of the private parties would have to be transferred to the
collective simply through the act of transacting under the protection of a
government under control of the collective. This is simply not so.@PaganTwo parts to your argument: 1.) The majority agrees
with you (woohoo)2.) I think I'm above the governmentIn
response to number 2, you are confusing my argument as to apply to only myself.
I simply believe that there are rights that go deeper than what the government
says to be legal or illegal. I believe that an unjust law is possible.In that sense anyone who believes an unjust law is possible is as "above the
government" by your definition. I never put forth that I would break the law,
simply that it is unjust.
@ Poli Sigh: Just for fun, provide me with an example of a transaction between
2 individuals where any of the regulations provided by George come into play.
@poli sighyour obvious refusal to follow the references to the 14
amendment or to do even a quick search of the case laws that site it prove that
you choose to be willfully ignorant and that continuing this conversation is
pointless. How do I know you did not follow the references? easy, if you
had you would have the answer to your question. your refusal to acknowledge the
existence of the 14th amendment and the laws do not make them go away. have a
@GeorgeNew argument:1.) The cases I cited say I'm right2.) The 14th amendment says I'm rightYour first argument assumes
the judges to those cases infallible if you provide no further evidence.Your second argument is null because the 14th amendment existed for
years without anti discrimination laws.You have no desire to answer
my simple question, because you cannot. And even the 14th amendment could not
overturn property rights. You will obviously never answer my question, I will
have to assume this is because you cannot.I do applaud your
impeccable ability to evade a question. You should be running for office my
there is a simple answer to your ridicules question and if you had bothered
reading the case laws you would now what it is. it is simply this it violates
the 14 amendment and it leads to greater social harms by allowing defactoi
segregation for which we already now the dire consequences.