Marriage? Really? REALLY?I better tell my wife we're about to get a
divorce. Because as soon as my supervisor can't harass my gay coworker anymore
for being gay, I'm sure our marriage will fall apart. That was the last
thread.And their compromise is to eliminate employment at-will in
Utah? Good luck with that.
NONE of those states that Sutherland claims have used "sexual orientation
protections" as launching points to marriage have a constitutional amendment
like Utah does (with the exception of California who NOW does with the passage
of prop 8, but previously did not). Even though I support gay marriage, there
is NOTHING a court in Utah could do to legalize gay marriage because of
Amendment 3. Now activists, of course they have the right to fight and try and
change public opinion to repeal that amendment. At which point it would be the
"will of the people". Until then, sutherland is just spreading more lies with
releases like this.
Why do they promote such hate, disguised as public policy. Mormons are a
protected class, Governor Herbert is a protected class being both Mormon and a
male over the age of 40, yet they fret about "special rights" for gays and
lesbians while enjoying all sorts of protection themselves. Hypocrisy and hate.
That's what you get from Sutherland.
Putting phrases such as "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" into law
would be more legally hazardous than producing heroin lollipops with wrappers
that say "100% natural" and "brain cell enhancing" and then distributing them to
children.Pandora's box of legal exploitation would be wide open.
This ordinance protects heterosexuals as well. Therefore it protects all classes
of people as does any piece of anti-discrimination. Let's enter into the 21st
Re: "With that in mind, and the possibility his efforts may be parried by
lawmakers in this winter's legislative session, the mayor will push for an April
implementation date, if the changes are approved by the City Council."I think we've uncovered an agenda here. Knowing that he will be overturned by
the legislature, Hizzoner wants to make a cynical and useless political
gesture.Hate crimes legislation is NOT an introduction to the 21st
century. Thoughtcrime was described quite well by George Orwell in the first
half of the 20th century.You paleoliberals -- why is it you're
always looking backward, as you call yourselves "progressive?"
I see this as a childrens' issue. The proposed legislation once again, favors a
minority special interest group, bringing them closer to the breakdown of the
basic unit of society - the natural family. Please don't cave in to the loud
voices of such a small group.