Comments about ‘West Valley leaders approve LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance’

Maybe Utah will move into the 20th century?

Nice to see.

thank you!

This is really unnecessary.

Johnson, do you mean like when the Roman empire moved into the 4th century?

Good for them. Hopefully more cities and ocunties will follow suit.

@ Cats: "This is really unnecessary."

Good. Then it will not have any impact and there is nothing to worry about is there?

If, on the other hand, you happen to be wrong, then it will be a good thing that this is in place.

West Valley, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Park City and most recently Logan.

It is good to see cities in Utah offer protection from discrimination based on orientation. Many others are already protected, race, gender, veteran status, disability, etc. Typically, NOT orientation.

i.e. you can be fired/evicted for being straight.

How unfortunate the state lawmakers do not see this as an issue worthy of notice and left it to individual cities.

However, after SLC's own discrimination report in July '09 shows evidence that ordinances' like this are very much needed.

To get a copy of the discrimination report, simply log into SLC's own goverment website or contact Melissa Green or Yolanda Francisco-Nez, the coordinator for the Office of Diversity and Human Rights for SLC. They have been very helpful when I contacted them.

Self-defined sexual orientation (including heterosexual orientation) alone should not be a basis for discrimination in housing or employment.

Behavior, on the other hand, is a basis for judgment.

I consider sexual orientation much like any other self-defined characteristic (music, fashion, language, diet, lifestyle, taste, class, etc.) This new law is something like "you can't discriminate against me because I happen to love opera music." However, if you play that music too loudly and it disturbs others, you will not be allowed to play it so loudly. Consider this with regards to sexual orientation and you get my point.

I also consider characteristics like sexual orientation part of a person's core characteristics, but it is certainly not the only core characteristic and definitely not the most important. Unfortunately, today's electronic salesmen saturate entertainment with sexuality as a way to entice you to buy their products. Sexual-ness is placed far too high on the proverbial pedestal and for many it has become the end-all of their existence.

It is probably good advice to become well-balanced meaning explore all of your core characteristics and don't give so much prominence to one or two.

Pagan, read the article again. The State is looking into a statewide law for 2011. The SLCO laws are kinda like a pilot program, if it's successful, then the State will mandate it statewide. Good move Utah. Lets all hope this becomes statewide.

p/s no i do not fit into any of the LGBT categories

'Behavior, on the other hand, is a basis for judgment.' - 9:00 a.m.

John2000, I disagree.

If you follow any branches of the catholic God, then is not any judgement for God?

Not for you, me or any of his other creations?

I understand the comparison between orientation and...loud opera music, but the implied statement is that people are doing something wrong. Or so 'loud' as it affects other poeple.

Do you have an example to share? Or should we just assume all homosexuals are playing their music too loud?

No. Many, you can't even 'hear'.

I agree that orientation is part of the whole but without this ordinance in place, people have a very real ability to fire or evict you for it.

Coachcarter, 'looking into' a statewide program is not action. Waiting until a study is completed is not action. I should take a maybe, kinda, shorta, iffy, suggestion that I MIGHT have job employment as action?

No. Action, like this WVC ordinance is action.

Therefore, the state level, has done nothing.

Let's not get the two confused.

I am 25+ yrs old and I can still be fired for who I date.

Really, this should be more of a rights-preservation issue for landlords, who are providing a service and assuming the associated risks and liabilities, than for people who choose to practice homosexuality. That's why cities who adopt these policies are making the wrong decision. If a landlord doesn't want to rent to people who choose to practice homosexuality, he/she should have that right. It would probably be a bad business decision, but he/she should still have that right.

If people who choose to practice homosexuality don't like the way they are treated in society, they should choose to practice different behavior, which may be difficult, but is done all the time. An analogy would be a beggar who feels shunned- he/should can always choose to get a job. It may not be glamorous, but there are plenty of job opportunities for those who choose to work hard.

LGBT is nothing more than a benefits grab....gay men fighting for women's tax benefits.....nothing more!

If I am an employer I should have the right to hire or fire whomever I like without having to explain myself to anyone. If my hiring and firing practices are arbitrary or discriminatory then employee morale will decline and my business will suffer. Government should not dictate rules to me that impede my ability to employ the best possible people available to do a job. If I am a property owner I should be able to rent or lease to whomever I wish. I should not have to explain to anyone why I choose to rent to one person but not another. Government should have a set of rules in place to handle breaches of contract but not to dictate to whom one must enter into a contract. If I don't want to hire someone because they are a Mormon I shouldn't have to. If I don't want to rent to someone because they are gay, I shouldn't be forced to do it. Force is the antithesis of freedom. This ordinance is wrong. Kudos to the courageous council member who voted against it.

'If people who choose to practice homosexuality don't like the way they are treated in society, they should choose to practice different behavior, which may be difficult, but is done all the time.' - 10:16 a.m.

Name them.

No, I'm serious, name your examples. How long, how many, and in relation to the whole.

No? Then these numbers of 'people can change orientation all the time' simply do not exist. Even BYU's own studies in the 1970's of attempts at orientation changes had a less than 1% success rate.

So, out of 100, one? Less than one? 1k = 1?

All the time...

Truth, a benifits grab? Is it a 'grab' if you are denied benifits? How you be (implied)selfishly grabbing for benifits when you have none?

Was it a 'rights grab' for black people? Women themselves? How 'selfish' that they wanted to have a credit score.

Only people who take the over 1,100 rights granted by a $75 marriage certificate in any city hall would call the push for the very same legal protections a 'grab'.

Tell me Truth, what did you do to 'earn' those rights given to you?

This is a serious violation of several principles of good government. It violates equal protection under the law, freedom of contract, and freedom of association.

'If I am an employer I should have the right to hire or fire whomever I like without having to explain myself to anyone.' - 10:21 a.m.

Good luck with that.

Every fortune 500 company I have worked for had policies in place to give very much justification for employment termination.

Please show me in any job discription or lease agreement the part that requires your orientation?

Can you picture the interview?

'At this job you will be required to work 40 hours a week, at a repetative job, and have sex with women.'

At what point is it acceptable to hire someone, then three years later fire them for being gay?

How about to deny them raises?

Demean them at work? 'Fairy', name calling, etc?

Now, picture if I did this to you as a straight person. Mormon, male, female, black, etc.

Your 'right' to discriminate ends with yourself.

And does not impede on anyone else.

Murder is against the law and yet people still do it.

Bias and discrimination will always exist. Now, we simply have a consequence. A punishment.

Not furthering discrimination by it's acceptance and tolerance of it.

Pagan @ 10:33,

I, along with every other sane human being, choose my sexual behavior every day. Any given day, I may feel any number of sexual urges, including; mating with any number of people, wearing no clothes in public, and viewing sexually graphic media. Despite those urges, which are as real as "orientation," I still can choose to control my behavior. I personally know many people who have chosen to change their sexual behavior from homosexual to heterosexual, and vice-versa, so I know it can be difficult but "is done all the time."

You cite in the aggregation of BYU "orientation change" studies that less than 1% of participants effectively changed their orientation- which I guess means they changed their sexual behavior. Doesn't that mean it's possible to change sexual behavior, even if it's unlikely? If the success rate is really only 1%, out of a million people wouldn't that still be 10,000?

If I choose to "discriminate" against someone because I perceive them as publicly portraying deviant social or sexual behavior, that is my right. So, West Valley chooses to take away my rights, I choose to add them to the list of cities I choose not to give my business to. Congratulations, West Valley! Good luck with that.

Fiscal Hawk, you mention that your 'orientation' is covered under 'viewing sexually graphic media'.

Ok. Of what?

No. I'm serious. We're talking orientation changes, not watching TV.

I did not ask you if you ENGAGE in your orientation, I will ask if you have ever CHANGED it.

I doubt it.

Regardless, I asked for names. Dates, places, etc. Details. Not 'I personally know...'

Isn't that like me saying 'I personally know the sky is purple.'

Is it so?

I doubt it.

And your far cry that a LESS than 1% success rate is...success is a weak point.

Yes there is success. Is it 'all the time' as you pointed out?

No.

The American Psychological Association. 08/05/09. Released a report that attempts at “reparative therapy” which seeks to change sexual orientation, are less than 1% and 'harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.' Actual quote. - Associated Press.

So, that number of 10,000 people? Yeah, 20 MIGHT succeed in becoming straight. With a 0.5% chance of success? 100 = less than one person.

I will concede that there is a 'chance' you can change your orientation...

if you agree, those odds are bad.