Comments about ‘Mormon church supports Salt Lake City's protections for gay rights’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 11 2009 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Help me understand

Why is the LDS church sending a member to give this statement? They (we) clearly don't accept the homosexual activity. It's wrong! and sinful! Standing up to the homosexual attacks on our society, will always be justified. Supporting any legislation, only furthers their agenda. We have a right to reject this behavior, and a right to protect beliefs.

Re: Loss of Freedom

Ditto your comments. Just stick in "non-member" where who have mormon and "conservative" where you have liberal and you get a little piece of what it is like in Utah. You are so far from reality that you cannot even see what is in front of you.


'But why should I tell my neighbor who to rent to? Continued erosion of freedom for all involved.'

So, being able to deny someone housing is a right? Discrimination is a protected class?

Loss of Freedom, I disagree with you.

I'm not sure, but if someone chose not to rent to you because you are mormon is that not protected under regligious freedom?

Would there not be consequence?

But doing it to a homosexual is ok, right?

Bottom line the 'someone else doing it is wrong' defense is invalid.

As, if you would NOT have it done to you, you should not do it to others.

If you disagree with someone's choices. Do not rent to them after you contract is up.

You should not have the right to evict them 72hrs after they pay you a years rent because of who they date.

Casual Observer

To "Help Me Understand" (10:34 a.m.):

It is one thing to protect beliefs but entirely another to fire someone for what they do in the privacy of their own home. Where would that type of prejudice end? And how would it really be legislated anyway? I can see not hiring someone who holds completely opposite views than the company's standards, such as a pro-life advocate working in an abortion clinic. But to fire someone who is qualified, competent and conscientious in their work ethic for a private activity that has NOTHING to do with their employment is just wrong. I do think that individuals who own private rental property (with the exception of large apartment complexes) should have the right to rent to those with whom they feel comfortable. Telling someone they HAVE to rent to someone in particular infringes on the property owner's rights.

And, yes, I am active LDS, opposed to same-sex marriage but believe we should have civil unions across the board and let "marriage" be a separate, religious ceremony based upon each individual religion's guidelines.

John Pack Lambert

To the 9:02 commentator,
Just keep this action in reserve. The next time someone complains about the Church publicly supporting man/woman marriage and says it violates "the seperation of Church and State" ask why the Church's actions in SLC were not comdemned for the same reason.

John Pack Lambert

Let me expound a little more. The Church is supporting this law because they believe that everyone is a son or daughter of God and deseves to be treated with dignity. People should not be thrown out on the street because of their innate feelings, or even because of actions that are not criminal.
This is a view that stems from the Church's religious beliefs. Where are the people crying about our forcing our religion on them? Where are the people insisting we not base legislation on our religion?

John Pack Lambert

To the 9:11 commentator,
How do you "deny blacks because you don't like their lifestyle". I can think of policies that might exclude many Afrian-Americans, but as long as you enforce them equally you can do them. I am not sure, but I think you could even get away with banning eating fried chicken in your contract. If you preclude someone because you think they will eat fried chicken, that is probably unacceptable, but merely kicking people out when they violate the fried chicken provision would probably be upheld, as long as you could prove you kicked out people for eating fried chicken whatever their race.
Why you ban eating fried chicken might be hard to explain, but an argument that you want to improve the health of your tenants might actually allow you to win.
I know not all African-Americans eat fried chicken, but there is nothing all African Americans do that distinguishes them from others, even fried chicken is not that distinguishing because lots of Euro-Americans eat it, but it seemed to work.

Separation from Church and State

This is clear evidence that 'this' is not practiced in the State of Utah. The mere fact that a "representative" from the LDS church gave blessing to basic civil rights initiatives sends the message that they are the final authority on all things Government. This is not what the U.S. stands for, it's not a Theocracy, Utah does not belong to the LDS Church, regardless of the fact that early settlers were LDS. This evidence, to me, suggests that Utah should be removed from the U.S. and truly be distinguished as the separatist Country it secretely practices itself to be. It should be named "Theocratic LDS West", which is a more honest description. This has nothing to do with GLBT rights or issues. This is scary. This reeks of the Catholic stronghold in Italy.


'They (we) clearly don't accept the homosexual activity.'

How does where a homosexual live and where they work count as 'homosexual activity?'

Dosent everyone else do that?

John Pack Lambert

To the 9:14 commentator,
However, it remains a very good question why polygamy is a criminal offense and sodomy can not be.
Also, has anyone ever decided if polygamy is a "sexual orientation". I believe that is the phrase used, and if someone can successfully argue (which they have not really tried) that their natural sexual tendency is to have committed, long term sexual relations with multiple women, than could they not demonstrate that refusing to rent to them on the ground that they are a polygamist would violate the ordinance?
I know there are several ifs in their. Actually the same is slightly more likely to be claimed on the part of child molestors. Well, a claim of sexual orientation is more likely to be successful. It does open a good question, can you refuse to rent to someone because they are on the sex offenders registry?

John Pack Lambert

To the 9:34 commentator,
Considering that I have entered temple square passing a protestor denouncing President Hinckley for "allowing" a gay pride parade to be led by Salt Lake City's mayor in Salt Lake City (how President Hinckley could have stopped Ross Anderson from doing such I don't know, but that is not quite relevant) I think your theories about the matter are based on false notions both about the Church's control of Salt Lake City and even more so about what occurs in that city.

John Pack Lambert

To Mark at 10:20,
Kalamazoo just passed its anti-discrimination ordinace this month. Anchorage has been in the midst of one recently.
The issue of proper exemption for religious institutions has often been a sticking point for some of these. For the last few years Hamtramck, Michigan has been going through a big fight on such ordiances. Massachusetts is currently debating one that grants transsexuals employment rights. This is a present issue in many states.

John Pack Lambert

Currently 12 states have non-discrimination in employment laws that include sexual orientation. A further 93 municipalities and cities have such ordiances. That meanst 38 states do not have such oridances, and with 90 counties in Ohio alone, the vast majority of counties and cities lack them, even if we assume none of those 93 lower unit governments are in the 12 states.

John Pack Lambert

To the 10:53 commentator,
I guess this is somehow like when the Church announced that sealings should be done to your actual father instead of to a Church leader, since that was what was announced in 1896.
The Church is backpedaling? Considering what was said in "The Sacred Institution of Marriage", considering talks and articles written in the 1980s and 1990s, the Church has consistently held the same position.
Considering that one person has used the Church making an open public statement on this issue as reason to oppose electing a Mormon as president, any gripe the Church has not in the passed specifically supported any particular legislation on this matter ignores the fact that the Church speaking on any matter of public policy generates large amonts of hate and anger.

John Pack Lambert

To the 11:34 commentator,
I am tempted to say to those who complain about this stance by the Church as too liberal "go to the FLDS Church where your views are at home". However, if the 4 unit rule is included in the bill, which I have no reason to doubt, then I think the first thing to say is "read the bill and see what the Church actually supported".
My deeper answer is "If you believe that Thomas S. Monson is the prophet of God, ask first 'Why this position' and see if you can understand before you assume we have caved to political pressure."
Considering that the Church said over a year ago it supported housing rights for same-gender couples, this is not in any way a flip-flop.
The biggest thing this shows is that the Church speaks the truth, while many on both sides of the political isle are so used to just saying things to win friends now, that they suffer shock when people actually live up to thier words.

John Pack Lambert

To the 11:55 commentator,
12 states is not "most other states". There are 48 states that lack a state-wide ENDA.
Beyond this, many ENDAs lack the clear excemptions for religious groups that are so key to preserving religious freedom.


If the Church feels so strongly about this issue that they go out of their way to make a public statement (that really didn't impact the vote)--but puts the requirement upon the rest of us, they should follow it themselves in all of their employment practices. That would be leading by example.

As I see it, they're saying we should all be required to do what they refuse to do, which seems disingenuous.

John Pack Lambert

To the 12:27 commentator,
You probably should have read the whole post you were responding to. The person clearly delineated three groups of people who deal with same-gender attraction. He made it clear that those who feel same-gender attraction but marry those of the other gender can be full members of the Church.
I wonder if "celibate" is the best word. While indulging in gay-pornography would not in general get someone excommunicated, it would be sinful. I guess my point is we have to remember that celibate might not convey the right meanings to some people. Not that any pornography is acceptable, just to say that actual sexual intercorse is not the only issue.

John Pack Lambert

If I am right, the Church will actually be affected by this law. While non-profit and religious activities by the Church, from education to welfare to the employees who maintain Church buildings and temples, will be exempted, the for profit businesses the Church owns while probably fall under the non-discrimination rule. I am unsure, but it seems the Deseret News and Deseret Book will be affected by it possibly. positions like editors and reporters not really, but store clerks and printer operators possibly.
If someone can say whether I am right or not that would be very helpful.

John Pack Lambert

Erin Eldrige thankyou for your comments. Even more thanks for using your name.
In some ways I am a bit surprised that we have not yet seen a right-wing anti-Mormon attack on this stance from either fundamentalist polygamist types or from Evangelical Christian types.
I also hope no one is such a low life as to attack you personally. If they do, just remember that Jesus was also persecuted for speaking the truth, so you are in good company.
Thankyou again for your comments. You are a truly courageous person, not only for having overcome your past challenges, but for openly sharing them in a situation where some delight in any attack they can throw at another.

to comment

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