Reader comments
Bob Bernick Jr.: Legislators may hesitate to address gay protection
38 comments | Read story
Darrel | 7:54 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
@ At will work?
Just as someone cannot be fired for being gay, they cannot fire you for being straight. Just the same they cannot fire you for being LDS, or not being LDS. They cannot fire you for being a woman just like they cannot fire you for being a male. You are just as protected as the next guy.
Just as someone cannot be fired for being gay, they cannot fire you for being straight. Just the same they cannot fire you for being LDS, or not being LDS. They cannot fire you for being a woman just like they cannot fire you for being a male. You are just as protected as the next guy.
Clair Ellis | 7:54 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
I agree with Representative Wimmer to the extent that overly broad
anti-discrimination laws can trample rights that are as valid as those they
bestow.
Such laws trample rights unnecessarily when they tell a duplex owner/resident who she must have as a co-resident, and when they tell the owner/operator of a small business who he must have as a co-worker. An exemption for owner operated small businesses would preserve their right of private association, while having little numerical effect on access to housing and employment for any protected group.
If the legislature decides to limit anti-discrimination laws passed by cities, it could start by creating exemptions for those individuals whose own choices of residence and employment are curtailed by such laws - the owner-operators.
We may or may not agree with their preferences of associates and non-associates, but their right of association does not depend on our agreement any more than the speech rights of the next commenter here depends on our agreement with the comment.
Legislature - do no unnecessary harm, and undo unnecessary harm where it exists.
Such laws trample rights unnecessarily when they tell a duplex owner/resident who she must have as a co-resident, and when they tell the owner/operator of a small business who he must have as a co-worker. An exemption for owner operated small businesses would preserve their right of private association, while having little numerical effect on access to housing and employment for any protected group.
If the legislature decides to limit anti-discrimination laws passed by cities, it could start by creating exemptions for those individuals whose own choices of residence and employment are curtailed by such laws - the owner-operators.
We may or may not agree with their preferences of associates and non-associates, but their right of association does not depend on our agreement any more than the speech rights of the next commenter here depends on our agreement with the comment.
Legislature - do no unnecessary harm, and undo unnecessary harm where it exists.
Comments continue below
Charles | 8:41 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
I'm just curious why the Utah press runs to Gayle for an opinion on
everything like the National Press runs to Sharpton/Jackson.
The Sharpton/Jackson act doesn't represent much of the black community and Gayle doesn't represent much of the Utah conservative community.
It's time to find some new people to quote, don't you think?
The Sharpton/Jackson act doesn't represent much of the black community and Gayle doesn't represent much of the Utah conservative community.
It's time to find some new people to quote, don't you think?
Invisible Hand | 9:01 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Never mind the fact that anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional, they are
unenforceable. How can it be proved that the reason someone was not hired was
because of sexual orientation? Unless the accused admits it, it is
impossible.
Government can't legislate tolerance. It's absurd. Are we going to hire "thought police" to make sure that people don't take things like religion, race or orientation into account when they make decisions?
Government can't legislate tolerance. It's absurd. Are we going to hire "thought police" to make sure that people don't take things like religion, race or orientation into account when they make decisions?
Pagan | 9:10 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
'However, Gov. Gary Herbert said Wednesday that he believes such decisions
should be left up to individual local governments.'
'Bob Bernick Jr.: Legislators may hesitate to address gay protection...'
Why do we vote for these people? Those who 'hesitate' when it comes to fighting discrimination?
By showing public hesitation, our Utah legislature says it's 'ok' to fire or evict someone from they're home if they are gay.
'‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’'
We all know discrimination is wrong. In the workplace. In your home, etc. If you replace the word 'gay' with 'mormon', etc, are you upset now??
Discrimination is not supported by the LDS church. It is not supported by the LGBT community. It is not supported by most Americans.
It is time to take action to support that claim. If you hesistate, you have to give pause to logic that supports discrimination. And if that is you, I don't think I want to vote for you in the future.
The time for fear is over. Fear of others. If you accpet others, the power of fear is useless.
'Bob Bernick Jr.: Legislators may hesitate to address gay protection...'
Why do we vote for these people? Those who 'hesitate' when it comes to fighting discrimination?
By showing public hesitation, our Utah legislature says it's 'ok' to fire or evict someone from they're home if they are gay.
'‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’'
We all know discrimination is wrong. In the workplace. In your home, etc. If you replace the word 'gay' with 'mormon', etc, are you upset now??
Discrimination is not supported by the LDS church. It is not supported by the LGBT community. It is not supported by most Americans.
It is time to take action to support that claim. If you hesistate, you have to give pause to logic that supports discrimination. And if that is you, I don't think I want to vote for you in the future.
The time for fear is over. Fear of others. If you accpet others, the power of fear is useless.
@ Invisible Hand | 9:38 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
You are behind on your court cases - anti-discrimination laws have been found to
be Constitutional. We have had them since at least 1964.
And sexual discrimination cases are proven the same way all other discrimination cases are proven - people are idiots and leave evidence. There is currently a great case in NY where a guy is suing for religious discrimination. He had never had a bad review or any problems, a new supervisor came in, all of a sudden he was moved to a smaller office and someone below him was moved into his old office, he started receiving bad reviews, and (and this is the clincher) his new supervisor was heard making negative remarks relating to his religion and practice of it and she made it very clear that she did not like his religion or the fact that he practiced it and that as long as he was religious he would not be getting good reviews. Look at all that evidence! Not a single thought police officer was needed because it wasn't what she thought - it was how she acted.
And sexual discrimination cases are proven the same way all other discrimination cases are proven - people are idiots and leave evidence. There is currently a great case in NY where a guy is suing for religious discrimination. He had never had a bad review or any problems, a new supervisor came in, all of a sudden he was moved to a smaller office and someone below him was moved into his old office, he started receiving bad reviews, and (and this is the clincher) his new supervisor was heard making negative remarks relating to his religion and practice of it and she made it very clear that she did not like his religion or the fact that he practiced it and that as long as he was religious he would not be getting good reviews. Look at all that evidence! Not a single thought police officer was needed because it wasn't what she thought - it was how she acted.
Anonymous | 9:46 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
It's just like the race card, gays will be throwing it out there claiming
discrimination anytime they dont get something they want.
Pagan | 9:50 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
'Government can't legislate tolerance.'
If tolerance was practiced, the goverment would not need too.
If tolerance was practiced, the goverment would not need too.
to -- Invisible Hand | 9:01 a.m | 9:52 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
["Never mind the fact that anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional,
they are unenforceable"]
perhaps you should brush up on case law before you sound ignorant. lots of successful lawsuits for discrimination.
your problem is you think there is no discrimination so there's no need for protection laws. but if you simply browse the comments on some of the other articles, you'll see that discrimination is alive and well in the US, and especially in Utah.
["Government can't legislate tolerance"]
do you really think if we had no discrimination laws the blacks would have progressed so far? we certainly wouldn't have a black president, that's for sure. these laws help bigoted people see that they had nothing to fear. if a mormon doesn't like gays, but hires one and sees they are great employees and really just like everyone else, then we have one less bigot.... agreed?
and these laws cover you too. they cover sexual orientation. you do realize you have a sexual orientation too, right?
perhaps you should brush up on case law before you sound ignorant. lots of successful lawsuits for discrimination.
your problem is you think there is no discrimination so there's no need for protection laws. but if you simply browse the comments on some of the other articles, you'll see that discrimination is alive and well in the US, and especially in Utah.
["Government can't legislate tolerance"]
do you really think if we had no discrimination laws the blacks would have progressed so far? we certainly wouldn't have a black president, that's for sure. these laws help bigoted people see that they had nothing to fear. if a mormon doesn't like gays, but hires one and sees they are great employees and really just like everyone else, then we have one less bigot.... agreed?
and these laws cover you too. they cover sexual orientation. you do realize you have a sexual orientation too, right?
to -- Anonymous | 9:46 a.m | 10:22 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
["It's just like the race card, gays will be throwing it out there
claiming discrimination anytime they dont get something they want"]
kind of like the religion card you all throw out every time you see something you think is a sin? thought so.
gonna quote me some scripture from your old books now?
kind of like the religion card you all throw out every time you see something you think is a sin? thought so.
gonna quote me some scripture from your old books now?
Mr. Anonymous | 10:24 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
It's just like the religion card, Christians will be throwing it out
anytime they don't get something they want.
Right to Work State | 10:28 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
My understanding is that, in a right to work state, they can fire you for any
reason or no reason. Likewise you can quit for any or no reason. No one has to
explain either firing an employee or leaving a company. Is that changing now?
Sexual Harrassment | 10:36 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
In my experience "gays" often tend to harrass others in the work
place. I know that sexually "normal" people do too but that is
usually controlled and everyone understands when someone has a complaint about a
man bothering a woman.
The problem is that "gays" are so full of their "rights" and it is so "incorrect" to say anything about a pestering homosexual that people are afraid to speak up where one or more gays are making you uncomfortable.
My wife spoke up about lesbians at work loudly describing their sexual encounters and practices, but she was told to be "more tolerant". In the end she either had to leave or put up with the harrassment (and this does qualify as harrassment). She left. The lesbians stayed.
I think it is an unequal situation, and it is not the "alternative lifestyle" people who are suffering.
The problem is that "gays" are so full of their "rights" and it is so "incorrect" to say anything about a pestering homosexual that people are afraid to speak up where one or more gays are making you uncomfortable.
My wife spoke up about lesbians at work loudly describing their sexual encounters and practices, but she was told to be "more tolerant". In the end she either had to leave or put up with the harrassment (and this does qualify as harrassment). She left. The lesbians stayed.
I think it is an unequal situation, and it is not the "alternative lifestyle" people who are suffering.
Pagan | 10:51 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
'It's just like the race card, gays will be throwing it out there
claiming discrimination anytime they dont get something they want.' - 9:46
a.m.
It's not a claim if SLC's own July '09 discrimination report supports that claim.
But that's 'leftsist propaganda?'
Ok, riddle me this:
How would a straight person know what happens in gay discrimination?
I have a solution. Tell someone you are gay.
See what happens.
It's not a claim if SLC's own July '09 discrimination report supports that claim.
But that's 'leftsist propaganda?'
Ok, riddle me this:
How would a straight person know what happens in gay discrimination?
I have a solution. Tell someone you are gay.
See what happens.
Rynn | 11:05 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Re: It's just like the race card, gays will be throwing it out there
claiming discrimination anytime they dont get something they want.
___
Don't forget the religion card.
___
Don't forget the religion card.
Invisible Hand | 11:10 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Whether or not a law is constitutional is a matter of opinion. If a judge agrees
that it is constitutional, then it is so, but only until another judge or the
legislature changes it. And just because case law says something is
constitutional doesn't mean that reasonable people can't disagree, or
that it is set in stone.
With freedom is a guiding principle, then what business does government have telling someone who to consider for a job, or a tenant? I agree that for government jobs there should be rules against discrimination, but leave private citizens alone! We should be free to think and act as we please without the tyrannical hand of government looming over us.
With freedom is a guiding principle, then what business does government have telling someone who to consider for a job, or a tenant? I agree that for government jobs there should be rules against discrimination, but leave private citizens alone! We should be free to think and act as we please without the tyrannical hand of government looming over us.
@Sexual Harrassment | 10:36 a.m. | 11:15 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
I don't believe you. In 25 years working for numerous large companies;
with both straight and gay employees, I have never encountered a situation like
you described. Never.
When we had problems with anyone at all, HR got involved and they received warnings if the behavior was deemed inappropriate.
ALL companies want to avoid any and all litigation related to sexual harassment.
When we had problems with anyone at all, HR got involved and they received warnings if the behavior was deemed inappropriate.
ALL companies want to avoid any and all litigation related to sexual harassment.
Pagan | 11:18 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
'I think it is an unequal situation, and it is not the "alternative
lifestyle" people who are suffering.' - 10:36 a.m.
In my experience, ponies fly out of my tail. Does that mean I should legislate all ponies on earth due to my one 'experience?'
Harrassment, that is one example.
I have litterally thousands of examples of people telling me they are married. Is that not an expression of they're sexuality? That they are straight?
Marriges, wedding announcements, aniversaries, dates, baby showers, etc. These are all examples of one's sexuality. A heterosexual.
It seems to me you only apply sexuality to the gay community and ignore the fact that you have one. So that makes it 'ok.'
I do not want to know anyone's sexual encounter. But do not pretend there are not public proclamations about what yours are.
I agree, it is not equal.
Let's work to resolve that.
In my experience, ponies fly out of my tail. Does that mean I should legislate all ponies on earth due to my one 'experience?'
Harrassment, that is one example.
I have litterally thousands of examples of people telling me they are married. Is that not an expression of they're sexuality? That they are straight?
Marriges, wedding announcements, aniversaries, dates, baby showers, etc. These are all examples of one's sexuality. A heterosexual.
It seems to me you only apply sexuality to the gay community and ignore the fact that you have one. So that makes it 'ok.'
I do not want to know anyone's sexual encounter. But do not pretend there are not public proclamations about what yours are.
I agree, it is not equal.
Let's work to resolve that.
Invisible Hand | 11:24 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
"do you really think if we had no discrimination laws the blacks would have
progressed so far?"
Association does not prove cause and effect. Changing societal attitudes could have been the underlying cause behind both the laws and the progress. You can't prove that the law caused the progress.
Association does not prove cause and effect. Changing societal attitudes could have been the underlying cause behind both the laws and the progress. You can't prove that the law caused the progress.
Pagan | 11:43 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
'We should be free to think and act as we please without the tyrannical
hand of government looming over us.'
Hand, let's try not to mince words here...
We should be free to discriminate against who we please without the tyrannical hand of goverment that we established looming over us.
If discrimination was not wrong, you would not have to be afraid of backlash.
Hand, let's try not to mince words here...
We should be free to discriminate against who we please without the tyrannical hand of goverment that we established looming over us.
If discrimination was not wrong, you would not have to be afraid of backlash.
aren't | 12:11 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
the laws already on the book sufficently written to thwart discrimination
against anyone, including gays?
The Rock | 12:35 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
We should protect things that are of value.
I am just not sure that people who engage in acts condemned for centuries fall into that category.
.
Are landlords who believe that sex outside of the bonds of marriage is forbidden now required to facilitate and support both homosexuality and adultery?
.
Are employers in the same boat?
.
What about their rights?
I am just not sure that people who engage in acts condemned for centuries fall into that category.
.
Are landlords who believe that sex outside of the bonds of marriage is forbidden now required to facilitate and support both homosexuality and adultery?
.
Are employers in the same boat?
.
What about their rights?
to - Right to Work State | 10:28 | 12:47 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
["My understanding is that, in a right to work state, they can fire you for
any reason or no reason. Likewise you can quit for any or no reason. No one has
to explain either firing an employee or leaving a company. Is that changing
now?"]
there is a difference between firing someone and getting hit with a harrassement lawsuit. just because you can fire someone at your whim doesn't mean that as your employee they have to accept being harrassed.
and try to fire someone that has a harrassement law suit on you. NOW you're looking at some major problems. as you should be. maintain a harrassment free worlplace and you'll be ok.
there is a difference between firing someone and getting hit with a harrassement lawsuit. just because you can fire someone at your whim doesn't mean that as your employee they have to accept being harrassed.
and try to fire someone that has a harrassement law suit on you. NOW you're looking at some major problems. as you should be. maintain a harrassment free worlplace and you'll be ok.
re - Sexual Harrassment | 10:36 | 12:49 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
["My wife spoke up about lesbians at work loudly describing their sexual
encounters and practices, but she was told to be "more tolerant". In
the end she either had to leave or put up with the harrassment (and this does
qualify as harrassment). She left. The lesbians stayed"]
sounds like your wife isn't the smartest cookie in the pack... she had every right to file her own harrassment lawsuit but chose not to. that's simply her fault - no one elses.
sounds like your wife isn't the smartest cookie in the pack... she had every right to file her own harrassment lawsuit but chose not to. that's simply her fault - no one elses.
@invisible hand | 12:49 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Sure the laws don't prove that's what changed peoples minds and
attitudes, those laws enacted are simply proof society has progressed. Trust me,
I can take you to many places where those laws are really the only thing
keeeping certain groups from resorting back to many awful practices towards
blacks, specifically in law enforcement, employment, and housing. Same could be
said during the womans rights movement as well. Conservatives fought all those
laws too, keep fighting the inevidable, keep on fighting, it's going
nowhere. Only thing keeping rights away from gay American citizens Now is the
"inevidable warriors."
to -- Invisible Hand | 11:10 am | 12:52 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
["I agree that for government jobs there should be rules against
discrimination, but leave private citizens alone!"]
if you open a business to the public or rent to the public that is not a "private" business. You cannot decide who to allow this or that. you have to treat everyone the same.
why is that so hard to understand?
if you open a business to the public or rent to the public that is not a "private" business. You cannot decide who to allow this or that. you have to treat everyone the same.
why is that so hard to understand?
@ Invisible Hand | 12:53 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Well, since it was the Supreme Court that upheld the legislation as being
Constitutional, it will take another Supreme Court case to say otherwise. You
think you have a case that will make it that far - you go right ahead and file
it. And the legislature cannot make something unconstitutional - a
Constitutional Amendment does that. Again, you think you got the backing for it
- go right ahead.
Until then, anti-discrimination laws are Constitutional.
"And just because case law says something is constitutional doesn't mean that reasonable people can't disagree, ..." You can disagree with the law - but you cannot disagree with the fact of it being Constitutional - that would be like disagreeing with the fact that 2+2=4. You may not like that result, but it is the result.
There is a reason why there are anti-discrimination laws. And there is a really easy way to avoid hiring or renting to individuals you don't like - don't be a business owner or a landlord.
Until then, anti-discrimination laws are Constitutional.
"And just because case law says something is constitutional doesn't mean that reasonable people can't disagree, ..." You can disagree with the law - but you cannot disagree with the fact of it being Constitutional - that would be like disagreeing with the fact that 2+2=4. You may not like that result, but it is the result.
There is a reason why there are anti-discrimination laws. And there is a really easy way to avoid hiring or renting to individuals you don't like - don't be a business owner or a landlord.
to - Invisible Hand | 11:24 a.m | 12:54 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
["Association does not prove cause and effect. Changing societal attitudes
could have been the underlying cause behind both the laws and the progress. You
can't prove that the law caused the progress."]
and you can't prove it didn't. given the bigotry, forcing everyone together DOES help allieiate it. look at bussing in the south. they wouldn't have intgrated schools even today if it weren't for that. you can say "prove it" but that would just be a blind response - look around - think about it..
and you can't prove it didn't. given the bigotry, forcing everyone together DOES help allieiate it. look at bussing in the south. they wouldn't have intgrated schools even today if it weren't for that. you can say "prove it" but that would just be a blind response - look around - think about it..
Pagan | 1:25 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
'Are landlords who believe that sex outside of the bonds of marriage is
forbidden now required to facilitate and support both homosexuality and
adultery?' - 12:35 p.m.
Adultery, yes. Homosexuality? We're working on it.
In NY a leasing office tried to do just that to a couple living together. They failed.
Bottom line, if you rent out to a couple who are living together and when you find out they are not married try to evict them, you discriminate not based on the contract you provided, paying rent, but on your morals, which are not, and should not, be covered under contract.
What if they turned muslim & you didn't like that?
What if they work nights?
Your opinion does not reflect the lease agreement as your opinion's may change. The contract was signed and agreed by both parties.
If, at the end of the contract time, you don't feel like renewing, give proper notice and you have broken no law.
To evict someone due to your opinion?? That is foolish.
A lease does not cover your morality. That is fiction. It covers the facts. And the fact is your opinion does not dictate others.
Adultery, yes. Homosexuality? We're working on it.
In NY a leasing office tried to do just that to a couple living together. They failed.
Bottom line, if you rent out to a couple who are living together and when you find out they are not married try to evict them, you discriminate not based on the contract you provided, paying rent, but on your morals, which are not, and should not, be covered under contract.
What if they turned muslim & you didn't like that?
What if they work nights?
Your opinion does not reflect the lease agreement as your opinion's may change. The contract was signed and agreed by both parties.
If, at the end of the contract time, you don't feel like renewing, give proper notice and you have broken no law.
To evict someone due to your opinion?? That is foolish.
A lease does not cover your morality. That is fiction. It covers the facts. And the fact is your opinion does not dictate others.
To be Hoped | 3:02 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
I hope that the legislature will make it so hot for homosexuals that they will
take their vile selves and lifestyles out of this State and never come back.
Anonymous | 4:17 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
To be Hoped... Funny I say the same thing about Mormons everyday...
John Pack Lambert | 7:06 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
To the 12:49 commentator,
Now you are blaming the victim of harrasment. The fact that the company did not do something about the harrasment is their fault, not the fault of the victim who filed th complaint.
Yes, she could have then sued. However, it would have not made work any easier, and she probably would have had to leave anyway.
If we really want an end to sexual harrassment in the work place we need to first recognize it is not the victims fault, and that companies have a duty to do something about it.
Now you are blaming the victim of harrasment. The fact that the company did not do something about the harrasment is their fault, not the fault of the victim who filed th complaint.
Yes, she could have then sued. However, it would have not made work any easier, and she probably would have had to leave anyway.
If we really want an end to sexual harrassment in the work place we need to first recognize it is not the victims fault, and that companies have a duty to do something about it.
@At will work? | 11:27 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009
Are you just trying to stir up stuff, or are you really that ignorant. You can
still be fired for no reason, gay or straight. You cannot be fired because you
are gay or straight.
If you are fired for being gay or straight, you cannot just claim that you were fired for that you have to have PROOF...
Think about it for 2 seconds and you will realize your arguments are stupid. It is just like me trying to say, well I am not Mormon, so can I just say I was fired because I am not Mormon and religion is a protected class?
If you are against protections for gays and lesbians then you should be lobbying to repeal rights for ANY protected class.
If you are fired for being gay or straight, you cannot just claim that you were fired for that you have to have PROOF...
Think about it for 2 seconds and you will realize your arguments are stupid. It is just like me trying to say, well I am not Mormon, so can I just say I was fired because I am not Mormon and religion is a protected class?
If you are against protections for gays and lesbians then you should be lobbying to repeal rights for ANY protected class.
Denials | 11:46 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009
Here come the denials. Someone says his wifewas harrassed, someone says that
doesn't happen. It happens.
Compare notes. How easy to get along with, how in the closet, how far loudly out of the closet are "gays". I know of lots of gays just because they define themselves on the basis of that sad fact. They are out parading their gayness with "pride" at the gay parades in every major city in the land.
They are yelling and screaming and crying foul, and attacking those who don't want to change the definition of marriage.
They are not the ones who are afraid; they are now on the verge of being in the armed forces "proudly" and no one must say anything. Like the militant Muslim Hasan; No one dared complain about him.
I was molested as a child by a gay man. I was molested as a teenager by a gay man on the way to a gay club. I have been harassed seven times by gays in my life, and twice by women. And it is ten times worse now.
Bob Hope said: I hope they do not make it compulsory.
Compare notes. How easy to get along with, how in the closet, how far loudly out of the closet are "gays". I know of lots of gays just because they define themselves on the basis of that sad fact. They are out parading their gayness with "pride" at the gay parades in every major city in the land.
They are yelling and screaming and crying foul, and attacking those who don't want to change the definition of marriage.
They are not the ones who are afraid; they are now on the verge of being in the armed forces "proudly" and no one must say anything. Like the militant Muslim Hasan; No one dared complain about him.
I was molested as a child by a gay man. I was molested as a teenager by a gay man on the way to a gay club. I have been harassed seven times by gays in my life, and twice by women. And it is ten times worse now.
Bob Hope said: I hope they do not make it compulsory.
@1249 | 12:29 p.m. Nov. 14, 2009
Oh yes! Let's flee to the attorneys for salvation.
It is the attorneys who love this kind of "solution" and who try to pack legislatures, seeking laws that create legal quagmires, and set people on to sue one another and keep lawyers rich and those who use their "services" poor.
If a victim of sexual harrasment moves on they might lose their job, if they hire an attorney they will likely lose their home too!
Far better to move on. Let the cowardly companies who will not assist their sexually harassed employees lose their employees to sympathetic firms. Far better put it down to experience, find a better job, and concentrate your energies on fighting legislation such as this and getting braver, more honest representatives and senators to create wiser laws, or, dare we say, let employers hire and fire who they want, using their own judgment. It is their wellbeing that is on the line.
It is the attorneys who love this kind of "solution" and who try to pack legislatures, seeking laws that create legal quagmires, and set people on to sue one another and keep lawyers rich and those who use their "services" poor.
If a victim of sexual harrasment moves on they might lose their job, if they hire an attorney they will likely lose their home too!
Far better to move on. Let the cowardly companies who will not assist their sexually harassed employees lose their employees to sympathetic firms. Far better put it down to experience, find a better job, and concentrate your energies on fighting legislation such as this and getting braver, more honest representatives and senators to create wiser laws, or, dare we say, let employers hire and fire who they want, using their own judgment. It is their wellbeing that is on the line.
@The Rock | 1:54 p.m. Nov. 14, 2009
Lets see it fly for a landlord to evict someone because they had sex outside of
marriage and they were straight. Unless it is the case of someone renting a
single bedroom in their home vs an apartment, then that wouldn't fly.
@Jack Lambert | 2:11 p.m. Nov. 14, 2009
If you read the post as I did, there was no indication that the victim said
anything, or filed anything. I don't think what happened was right at all
and I do not care if you are gay or straight you shouldn't have ANY pillow
talk outside the bedroom, or a private conversation in a place others will
hear.
That being said, I question the "graphic" nature of this converstation that was supposedly overheard as, with the attitudes of many American's, homosexuals try to be a lot more careful around other people due to the possibility of being beat up just for having a conversation.
That being said, I question the "graphic" nature of this converstation that was supposedly overheard as, with the attitudes of many American's, homosexuals try to be a lot more careful around other people due to the possibility of being beat up just for having a conversation.
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.
- Jazz missing 4 to injuries 12:55 a.m.
- Pitta doesn't win award 12:47 a.m.
- Jazz manage a magical win 12:43 a.m.
- Speed skating tuneup Friday 12:41 a.m.
- BYU football: NCAA awards 12:30 a.m.
- Magic unable to continue road act 12:26 a.m.
- Fans should worry about lousy teams 12:24 a.m.
- U.S.-born Hispanics see gains 12:23 a.m.
- Editorial: Extremism spike alarming 12:23 a.m.
- No need for more stimulus 12:22 a.m.
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness
- Few details on missing W.V. mom
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.
- Defense witness goes on offensive
- Crash landing next to I-15
- BCS = power conference monopoly
- 5 officers lose their certification
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
- I-15 expansion barreling south
- Y.'s Emery bruised, but rarely beaten
- Letters: Global warming a lie
256 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall193
- Palin signs books, chats with fans165
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil150
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax142
- Max Hall wants to look ahead124
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness123
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.110
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
I too agree that Booz and the team are NOT just going through the motions....
The springs have a long history of being clothing optional, and they provide...
He "needs more outside shooting to beat LA". He needs to design a real...
NCFAA Contribution to College Football Award: LaVell Edwards, Brigham Young,...
Why did the Jazz play so bad against LA and really well for a 1/2 against...
We Coug fans will be forever grateful for your three or four years of bearing...
When was the last time Utah even got to the dance three times in a row; let...
His speech was quite good, I agree with what Gingrich said. However, for...
I believe that a large part of the deterioration of the rivalry is a result...
Good win Jazz!!! Now give Fesenko some Red Bulls and lets see how well the...
Advertisements
Now in SLC, does that mean if I'm gay that I can sue my employer if they fire me? Does that mean, even if there is cause, if I'm let go that this ordinance allows me to get compensation? I can just claim I was fired for being gay, right?
So if I'm not gay where are my protections? Am I less a person because I don't choose an alternative lifestyle? Am I given less protection? Is my job in SLC less secure? I don't have an ordinance making it illegal to fire me. Sounds like I'm at less of an advantage then another group of people, there's a word for that I think...