Comments about ‘Utahns back anti-bias laws in jobs, housing, poll finds’

This is another stomp on our rights and freedoms of choice. We all have the constitutional right to be bised and choose our choices even if it offends another. We just don't have the right to take someones life or harm them for our choices.

This anti bias law strips us of more rights of choice the the freedom of speech. This law makes it criminal to voice your rights and opinions on any matter and any law that strips constitutional rights of individuals makes us and our constitution weaker. The more power government has over individuals the more they favor such laws.

It is our constitutional right to discriminate, be biased, and say whatever we wish. It's the backbone of America. Making it against the law to hurt someone personal feelings is stripping our rights. It strips us of the right to defend ourselves and our choices and thoughts.

It is seldom remembered that when "government" gives one group of citizens "rights" it takes AWAY an equal measure of "rights" from another group. It has become fashionable to plunder on into GIVING rights whenever and wherever the subject comes up! Part of the politically Correct thing to do by all us non-thinking "wanna-please-everyone" conformists.....
There is absolutely no reason for a person who ownes a home or apartment complex to not have the RIGHT to rent to whomever he/she wishes.... Where does the renter rights come from? It is simply the slippery-slope of being able to take one person`s rights away and giving special rights to another. We are so used to it (the slippery slope) that we dont even think about it any more.
Government of ALL types should NOT be interfearing with individuals` RIGHTS. In the long run it does way more damage than the occasional "hurt feelings" of someone....

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Though I think two dudes "holding hands" is gross, I know that as they respect my right to think it's gross, I must respect their right to be recognized.

is required in order to maintain justice?

Until then, they don't have a RIGHT to anything but life, liberty, and property.

Your arguments and attitudes display exactly why we need this law. Your attitudes DO hurt others. Perhaps with time you will experience discrimination or an unjust situation and then will begin to understand the hurt that has been caused. Let's talk then.

Although straight and white, I have the right, and I want others to have the right, to be protected from people who hurt others through ignorance, beggardly behavior, or just plain meanness of spirit.

In response to Rights, yes, you do have a right to be a bigot, as does anyone else in the country, except when such actions deprive the rights of others. Would Rights justify the treatment that was done against the Mormons in Missouri in the mid-1830's or the laws preventing African-Americans from voting in the in the late 1800's and most of the 1900's? And Concerned for freedom isn't quite correct when stating "It is seldom remembered that when 'government' gives one group of citizens 'rights' it takes AWAY an equal measure of 'rights' from another group." How did giving women and African-Americans the right to vote take away that same right from white males? It seems (based on their comments) that if they were living in Nauvoo in the 1840's, both Rights and Concerned for Fredom would probably have opposed one of the first laws passed by the city council, which allowed members of any religion the right to worship and levied steep fines and/or penalties for any person who deprived any other person the right to worship or disrupting any kind of worship service.

Right! ...except when it comes to gay Americans marrying. Then Utahns turn into evangels of repression.

Since the American population is mostly Catholic, is it ok for them to discriminate against the LDS church? No longer will anyone rent to missionaries as they annoy people? How about not allowing them to eat in restaurants as they're different to look at?

To: So Then, 4:28 p.m.

You need to get your facts correct. The American population is NOT mostly Catholic, but IS mostly Protestant.

Sorry, but your comment is void.

'This is another stomp on our rights and freedoms of choice.' - 3:56 a.m.

Right, you still have the 'right' to believe another person is less than you. To dislike them based on an opinion someone told you instead of what has been done to you.

However it is no longer legally protected to discriminate against them for it.

Try again. "So Then" is actually correct. The 23% of the U.S. population has reported to be baptized Catholic. Not practicing, but baptized. That is unless you lump the Protestant, Unitarian, Lutheran, Methodist, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians all together then they report to be 53%. We know that all these religions consider themselves to be independent, so broken out into the different groups they are actually less than that of the Catholic religion.
I think you actually missed their point however. If you take the protestants then and let them decide based on their bias, the Mormon missionaries wouldn't feel very welcomed. Is that better. Sometime the protestants can be even less tolerant of the LDS church than the Catholics!!!!

So now that the Utah Government has recieved the nodd from the LDS Church officials, we are on the bandwagon for Anti-Discrimination. While I am glad to see the Church willing to give an inch, I am not at all impressed with the useless Utah Lawmakers who are clearly in the pocket of the Mormon Church. Again, while the Church's concession in this matter is somewhat commendable, Utah lawmakers should be ashamed of their inability to represent the people and the constitution. This should be troubling to everybody that a Church holds this much influence on State politics. Utah lawmakers aren't worth their salt.

Rights:

"We all have the constitutional right to be bised (sic) and choose our choices even if it offends another. We just don't have the right to take someones life or harm them for our choices."

"This law makes it criminal to voice your rights and opinions on any matter"

Luckily, being biased remains completely legal. And how you think refusing to provide someone with housing or employment doesn't fall under "harm them" is beyond me.

Oh,please. The only reason 69% of those surveyed approve of it is because the LDS Church supported it. Granted, SOME people in UT would have supported it anyway, but I'm sure the vast majority would not if The Church hadn't. If The Church had come out against it, the number supporting it would be dramatically lower. (If The Church said to pluck out your eyelashes, people would do it.)

And I wonder, will The Church now be open to hiring gays? And will BYU approved housing now be open to gays? Since all BYU housing is same-gender, who really knows if there are gays living amongst non-gays...interesting, indeed.

...about as much as I believed the polls that showed 80-90% of Utahns supported outlawing guns in schools a few years ago.

Funny thing happened on the way to the supposedly inevitable passage of the Safe Schools and Churches initiative: The real voters -- the ones who actually voted based on the issues and not on some touchy-feely poll results -- came out and said "No Way".

The Democrats are fooling themselves if they believe their anti-discrimination law will pass the legislature. Then again, they seem to believe their socialized medicine plan is wildly popular with the voters, so believing in another pie-in-the-sky fantasy is just par for the course.

TO the comment entitled above "To The Previous Posts"
You have been brainwashed well! I too am glad that my choices in life have not often caused me "hurt".
However YOUR thinking (well-established on the slippery slope of "Lets not HURT anyone`s feelings" and wish to secure that silliness in LAW, choosing one group against another) HAS taken MY rights away regarding association with homosexuals! Do you "care" about THAT? I am an older female owner of a rental complex. I do NOT make a lot of MONEY in this endeavor. I now HAVE TO, by LAW, either clean up bathrooms & bedrooms of practicing homosexuals or spend money I barely have to have it done. If you are not totally ignorant, you KNOW the practices and incidence of AIDS among homosexuals far exceeds that from the straight community. I DO NOT have a right (on my property) to simply try to not RENT to homosexuals? Instead (by law) THEY have a right to practice that dangerous lifestyle ON MY PROPERTY, leaving ME the cleanup?
Where IS your silly sense of "RIGHTS" coming from?
Your brain is brainwashed and you dont even KNOW it!

'However YOUR thinking (well-established on the slippery slope of "Lets not HURT anyone`s feelings" and wish to secure that silliness in LAW, choosing one group against another) HAS taken MY rights away regarding association with homosexuals!' - 7:00 a.m.

Thank you.

You give ample reason why further protections for the gay community are needed.

By the way you do associate with homosexuals. Even if you don't know it.

I'll take a page from PFLAG here:

'Someone you know and love is gay.'

The only way you could avoid 'association with homosexuals' is by asking EVERY SINGLE person you encounter they're sexual orientation.

Have fun.

I could care less about your orientation, why do you care about someone else's?

'The Democrats are fooling themselves if they believe their anti-discrimination law will pass the legislature.' - 10:13 p.m.

Didn't Hate Crime legislation just pass to cover orientation? In october of this year??

Also, I didn't realize one's orientation was a political statement. Have you HEARD of 'Log Cabin Republicans?'

Why the gay community (or ANY community for that matter) would support republicans when they do not support you, I'll never know.