Comments about ‘Senate President Michael Waddoups backs halt to anti-bias bills’

Let local people implement the laws they want. The moratorium is a bad idea.

It would be wonderful if we didn't need any anti-discrimination laws but some human beings are violent, small minded bigots and we need laws to protect the group that is currently the object of their hate. Rather than wasting all this time and energy let local gov. decide how best to protect their citizens and the state can handle things like schools, unemployment and people chatting on cell phones when they need to focus on driving. If one person is the victim of discrimination or a hate crime that's enough. Stop wasting time with all this debate and moratorium. I am also curious as to what a church has to do with any of this. There is nothing about this that is a religious problem. It's political. Let local govs. govern and churches do church things. The senate has plenty on their plate already.

One of the problems I've always had with federal legislation is that what may be needed in New York City or L.A., may have absolutely no bearing in the town where I live; and what New Jersey might feel necessary about, may be complete idiocy in Utah.

To a lesser degree, the same thing applies on the state level. Is Salt Lake City needs some ordinance, fine, go pass it, but why make every little town in the state that has zero need for something similar, abide by the same ordinance?

So, all that talk about keeping big goverment out of our lives was all a lie, huh?

What is this, a joke?

'We can't think of a good excuse to deny job protection to anyone so we're just going to wait...forever.'

No, this is not a joke.

This is not about denying "job protection".

This is about requiring, by the heavy hand of the law, that employers cannot set their own dress codes and behavior codes.

The debate is over whether to let people who want to dress and act in a way that is repulsive to others should be able to force their own style on an employer, vs whether the employer has rights to require that employees adhere to prescribed dress and behavioral standards as set by the employer.

I can't think of a good reason why an employer shouldn't be allowed the privilege of setting dress and behavior standards without the law making those decisions for him/her.

Some state lawmakers apparently are concerned that local governments may take away employers rights, so are thinking this through carefully.

Waddoups may have temporarily stopped these bills, but I guarantee Buttars, Wimmer, Dayton, and Co. will insert anti-gay language into some education or health bill just to send a message. They simply can't help themselves.

With so many things that divide us, why can't our legislator agree on things that unite us.

An employer can't set their own dress code because of this?
What a blatant lie.
This is about firing a person not because of some childish, personal bias (red-hair, left-handed, gay/straight, etc) but rather they should do it because of some factual reason that prevents them from doing the job.
Comparing a person's sexuality to clothing options demeans them and your argument.
I find a black person repulsive. Should I fire them? No. Is there a legal protection from such a bigoted action? Yes.
Is there such protection afforded to homosexuals in Utah? No.
Unless your job forces you to use your orientation in said job, you have no reason to force yours, or anyone else's morality, on anyone else.
That is not your function, and that is not your purpose.
Terminating an employee's job should be based on facts. Not the 'privilege' you think you should be allowed.
If I fire a mormon should that be my privilege? Because it follows my beliefs?
No.
As such, if your belief, whatever that may be, encourages you to discriminate against others, you should review your belief structure a bit closer.

As a Cap' City resident who's often quick to criticize the bloviating body at 350 North State St., I must say that I appreciate that there's been dialogue on this issue. Usually the so-called "conservative" legislators just try to figure out a way to punish the city for enacting laws that the majority of its residents want. And who knows, perhaps it will degenerate into that as ideologues from both sides stir things up? But it hasn't yet come to that, and it's nice to see reasonable discussion rather than emotional rhetoric. I hope it lasts.

'But it hasn't yet come to that, and it's nice to see reasonable discussion rather than emotional rhetoric.' - 11:03 a.m.

Hatuletoh, I disagree.

Salt Lakes own discrimination report supports that there is discrimination in Salt Lake City. The LDS church supports that work and eviction discrimination should not be what Utah is known for.

This is not reasonable. There has been no reason given to continue to wait on this. It is 2010. How much more time and evidence does one need?

'For evil to prosper, all it takes is for good men (women) to do nothing.'

This is nothing. And it saddens me that Utah will continue to be known for a Hate state.

So, if I fire a mormon is that my employer rights?

Why is Utah 'waiting a year' to extend equal rights to its tax-paying, law abiding citizens? For a people with such a rich history of being persecuted, why turn around and perpetuate the bigotry?
It's small-minded people who think this is in any way OK.

"I can't think of a good reason why an employer shouldn't be allowed the privilege of setting dress and behavior standards without the law making those decisions for him/her."

The funny thing about behavior and dress standards is that they only apply to the job. This law is not saying anything of the sort that an employer cannot set these for his place of business.

I am gay, and I have to wear a tie to work everyday. I must act in a professional manner. Things that will not change once this ordinance is in effect.

Outside of work I can "dress and act gay" as you are obviously referring to and my boss cannot do a thing about it. Nice world we live in this one.

I'm sorry, but you cannot compare race with behavior. I'm sorry that you find black people repulsive. Or maybe you were just being hypothetical.

It is bigotry to feel ill feelings toward someone because of their race. It is not bigotry to not want to associate with people who behave in an unacceptable manner.

When most on this board comment on "extending equal rights", they are really saying that they want to define unacceptable behavior as normal behavior, and require employers and landlords to hire and rent to people who behave poorly.

I hope our lawmakers can see past the hype and "political correct" speech, and protect employers and landlords from having to hire or rent to people who willingly insist on not fitting in.

'I'm sorry, but you cannot compare race with behavior. I'm sorry that you find black people repulsive. Or maybe you were just being hypothetical.' - 12:18 p.m.

Yes, I was being hypothetical. However, the fact that you could not even tell troubles me. You show empathy when I lable a black person as repulsive, (I do not) and yet you take no issue with taking the exact same lable to someone else, correct? As homosexauls 'behave in an unacceptable manner.'
Being gay is not a choice. If you think so, please try to be gay yourself. I challenge you and see how far you get.
Trying to equate homosexuality with behavior, a very controlled and subjective term only show that you cannot think of homosexuals as people. As they are so 'deviant' from your own choices, correct?
However, this still has no basis for job discrimination. As many, many, MANY examples can be made of people who choose things you do not.
Left-handed, muslim, female, etc. There are billions of reasons to discriminate at work.
This would simply remove's one option.

And yet you encourage that. Look at the work you do.

If you encourage discrimination in any form you are not being very christian.

...and protect employers and landlords from having to hire or rent to people who willingly insist on not fitting in.


So, we have to be like you to get a job?

to: hristy | 11:45 a.m. Feb. 5, 2010
because homosexuals already have equal rights.

No, you don't have to "be like me" to get a job.

When I go for a job interview, I find that the employer is not only looking for skills that match the job requirements, for someone whose personality meshes and will get along.

For example, I might have the skills to fill 5 jobs, but a personality match with only one -- so I am offered only one job. I don't expect the government to require the other 4 to offer me a job if they don't think I'm a fit. Nor do I state that the other 4 "hate" me and should be on trial for hate crimes.

As an employer, I expect to be able to hire people who not only have the skills, but with whom I can enjoy working. This has nothing to do with "hate" or "love". Neither a hate crime nor a love crime. I just want the ability to work with people who will both get the work done and people I enjoy being around.