So, I take that as 23% of Utah residents are in favor of discrimination. Nice
people! I wonder if these folks were also the school bullies.
The result of 72% being against discrimination shows the struggle of thought
going on in Utah. I believe people want to be fair, but have a hard time to
conceive going against the church.The untruth that Gays are
"suffering from the affliction of same sex attraction" tells them to
choose between:The untruth that Gays are "suffering from the
affliction of same sex attraction" is necessary to keep up the pretense that
they should choose between:A- Straighten themselves out and marry opposite
sex in the templeorB- Live without the love and companionship that
their parents and siblings enjoyorC- Go against God's will and
miss out on sainthood and a glorious afterlifeAnd notice that the
article says small businesses will be exempted. Sorry, that is contrary to the
Constitution. People in a protected class, such as the religious or Gays, should
not have to worry about which store to try to shop in.
That is assuming that "non-discrimination" means "all people are
treated equally" not the perverted "all animals are equal but some are
more equal" world where select "victim" classes suddenly become the
oppressors.Dr. Martin Luther King Day was only yesterday, but he
would be appalled at how his work for equality has been twisted into a brave new
world.Tis to weep.
If I wanted a roommate in a house I own I absolutely would find a heterosexual
roommate. Why? For the same reason I wouldn't get a female roommate. There
are real privacy concerns that lead to males and females having separate locker
rooms and restrooms. It's not bigotry to have males and females not sharing
locker rooms or college dormitories(as most do). Similarly, it's not
bigotry for someone to not want to share private living quarters with someone
who may be attracted to them if those attractions aren't wanted.
I live it when an article tells me what I think. Good thing I read this
otherwise I wouldn't know what to think.
Kings Court,If there is any bullying going on, it's people
throwing that label at others so easily.* Not favoring
non-discrimination laws* Personal feelings of prejudiceDraw a
venn diagram where those intersect and you'll quickly see how someone can
oppose such laws while not having personal feelings of prejudice. Slap
"non-discrimination" on a headline and everyone cries bloody murder if
you don't support it. However, one can support non-discriminatory behavior
while also not supporting a non-discrimination law.* Do I believe we
should discriminate? No.* Do I believe we should dictate to small business
owners that they don't have a choice in who they hire? No.Agree
or not, that doesn't make me a bully.
If this bill becomes law, it will NOT apply to situations of a person looking
for a roommate. Any landlord with four rental units or less, would be exempt.
There are strong exemptions for religious employers and entities that include
housing (BYU campus housing, for example would be exempt).
Corey- is there an exemption for someone who owns a religious based business,
for instance if I own an LDS Bookstore or Missionary clothing store do I have to
hire homosexual individuals? Does this eliminate applications for home rentals?
How do you prove discrimination? Is it automatic if a gay person does not get a
house? When we moved to Utah I looked at a house for rent and the home owners
had multiple interested parties. They chose to rent to another family instead of
mine. If this happens to a gay couple will they be able to sue because they are
gay and did not get the house? How can they prove it was because they were gay,
and how does the home owner prove it was not because they were gay? People use
multiple criteria when renting a home and hiring someone. In Utah, many times
the reason they went in one direction versus another is because "they prayed
about it". How do you deal with that in court and with this law? Do you tell
people they are not allowed to pray about who they hire or rent to? If so, that
is religious discrimination.
That the Sutherland Institute would resort to the red herring (or straw man,
choose your metaphor) of public accommodations when the topic of the bill is
employment and housing only points to the poverty of their ideas. They seem to
be incapable of debating SB100 on its merits and have to resort to bathroom
scaremongering and the "special rights" trope. The bill is patterned
after nondiscrimination ordinances in effect in several Utah communities for
several years. If the bill is as bad as they say, they should be able to point
to numerous examples of problems in those communities. The relevant question is
why a patchwork of existing protections in various localities should not be
extended statewide. They have made no cogent argument against this.
@DN SubscriberThe non-discrimination ordinance would protect people from
being fired just because they're straight too... if that situation were to
ever actually come up.@Ken"It's not bigotry to have
males and females not sharing locker rooms or college dormitories(as most do).
"I had a gay roommate my first year here. Didn't make one
bit of difference.
@ Kora: The burden for proving discrimination is the same whether that
discrimination is religious, gender, race, sexual orientation or anything else.
This is not new territory.As for religiously based businesses, that
would depend on how religiously based they are and how big they are. Mr. Mac,
for example, sells suits - those suits are available to anyone who would like to
buy one, even the "missionary special" is available to non-missionaries
and non-Mormons. Additionally, Mr. Mac has several stores and employs many
people. Chances are, Mr. Mac would be subject to these non-discrimination laws.
The LDS Distribution Center, on the other hand, is owned and operated by the
Mormon Church, and they have very strict requirements that not only the
employees must meet but the shoppers must meet as well. Although they employ
numerous people, they are very obviously a religious business and would be
exempt from this law.And as long as the homosexual individual is
doing their job and exhibiting proper workplace etiquette, why does who they
date off the clock matter?
Kora, I tried to compose a comment that answers your questions, but the
algorithm wouldn't accept what I typed. Grrr. Something about long
sentences with non-wrapping text. I can't see how to answer the questions
you asked, with out using the exact language of the bill. It APPEARS that a
business such as you mentioned, would not be required to hire an LGBT person.
@ken,Please read the actual bill before making any judgement. just as Corey H said, this bill will NOT apply to situations of a person
looking for a roommate. Any landlord with four rental units or less, would be
exempt. There are strong exemptions for religious employers and entities that
include housing (BYU campus housing, for example would be exempt).so
your argument is just another red herring.
Kings Court said, "So, I take that as 23% of Utah residents are in favor of
discrimination. Nice people! I wonder if these folks were also the school
bullies."Actually, not only were they the school bullies,
they're the Utah Congress, making the laws. Those 23% can be found for 45
days up in the Utah Capitol
Cake bakers and wedding photographers beware. There is ample federal law
already on the books about such things. We don't need more. I know alot
of homosexuals and have never heard from them of one instance where they got
discriminated against in employment or housing. None.
Maudie and Corey- there are many religious businesses that would not be
protected under this law. This includes religious bookstores not run by a
church, and stores such as Missionary Mall and CTR Missionary clothing. These
businesses would be required to hire anyone. Dominique- I suspect
everyone favors some discrimination, just not against their particular group.
Does this law protect the groups you may disagree with? If not, the law is
discriminatory. It must protect the Neo Nazi and Aryan nation members as well as
well as any other group in employment and renting or the discrimination
continues. You can't decide to protect one group and not all in this law.
We can't pick and choose who is going to be a protected class. So if a
group of racists wants to rent a bunch of apartments at your complex, you must
let them, especially if their racism is religious based as many of these groups
claim. The same goes for hiring. And gay businesses will have to hire people who
hate gays if they meet the standard job requirements. With regards
to bullying, if you discriminate against any of these groups, then you are a
@ Kora: You are absolutely right - Missionary Mall and CTR Missionary clothing
would be required to treat gay people as real people - just as they have to
treat Catholics as real people.To answer your question to Dominique
- this law doesn't address religious or race discrimination - those are
addressed under current non-discrimination laws. Yes - this law would apply to
everyone. A gay-owned business with more than 15 employees wouldn't be
able to fire someone just for being straight anymore than a straight-owned
business with more than 15 employees would be able to fire someone just for
being gay.And a gay landlord with more than 4 rental units would not
be able to evict someone just for being straight anymore than a straight
landlord with more than 4 rental units would be able to evict someone just for
being gay.If the person being fired is not doing their job or if
they are acting inappropriately, they can be fired the same as anyone else. And
if a renter violates their lease, they can still be evicted.We've been dealing with laws like this for 50 years now. We know how to