Quantcast

Comments about ‘American Fork tables anti-discrimination housing, employment ordinances focused on gay and transgender population’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 13 2011 10:01 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

I'm not sure how anyone could think it's okay to fire someone just because they're gay. It's just as wrong as it would be to fire someone for being a woman, or black, or LDS.

LBU
FORT CAMPBELL, KY

If you own a business you should be able the hire, fire, and give service to anyone you want. That being said, if you choose to discriminate then your reputation may suffer. I am mostly opposed to these ordinances because it would tie the hands of landlords. If someone has a basement apartment to rent out, not only should discrimination be legal, it should be encouraged. Having a bad tenant can be a thousand times worse than having a bad landlord.

ClarkKent
Bountiful, Utah

Many property owners gave the same argument when they learned they could not discriminate based on race. Its time to grow up people and set aside your prejudices.

And LBU, these anti-discrimination laws that landlords must comply with usually do not apply to homeowners who are renting out portions of their own home to others.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@ LBU: Evicting a bad tenant is not discrimination - evicting a good tenant because they happen to be gay is discrimination.

Your point about the basement apartment is understood, however, and that is why most legislation like this only applies to rental properties over a certain size.

LBU
FORT CAMPBELL, KY

@SuperMan

It doesn't really matter if you are renting out a portion of your home or your entire home, bad tenants can wreak havoc on your investment. A tenant can claim discrimination under the law when perhaps the landlord has other reasons for refusal to rent or eviction. We would all be better off if we just left the government out of the discrimination business.

Kami
Bountiful, Utah

LBU | 9:03 a.m. Dec. 14, 2011
We would all be better off if we just left the government out of the discrimination business.

@LBU, I'm sure there are many who believe that. Blacks would have to ride in the back of the bus, couldn't own a home in a white neighborhood and couldn't eat in most restaurants or rent rooms in most hotels. Women wouldn't have the right to vote or to own property. Yes, some would feel they would be much better off if the government was out of the discrimination business. Fortunately the government is IN the anti-discrimination business. And hopefully those who feel the way that you do are a dying breed and are not pushing the prejudices off on the next generation.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@ LBU: If the landlord has reasons other than discrimination, he or she can provide proof of those reasons if they are accused of discrimination.

Anti-discrimination laws have been on the books for a great many years and landlords know to document their reasons for an eviction and a great many people have been evicted for being bad tenants even when they have tried to blame it on discrimination.

Prior to anti-discrimination laws, blacks were not allowed in "white" restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, movie theaters, hospitals, or many other places. None of these places suffered any repercussions because so many people saw no problem with the behavior. If we did not have anti-discrimination laws, such behavior would still be rampant and would be considered acceptable - there would be no social repercussions.

There was a story in the paper yesterday about a landlord who placed a "Whites Only" sign on the gate to the swimming pool at an apartment complex because she was worried that the chemicals a certain black woman used in her hair would cloudy the water. Are you really suggesting this behavior is acceptable and there is not a better way to handle this?

LBU
FORT CAMPBELL, KY

Kami,

Jim Crow laws and laws preventing women from voting are examples of the government discriminating against people. These examples of government discrimination is wrong, I'm sure we can all agree. However, now government is in the business of telling PEOPLE that they can't discriminate. Ensuring that everyone is nice to each other and treats everyone fairly is not the proper role of government. I teach my three children to be nice to others and judge people based on the content of their character. This is the proper role of a parent. We don't need the government to tell us who we should be nice to and how to judge or how not to judge.

DeltaFoxtrot
West Valley, UT

The government exists to protect the minority from the majority. It's a thing called equality, liberty, freedom. One of the founding principles of the United States.

It's in the Declaration of Independence: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It's in the Constitution: "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

It's in our Pledge of Allegiance: "One nation... with liberty and justice for all."

Race, creed, sex and gender don't matter. A person is a person and we are all to be treated in the same way.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'Kami,
Jim Crow laws and laws preventing women from voting are examples of the government discriminating against people.' - LBU | 9:36 a.m. Dec. 14, 2011

Then it is my hope you are not 1) Black or 2) A woman.

For YOUR sake.

The SLC discrimination report from 2009 shows complaints about housing due to orientation...

three times, per month.

Per month.

Page 19.

I have sent a copy to the American Fork City council.

Allowing housing and employment discrimination for NO OTHER REASON than orientation is wrong.

A tennant who pays their rent, does not harm property, and does no crime...

should not be harrased, about what THEY do in THEIR bedroom!

If you admit that YOU teach your CHILDREN, then you must realize adults in this country...

answer, to the goverment, OF this country. To run business, in it.

Mormons have known the sting of discrimination, in the past.

Missouri executive order 44, October 27, 1838.

There is no logical reason to visit, that very SAME discrimination...

on, someone else.

When they have done YOU...no wrong doing.

Pete in Texas
Copperas Cove, TX

Thank you for your comments, LBU.

If someone doesn't want to rent to somebody because they're gay, that is sad. However, your second comment summed it up: we don't need a separate law that protects gays simply for the fact that if a landlord wants to evict them for any legitimate reason, the gay individual can claim that they're being evicted because of the landlord's andi-gay bias. Society doesn't need more reasons to sue someone.

Here's the bottom line with me: with hundreds if not thousands of rooms and apartments to rent out there, why would a gay individual want to rent from someone who is anti-gay? If I go up to a place, park my motorcycle, and as I get in the owner says, "We don't serve bikers here", I flip them the proverbial "bird" and take my legitimate money somewhere else. End of story. I guess I could cry day and night and try to sue them, but in the end, they're still gonna hate bikers. I haven't changed their mind even if I win the lawsuit. The secret to changing hearts and minds isn't cramming your ideas down others throats. That settles nothing.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'Here's the bottom line with me: with hundreds if not thousands of rooms and apartments to rent out there, why would a gay individual want to rent from someone who is anti-gay?' - Pete in Texas | 10:12 a.m. Dec. 14, 2011

Could you show me where that question is on a lease your filling out?

You must be Heterosexual to rent this property.

Go ahead!

I'll read it.

That claim is absurd. No one actively proclaims they are 'anti-gay' when renting a property.

They ONLY do this, when THEY actively engage to find out about a persons very much PERSONAL life.

Would you like some examples?

'Are you married?'

'Are you LDS?'

'LDS standards only'

'Do you have children?'

'What do you think about (famous actor/actress)?'

These are seemingly 'innocent' questions that factually DECLARE sexual orientation.

If you are wearing a wedding band, right now, you are doing the same thing.

The strange thing is this is not an issue until AFTER the lease has been signed.

And then, new 'rules' are MADE UP, only after the gay person (unbeknownst to the landlord) has moved in.

Should we also ask if someone is...

anti-mormon?

three11stu
Saratoga Springs, UT

I am sure that there are many people here in Utah that would change their town if we lived in a predominantly black area where LDS was not the predominant religion, and the legislature was deciding on whether to pass anti discrimination laws for Whites and the LDS faith.
For many people, they don't see this as a big deal because they are not gay. But if individuals and families were denied access to an apartment because they were LDS, or were denied a job or promotion because they were LDS, then there would be a lot more people concerned with individual rights.

Munk
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Where do we draw the line? Are dress codes in certain high end establishments discriminatory? Are credit checks discriminatory?

We have become too wrapped up in trying to appease everyone and make sure no one gets their feelings hurt that we loose sight of the rights of business and property owners.

A lot also depends on the attitude and history of that individual MORE SO than sexual preference or race these days. It is also the people with poor histories, attitude, etc. that tend to scream discrimination the loudest.

Not to mention that everyone seems to think that all people of color or different sexual orientation think the same way; that in itself is completely ludicrous.

A person of color who is polite and is responsible most likely will never be discriminated against. Then again my experiences could very well be different from another. Bottom line is stop whining, stop trying to force people to accept poor behavior... No, am I not LBGT... nor am I a white anglo saxon protestant.

George
Bronx, NY

@murk
So you are trying to equate getting fired from a job or being kicked out of your home with "getting your feelings hurt?" then you claim people never get discriminated against but are rather just cry babies with poor behaviors. It must be nice living in your sheltered little world. I notice you skipped over the comments on what if this where a bill to protect LDS people or people of color and instead bring up erroneous arguments about crd it card and dress codes is there a reason for that? slight of hand maybe?

the truth
Holladay, UT

RE: DeltaFoxtrot

Government does NOT exist to protect the minority.

Government is to protect everyone includibng the majority.

NO laws to be made, no lection culd happen if we did not haver majoroty rule.

The constition simply protects the voice of everyone, so moinorty as well majority views can be given.

The constitution gives voice to the minority so they may influence and persuade, same as the majority voice.

But majoity rights are certainly equal to any minority rights.

Clearly the left does not understand what freedom means as they continoue to want to bind the hands and voice of those they disagree with.

Tami
Herriman, UT

I would not want to work or live with someone that I felt was engaging in inappropriate behavior, gay or straight. I would no more want Hugh Hefner, I believe he is straight, as a neighbor than some gay person. However, the main problem is that govt needs to stay out of our lives. If I choose not to hire or rent to someone because they make me uncomfortable with their behavior, that is my business.

ClarkKent
Bountiful, Utah

@ Munk, Is it really difficult for you to determine where the line should be drawn or is this just an excuse to argue for the "rights" of citizens to discriminate?

George
Bronx, NY

@the truth

once again you confuse the majorities desire to pass certain laws or restrictions that infringe upon individual liberties with the rights of individuals (Keeping mind this context "a minority" is a group a small group of "individuals" facing similar oppression). The majority cannot simply vote away a persons constitutional rights. Some particular amendments I would direct you to are the 13th, 14th, 15th, 17th and of course every right wing persons favorites the 1st and 2nd amendments. In the end all you are doing with your twisted reasoning is split a hair that does not exist.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@the truth

once again you try to claim people are taking away your rights to use your hands and voice. Its simple whether you are in the majority or not you have the right to speak as loud as you want and do what you want with your hands until you cross the line into violating another persons constitutional rights.

to comment

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