Reader comments
Mormon church supports Salt Lake City's protections for gay rights
367 comments | Read story
MikeD | 9:45 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Am I correct in that this ordinance excludes churches, allowing them to freely
choose who they associate with but property owners and employers will have that
choice further restricted?
Jim G. | 9:53 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Congratulations to Mayor Becker for his work... truly breath taking after a year
of such rancor..... Great work
JW | 10:09 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
If a family has a basement apartment do they have to rent a gay couple. There is
a huge difference between that and an apartment complex.
Comments continue below
To JW: | 10:25 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I can understand that concern for a couple reasons. A landlord over multiple
properties or a property other than their own residence is one thing. But I
would want to freely control who lives in my own home regardless of whatever law
may exist to attempt to prevent bias.
Human beings may have bias. Not all moral issues are legislated. I believe that in ones own home should be the only exemption merely because though I do not believe that because someone dresses like a 'junkie' that they automatically are, I do not want that influence near younger children. (Call me crazy but I have my reasons and logic that other philosophers may disagree with, but do I not have any right to philosophize myself on my own personal residence. I may offer others an exchange which is mutually beneficial but in cases where the Gov. doesn't have to step in, they shouldn't. Most situations require regulation, perhaps not the home.
I am LDS, Paleo-conservative and an open minded philosopher. I am glad to see this legislation and the church's support. Hopefully my gay friends will acknowledge this friendliness (some haven't in the past)
Human beings may have bias. Not all moral issues are legislated. I believe that in ones own home should be the only exemption merely because though I do not believe that because someone dresses like a 'junkie' that they automatically are, I do not want that influence near younger children. (Call me crazy but I have my reasons and logic that other philosophers may disagree with, but do I not have any right to philosophize myself on my own personal residence. I may offer others an exchange which is mutually beneficial but in cases where the Gov. doesn't have to step in, they shouldn't. Most situations require regulation, perhaps not the home.
I am LDS, Paleo-conservative and an open minded philosopher. I am glad to see this legislation and the church's support. Hopefully my gay friends will acknowledge this friendliness (some haven't in the past)
Tab L. Uno | 11:00 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
One of the main misperceptions of the Mormon Church in Utah is its direct
influence in local politics. While I can't vouch for every or even most
political spheres, I feel it worthwhile to point out that during the six years I
spent on the Salt Lake City Board of Education, only once did I hear directly or
observe that Mormon Church attempt to influence, suggest, or direct any of its
religious tenets onto the Salt Lake Board of Education. While, the indirect
influence of Board members who were members of the Church can't be ruled
out, the Church itself never did use its influence to impose religious policy on
the School District. And the one exception was for the use of a school parking
lot for Church parking. For the Mormon Church's handsoff approach to
public education in Utah's major City for six years, I did come away from
the experience with a respect that many people might find hard to believe in the
crucial sphere of public education.
Egalitarian Mormon | 11:12 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I am a person who seeks for equality but absolutely understands the position of
the church. What I have failed to understand is the lack of expression from the
church on the things it approves. This sort of thing has helped a lot my
testimony. Thank you so much for this!
Applause | 11:31 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
As an active LDS member with gay friends and relatives, this is a great step
towards clarifying the church's stance. The deplorable actions of some
individual members aside, the church as a whole doesn't hate gays and never
did.
Marriage is the most important thing to protect, and that's what the church is committed to do. I support that. Legal rights in terms of day-to-day life are also fine and well, and the church has no intention of denying homosexuals these basic rights of living--and never did. I can support that, too.
It's time for working together and truly understanding the issues at hand--not pointing fingers and shouting accusations. Good step forward.
Marriage is the most important thing to protect, and that's what the church is committed to do. I support that. Legal rights in terms of day-to-day life are also fine and well, and the church has no intention of denying homosexuals these basic rights of living--and never did. I can support that, too.
It's time for working together and truly understanding the issues at hand--not pointing fingers and shouting accusations. Good step forward.
Good move | 11:54 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
The Church has never been about hating gays, or any other group. It has only
been about protecting its doctrine, there is a huge difference. This shows that
it isn't about discrimination.
mark | 12:26 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
This is only Salt Lake City
One of the areas of Utah slipping from LDS control.
I still don't trust this. The LDS does NOTHING until after they are absolutely forced to do so. SOMETHING big will be revealed or just averted because of their supporting this ordinance....bank on it.
I really think the Maine and WA state donations are about to be forced into the open, or massive in kind donations.
One of the areas of Utah slipping from LDS control.
I still don't trust this. The LDS does NOTHING until after they are absolutely forced to do so. SOMETHING big will be revealed or just averted because of their supporting this ordinance....bank on it.
I really think the Maine and WA state donations are about to be forced into the open, or massive in kind donations.
mark | 12:29 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Maybe the LDS church fears the backlash of the movie 8 the Mormon Proposition,
which may appear at Sundance.
awkward
awkward
Anonymous | 12:51 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
The Mormon church has moved far from the ideology of its founders, and will do
pretty much whatever popular opinion tells it to do. Just wait. In a couple of
decades or so there will be gay and lesbian Mormon bishops.
JustAJoe | 1:04 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
This shows that while the Church considers it's beliefs non-negotiable, it
provides love for all people and seeks than nobody experience harm. The church
expresses it's love for people who don't follow the lifestyle it
promotes. I have seen talks by the Prophets and Apostles to people who are gay,
divorced and have substance abuse problems and they express more love and
understanding than I see in much of the rest of the world.
Anonymous | 1:09 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
This is about showing the world how much they think they care, this is
hogwash!
They had the opportunity to reach out to talks during the Common Grounds initiative. They showed their true colors.
The church is doing this only for media, they know that cities are legislative arms of the Utah state government. This will all be overturned during the next legislative session. All with the seal of the LDS church behind closed door negotiations!
This is nothing more than a farce. The church hates gays, period.
They had the opportunity to reach out to talks during the Common Grounds initiative. They showed their true colors.
The church is doing this only for media, they know that cities are legislative arms of the Utah state government. This will all be overturned during the next legislative session. All with the seal of the LDS church behind closed door negotiations!
This is nothing more than a farce. The church hates gays, period.
Public Affairs Image | 1:11 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Violence against the institute of marriage? REALLY? When was there any violence
against something that cannot be felt, touched or possessed? HUH?
I fail to see any relevance to this whole thing. They had the chance to support common grounds, they failed. This is nothing more than a stinky plot to pull the wool over everyone's eyes because they know that behind closed doors at the legislature, they will appose any and every thing that the city is passing. Since the city is a legislative arm of the state, it will be cast out like hot water. This is nothing more than a facade, a wolf in sheep's clothing!
I fail to see any relevance to this whole thing. They had the chance to support common grounds, they failed. This is nothing more than a stinky plot to pull the wool over everyone's eyes because they know that behind closed doors at the legislature, they will appose any and every thing that the city is passing. Since the city is a legislative arm of the state, it will be cast out like hot water. This is nothing more than a facade, a wolf in sheep's clothing!
Anonymous | 1:24 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Good, now go to the legislature and do the same thing.
Bet that will never happen!
Bet that will never happen!
marc | 2:21 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
they are hypocrites. they arrest two gay guys for a kiss on the cheek, and now
don't want employers or landlords to discriminate....as long as THEY still
can.
Don't get it! | 4:20 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
I don't get it. For some who comment, it seems to me that you have a bone
to pick with the Church no matter what it does to reach out. This is a perfect
example of that. It's never good enough, is it? I salute the Church for
clarifying a position and standing in the public eye to make that stance
known.
To Anonymous 12:51am....No, the LDS Church will NEVER allow Gay/Lesbian Bishops. You can take that one to the bank. The doctrine has not and will not change. And for that, I am grateful.
Can we all just get along and acknowledge our differences in a peaceful way?
Nice move on the part of the LDS church. I applaud it.
To Anonymous 12:51am....No, the LDS Church will NEVER allow Gay/Lesbian Bishops. You can take that one to the bank. The doctrine has not and will not change. And for that, I am grateful.
Can we all just get along and acknowledge our differences in a peaceful way?
Nice move on the part of the LDS church. I applaud it.
Asaph | 5:47 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
So the church goes up to Caesar's pavement again. I actually fully support
these kind of rights but I dislike seeing the church step up for or against
something in this manner. It has ALWAYS sets back the Gospel because it looks
fake and insincere no matter what. I makes me very frustrated as a rank and
file believer in Zion - Babylon is never going to be satisfied with us.
Matt | 5:56 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
One's motives are always called into question especially by the skeptical.
All along the Church has spoken of mutual respect and civility in this ongoing
debate. They have shown that respect. They have been civil. Disagreeing with
ones viewpoint is not disrespectful. The manner in which the Church has
conducted itself is admirable. This stand by the Church shows that they are
desirous to maintain civility and respect and work in good faith with those they
disagree with on other issues, i.e. marriage. For those who doubt their motives
there should be no doubt. They have made their stance on marriage clear - it is
between a man and a woman.
Members of the LDS Church, or any church for that matter, are entitled to their political voice just as an other man. Their political voice can be influenced by what they believe just as one's voice can be influenced by any philosophy or idea. It is sad that so much of America condemns the political process. It is worse that they do it while labeling those that actually work within the system as "un-american."
Members of the LDS Church, or any church for that matter, are entitled to their political voice just as an other man. Their political voice can be influenced by what they believe just as one's voice can be influenced by any philosophy or idea. It is sad that so much of America condemns the political process. It is worse that they do it while labeling those that actually work within the system as "un-american."
Southern Utah | 6:20 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
By the look of some of these remarks, no matter what the church says or do it
will never be good enough for the LGBT's...
Anonymous | 6:36 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
I understand the concern of those people who rent out part of their home and
wish to choose who they rent to. I'm glad I don't have to make that
forced choice. You should be able to uphold your values in your own home
Anon at 12:51 am and 1:09 | 6:38 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
I think if the LDS church is going to do what the popular opinion is at the
time, women would be able to hold priesthood positions by now.
We invited a gay friend to church several times, and he wanted to stay in relief society with us, nobody made a big deal out it. Everybody welcomed him just fine.
Public affairs, violence can come emotionally and mentally not just physically.
We invited a gay friend to church several times, and he wanted to stay in relief society with us, nobody made a big deal out it. Everybody welcomed him just fine.
Public affairs, violence can come emotionally and mentally not just physically.
The LDS church | 6:50 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
HAs never targeted people with same gender attraction as individuals, what they
are opposed to is immorality in any form, including extra marital relationships
between heterosexual people.
Linguist | 6:51 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
While I agree that this is a move in the right direction, I am confused about
the Church's position on the ability of gay couples to protect their
relationships.
The Church says it "does not object to rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family..."
So the question is: what specific civil protections must be DENIED gay couples in order NOT to "infringe on the integrity of the family?"
The Church says it "does not object to rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family..."
So the question is: what specific civil protections must be DENIED gay couples in order NOT to "infringe on the integrity of the family?"
And... | 7:03 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
the church haters keep on hating. What's new?
Stunned | 7:12 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Does the Church now support legislation prohibiting discrimination against
homosexuals in hiring by the Boy Scouts and by the military? If not, why should
SLC businesses be treated differently than such organizations?
Anonymous | 7:15 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
My opinion... if I have made the money to buy a place to rent to someone... I
should be able to choose who I rent to. If I take a loan or government money
for that place then I can accept the conditions of that loan to house who they
tell me I must. (similar to section 8 - Private owners don't have to use
section 8) I think this is just forcing private people to do something. What if
you have 4 men living in an apartment and there is an opening for 1 more... and
that person is gay.. what if the other 4 aren't comfortable with that? So
they threaten to move if there is a gay person living there... the owner is
stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Ace | 7:22 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
To "Public Affairs Image": I see governments around the world do
violence to the concept of freedom all the time. I believe we've fought
wars over that. Can freedom be felt, touched or possessed?
@Public affairs | 7:25 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
What about freedom? Can you feel it? Touch it? Possess it?
Yet there is violence against freedom every day.
Yet there is violence against freedom every day.
Mahanri | 7:28 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
I know this Church to be true. I've been a member for over half a
century. The leaders of the Church are righteous people, full of love for
everyone. I applaud all those who stand up for religious freedom. No one should
ever be forced to believe a certain way even if it becomes popular or
politically correct. The Gays in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah became the
leaders of those cities. They tried to force everyone to think and become like
them. Ultimately they were destroyed by God himself because in their perversions
they would defile themselves and the children of God and would not repent.
Sam1964 | 7:30 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Why frame this as gay rights rather than human or civil rights?
again | 7:33 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Are we making laws that are unessasary? Aren't all Americans already
protected from so called "hate crimes", and discrimination? Are we
beating a dead horse here?
Corey | 7:43 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
(in response to Don't Get it!)
"The doctrine has not and will not change."
That is interesting, it seems that it has changed before, the matter of Black Men holding the priesthood.
I think that acknowledging our differences in a peaceful way is just what the contemporary world needs, but when an organization such as the church seeks to actively prevent homosexual couples from marrying and enjoying the rights guaranteed exclusively to heterosexual couples, then you will have to pardon my disgust at little token gestures such as this.
Here is some logic; it was stated earlier in the thread that the church is simply protecting its doctrines, but how may I ask have it's doctrines been assailed? If homosexual marriage were allowed, how would that change the Church's doctrine at all? The church can go on not supporting homosexual marriage and retain their exclusive support for heterosexual marriage without being hurt in the least.
They need to stop pushing their views on others because they think it's best, and simply agree to disagree acknowledging everyone's differences peacefully.
"The doctrine has not and will not change."
That is interesting, it seems that it has changed before, the matter of Black Men holding the priesthood.
I think that acknowledging our differences in a peaceful way is just what the contemporary world needs, but when an organization such as the church seeks to actively prevent homosexual couples from marrying and enjoying the rights guaranteed exclusively to heterosexual couples, then you will have to pardon my disgust at little token gestures such as this.
Here is some logic; it was stated earlier in the thread that the church is simply protecting its doctrines, but how may I ask have it's doctrines been assailed? If homosexual marriage were allowed, how would that change the Church's doctrine at all? The church can go on not supporting homosexual marriage and retain their exclusive support for heterosexual marriage without being hurt in the least.
They need to stop pushing their views on others because they think it's best, and simply agree to disagree acknowledging everyone's differences peacefully.
Heather | 7:47 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
LDS church doctrine does not change just because world views change. Im so happy
that the church is making it clear as to where we stand. just because we dont
agree with the lifestyles of others, doesn't mean we hate gays/lesbians.
sutton | 7:51 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Oh oh... it's very funny how people can go from, "Gay's
don't need special protection... blah, blah, blah" which have been
prevalent on the forums discussing this. To, "oh how wonderful... blah,
blah, blah"... in less then 24 hours.
bob | 7:54 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Who wrote the headline? It is bad policy to call the church the Mormon Church.
Bluto | 7:57 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Amazing
The Gays plead, beg, steal, trashspit, dismantle and burn for a seat at the table and when they get a concession?
They immediately push for more and more and then set out to mis-charachterize the LDS Church's positon.
The LDS Chuch pronounced long before Prop 8 that they supported fair housing, insurance, etc. so this policy is not "bowing" to the "gays tirades" following prop 8. The Church position has been consistent.
Headlines are now proclaiming the Chruch bowed to the pressure, in other words, "keep it up radical gays! YOur petulant boobery has won the day!
Go ahead and continue with your harrasment of all things Mormon. White powder, destruction of property, calling Mormons un-American, interrupting services, violating private property, and mocking all things Holy to all religions etc..
Go ahead and over play your hand.
And see how fast this Utah legislature rescinds your little victory. Keep insulting the Church and spinning it your way, and just watch. A little humilty will go a long way, even in the Gay activist community.
Bluto
The Gays plead, beg, steal, trashspit, dismantle and burn for a seat at the table and when they get a concession?
They immediately push for more and more and then set out to mis-charachterize the LDS Church's positon.
The LDS Chuch pronounced long before Prop 8 that they supported fair housing, insurance, etc. so this policy is not "bowing" to the "gays tirades" following prop 8. The Church position has been consistent.
Headlines are now proclaiming the Chruch bowed to the pressure, in other words, "keep it up radical gays! YOur petulant boobery has won the day!
Go ahead and continue with your harrasment of all things Mormon. White powder, destruction of property, calling Mormons un-American, interrupting services, violating private property, and mocking all things Holy to all religions etc..
Go ahead and over play your hand.
And see how fast this Utah legislature rescinds your little victory. Keep insulting the Church and spinning it your way, and just watch. A little humilty will go a long way, even in the Gay activist community.
Bluto
BigRedHammer | 7:58 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Linguist: The ability to adopt. That ability is part of allowing gay marriages
or unions.
WOW!!! | 7:59 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
The church is making steps to show it supports outreach programs to assist the
gay/lesbian community and what does everyone do?? Cry and moan that it is just
a farce and an act and that they hate gay's and lesbians!
STOP CRYING PEOPLE!! THE CHURCH DOESN'T SUPPORT THEM GETTING MARRIED LEGALLY AND GUESS WHAT?? AMERICA AGREES!!! We live under the reign of democracy and the people (very few of whom are Mormon) have spoken.
Let the church do what it can to suppport these individuals in any way it chooses, such is Freedom of Choice. They definately could have gone against you if they hated you... but they don't. TAKE OFF THE HATE GLASSES AND STOP CRYING.
STOP CRYING PEOPLE!! THE CHURCH DOESN'T SUPPORT THEM GETTING MARRIED LEGALLY AND GUESS WHAT?? AMERICA AGREES!!! We live under the reign of democracy and the people (very few of whom are Mormon) have spoken.
Let the church do what it can to suppport these individuals in any way it chooses, such is Freedom of Choice. They definately could have gone against you if they hated you... but they don't. TAKE OFF THE HATE GLASSES AND STOP CRYING.
Concerned | 8:01 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
This is a wonderful day! The same Church, my Church, that says it stays out of
political issues, (such as illegal immigration) yet constantly involves itself
in "moral" debates in public the sector, has scored another blow by
taking a side in yet another . . . .wait for it . . . .political debate!
Anonymous | 8:01 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
"No matter what the church says or do it will never be good enough for the
LGBT's..."
Yup... kinda like how nothin' the GLBT community does is ever good enough for LDS members.
Yup... kinda like how nothin' the GLBT community does is ever good enough for LDS members.
John | 8:05 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
While I applaud the LDS church supporting this initiative, the elephant in the
room is "Why does the LDS church have to bless such things before the
legislature can ratify?"
Ben E. | 8:06 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
This is neat to see. I applaud the Mormon church.
wow | 8:07 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
The Mormon Church supports freedom for all humans. And this is news? Should
not that have been ingrained decades ago???
Thanks for standing up for the constitution guys!!
Thanks for standing up for the constitution guys!!
Cali Marty | 8:16 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Great JOB!
JJ | 8:20 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
If I own an apartment building, it is my private property. No one should be
able to tell me who I can and can't rent to. Same thing if I own a
business. No one should be able to tell a private business owner who he can
hire and fire. This doesn't seem right to me. That being said, I would
hire a gay person if they where the best qualified for the job. I would also
fire a gay employee if they where not doing their job. It seems wrong to
infringe upon this basic right.
Pagan | 8:21 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
When renting any property there are only two things you should worry about.
If the person can pay you the rent.
If the person cannot.
Anything else is a personal choice. And if you choose to discriminate there will be consequence.
Becuase America is a great country, and we do not tolorate blind hatred and bigotry.
This is only one small step of many to come.
If the person can pay you the rent.
If the person cannot.
Anything else is a personal choice. And if you choose to discriminate there will be consequence.
Becuase America is a great country, and we do not tolorate blind hatred and bigotry.
This is only one small step of many to come.
The Facts | 8:23 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
To Heather,
Really? Ever heard of Polygamy? Ever heard of blacks and the priesthood? Ever heard of Equal Rights Amendment? I could go on all day. Please read your Church History.
Really? Ever heard of Polygamy? Ever heard of blacks and the priesthood? Ever heard of Equal Rights Amendment? I could go on all day. Please read your Church History.
dallas wyeth | 8:34 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
When it comes to this i have to disagree with this law because it is asking for
trouble. once the gay community have these rights next they will be arguing for
gay marriarge like they are doing right now. later down road we say why not let
them marry and that's a slipery slop that we shouldn't go down to.
Getrealpleeze | 8:35 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
You are danged if you do and danged if you don't. Let us all get a life.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- RSL will play for MLS Cup tonight 3:06 a.m.
- Jazz outlast Pistons in overtime 3:06 a.m.
- Utah Utes whip SDSU 3:05 a.m.
- BYU records with win 3:05 a.m.
- RSL dancing with soccer stars 3:04 a.m.
- Cougars turn focus to dreaded rivals 3:04 a.m.
- Dixie State campus briefs 3:03 a.m.
- Weber State campus briefs 3:02 a.m.
- UVU campus briefs 3:01 a.m.
- BYU campus briefs 2:59 a.m.
- Glenn Beck to enter politics?
- Can BYU throw vs. Air Force?
- Cougars cruise to victory in Hawaii
- Huntsman blasts media over trip
- Police link alcohol to murder
- Christian leaders not backing down
- BYU records with win
- TCU still has a chance
- Orem man acquitted in tot's death
- Religion cited in deportation fight
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
192 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah173
- Glenn Beck to enter politics?129
- Palin's book shows she's unqualified122
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case103
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.100
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio98
- BYU records with win95
- Utes knock off rival Aggies93
- Huntsman pleased with Obama87
A little after midnight Wednesday morning, about 21 hours ago as I write...
There's a lot of reason to leave your plastic home as you shop:
Latest comments
Beck is extremely smart, he is selling books and is very popular on TV. All...
@Mick, the Federal Govt is run by corporations through contributions and...
Lets bond together and hope for a REAL celebration SUnday night, can hardly...
I was on the playground too and some teachers came out and called us all to...
B.Y.U. has been a consistent a top 25 ranked winner under Max Hall. Hall has...
Did Timp win four in a row or 4 in 4 years?
You have a lot of growing up to do, It seems like you have not cxperienced...
The proposed ethics law puts roughly the same burden on a legislator that a...
Hall ACTUALLY broke the all timme wins record vs WYO last week. I guess...
Sounds to me like Kraig Powell may be a candidate for resignation. So long,...
Advertisements