Comments about ‘Senate candidates appeal to gay rights activists’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 21 2010 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

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 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.


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.

JJ Morales

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 discrimination.


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.


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!

Poli Sigh


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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments