Quantcast
Utah

Senate candidates appeal to gay rights activists

Comments

Return To Article
  • Cats
    April 21, 2010 11:33 p.m.

    I think their assessment of their support is way over estimated.

  • Utah_1
    April 22, 2010 12:41 a.m.

    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.

  • Esquire
    April 22, 2010 7:43 a.m.

    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.

  • Cats
    April 22, 2010 7:45 a.m.

    Dear Utah_1: It's sure is a lot cheaper for campaigns to use blogs rather than paying for advertising, isn't it.

  • OtownGOPdude
    April 22, 2010 7:48 a.m.

    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.

  • isrred
    April 22, 2010 7:53 a.m.

    " 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.

  • Pagan
    April 22, 2010 8:29 a.m.

    '…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.

  • George
    April 22, 2010 8:40 a.m.

    @poli sigh
    I 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.

  • Furry1993
    April 22, 2010 10:22 a.m.

    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.

  • Pagan
    April 22, 2010 10:23 a.m.

    '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.

  • JJ Morales
    April 22, 2010 10:30 a.m.

    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.

  • George
    April 22, 2010 11:02 a.m.

    you really have never heard of the anti discrimination laws and ordinances? really people this is not rocket science.

  • George
    April 22, 2010 11:10 a.m.

    * 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 discrimination.

  • George
    April 22, 2010 11:12 a.m.

    US Code Chapter 45 - Fair Housing -Subchapter I, Section 3604
    Home > 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 national origin.

  • JFFR
    April 22, 2010 11:17 a.m.

    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?

  • George
    April 22, 2010 11:19 a.m.

    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.

  • George
    April 22, 2010 11:20 a.m.

    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.

  • George
    April 22, 2010 11:26 a.m.

    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.

  • Pagan
    April 22, 2010 11:26 a.m.

    Thanks for the info George!

  • Poli Sigh
    April 22, 2010 11:28 a.m.

    @George

    You 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.

  • Pagan
    April 22, 2010 11:31 a.m.

    ' 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.

  • Poli Sigh
    April 22, 2010 11:52 a.m.

    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.

  • isrred
    April 22, 2010 12:27 p.m.

    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?

  • George
    April 22, 2010 12:40 p.m.

    @poli sigh
    their 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 books.

  • Florwood
    April 22, 2010 1:16 p.m.

    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.

  • OtownGOPdude
    April 22, 2010 1:17 p.m.

    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.

  • Pagan
    April 22, 2010 1:20 p.m.

    '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.

  • Pagan
    April 22, 2010 1:56 p.m.

    Simple question. If a gay person buys a home, does that affect you? Religiously, morally, personally, Financially, etc?
    No?
    So, why deny their marriage?

  • Utah_1
    April 22, 2010 1:56 p.m.

    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 the conflict.

  • George
    April 22, 2010 2:25 p.m.

    @florwood
    good point that is true with those two ordinances, thank you

  • wmm
    April 22, 2010 2:57 p.m.

    That headline would be good for Jay Leno...It makes one wonder why the candidates are so appealling to the gay rights activists.

  • Pagan
    April 22, 2010 3:16 p.m.

    '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!

  • nick
    April 22, 2010 3:48 p.m.

    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."

  • Sutton
    April 22, 2010 4:16 p.m.

    "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.

  • Abe Sarvis
    April 22, 2010 6:32 p.m.

    @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.

  • George
    April 22, 2010 8:13 p.m.

    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.

  • majmajor
    April 22, 2010 8:55 p.m.

    "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.

  • Poli Sigh
    April 22, 2010 11:42 p.m.

    @ George

    So 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.

  • Maudine
    April 23, 2010 8:54 a.m.

    @ 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 fully.

  • Pagan
    April 23, 2010 9:10 a.m.

    Sorry Poli, looks like your the only one who thinks your above the goverment.

  • Poli Sigh
    April 23, 2010 11:27 a.m.

    @Maudine

    I 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.

    @Pagan

    Two parts to your argument:
    1.) The majority agrees with you (woohoo)
    2.) I think I'm above the government

    In 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.

  • Maudine
    April 23, 2010 12:34 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • George
    April 23, 2010 2:42 p.m.

    @poli sigh
    your 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 nice day

  • Poli Sigh
    April 23, 2010 8:22 p.m.

    @George

    New argument:
    1.) The cases I cited say I'm right
    2.) The 14th amendment says I'm right

    Your 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 friend.

  • George
    April 24, 2010 1:55 p.m.

    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.