Comments about ‘Housing, job protection’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Feb. 25 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

What is most important to the letter writer: her religion, her job, her housing or her sexual orientation? She's going to have to decide what to hold on to and what to let go of. Children demand everything. Adults grow into the understanding that they must grow out of childhood fantasies where they are the center of the universe, where natural law will be suspended when they throw themselves into the abyss, where they can tell their creator which eternal truths govern their activities and what consequences should apply to their choices.

Danny Chipman
Lehi, UT

I'm likewise curious as to how the writer can be LDS and also a (I'm assuming) practicing lesbian.

That being said, on the matters of housing and employment, I support non-discrimination ordinances being extended to all of Utah. So long as people do their job, pay the rent, treat their neighbors and coworkers respectfully, etc., it isn't anyone's business what they do in their own time and with whom.

But as J Thompson said, she's going to have to choose either her "identity" (as a proud, practicing lesbian) or her religion. I have a hard time seeing her maintain harmony between both.

ECR
Burke, VA

"She's going to have to decide what to hold on to and what to let go of."

J Thompson and Danny Chapman - what are you willing to hold on to and which of your freedoms are you willing to let go of? The letter writer has stated her religious beliefs and her sexual orientation. Unless you are her bishop, and especially unless you know her personally, you have absolutely no right to judge what she will be able to hold on to. Would you be willing to accept living in a community where your rights were threatened because of your beliefs? Would be OK for you to lose your job or deny you access to housing because of things you hold dear?

I am always amazed at the judgmental attitudes of many members of my religion, the LDS faith, who forget the persecution suffered by their ancestors simply because of what they chose to believe. When will we all start looking at others as children of God, just like we are, and stop looking down our noses and judging other's behavior? That will be OK when we are all perfect, but not until then.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Don't judge! Let God do that since none of us are qualified!

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

How foolish people are when they think that a man-made law supersedes eternal law; when they think that freedom equals agency. God gave us agency to choose for ourselves. Freedom comes from the proper use of that agency. We are free as long as we use our agency wisely and only choose to do those things where the natural consequences of those actions do not remove freedom.

Agency allows us to jump off a cliff. Foolish people might even believe others who tell them of the euphoria that they would feel while falling through the air. Those who are ignorant of natural law might even think that there would be no natural and absolute consequence from jumping off a cliff. Those who respect the author of all human knowledge would listen to their conscience which would warn them not to jump, and not to loss their "freedom" or their life by misusing agency.

The letter writer has agency to choose. Her choices will determine the freedom that she will have to continue to make choices. Man-made laws will not negate the consequences of those choices. Choose wisely.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

The subtext of the Thompson/Chipman comments is that the writer should abandon a substantial portion of her identity based on tangible, concrete experience in favor of one based on intangible, unprovable abstractions. Ironically, it is the latter that is given universal legal protection in this country while the former must win incremental protection community by community.

I own a rental property in SLC. Before the nondiscrimination ordinance passed, I sometimes toyed with the idea of advertising it as "available to gays only" just to stir up the pot and provoke a discussion. It would be sound business practice, as gays as a demographic tend to have disposable income and good financials and (if you believe he stereotype) keep the propery nice. Never did do it, though.

@Chipman: My understanding is that the LDS church requires gay members to be chaste. I don't know exactly what that means in the context of the church, but I know that it is possible for lesbians to express meaningful physical intimacy in ways that would have been legal even before the Lawrence Supreme Court decision. Or does "chaste" mean no hand holding as far as LDS standards go?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

The usual suspects,
the usual bigoted, homo-phobic, compassionate lacking responses.

FYI - The LDS church supports anti-discrimination laws, and allows Gays and Lesbians full fellowship.
I stand with this letter writer - AND the brethern.

Phranc
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@mike
that all fine and dandy mike but she is talking about man made laws, you know the ones that do not allow you to discriminate against her based on your religious views.

Trevvor
Sandy, UT

@Phranc,

Thats all fine and dandy, but by saying she's LDS she's also talking about her religious beliefs. Hers. And her religion says that the only acceptable sexual relationships are between a man and a woman. Again, her religion. So people who call her out on that have a valid point.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

There's absolutely no reason other than blatant bigotry to deny this person the same rights the rest of us have.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@trevvor
I seem to remember "her religion" actually repeatedly counseled about "calling people out" (questioning other faith and worthiness) and seeing as mike would not want o be hypocritical I m sure that is not what he is saying, right?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Trevvor
Sandy, UT
@Phranc,

Thats all fine and dandy, but by saying she's LDS she's also talking about her religious beliefs. Hers. And her religion says that the only acceptable sexual relationships are between a man and a woman. Again, her religion. So people who call her out on that have a valid point.

12:16 p.m. Feb. 25, 2013

=========

Are you her Bishop, Trevvor?

I know plenty of card carrying Gay/Lesbian Mormons.

So people who call her out on that need to pipe down mind their own business.

Lifelong Ute
Salt Lake City, UT

Open minded Mormon,

Why don't you clarify, you know plenty of card carry people who have homosexual feelings. You know zero card carrying people in homosexual relationships. Unless they are lying to their bishops of course. And by the way this woman words things she seems to suggest she is open to homosexual relationships, which by definition, would prohibit her from being "card carrying"

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

I wonder if people think about how their comments reflect on the LDS church, are the comments on this thread really the face you want to show the world?

George
Bronx, NY

kudo's to mountanman well said.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Lifelong Ute: "you know plenty... feelings. You know zero... relationships..."

The question is what constitutes acceptable behavior vis-a-vis LDS church membership? As I alluded in my original post, there is a continuum of expressions of feelings that can occur in a relationship (gay or straight). I have not seen the dividing line between acceptable and unnacceptable defined other than the ambiguous word "chaste." If legal definitions for chastity set the standard, then it is possible to be in emotionally satisfying committed gay relationships without being unchaste. I get the impression that some commenters here have a much more restrictive standard and would consider the same behaviors that they find completely acceptable and chaste by unmarried straight couples (e.g. flirting, hand holding, kissing, hugging, shopping for china) to be unacceptable, unchaste, and disqualifying for membership when done by gay couples. Can anyone elaborate? Whare is the line between chaste and unchaste (or in Lifelong Ute's terms, between feelings and relationships)? If the line is not the same for gays and straights, please explain why. Keep in mind that this is a moderated family forum.

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

@Open Minded Mormon

"The usual suspects,
the usual bigoted, homo-phobic, compassionate lacking responses."

I am surprised you claim yourself to be Mormon but use words like bigoted and homo-phobic when you do not agree with other people who may not hold the same views as you. Those are contentious words and being a latter-day saint you know who the father of contention is don’t you?

George
Bronx, NY

@zoar

So j Thomas called those that have a different point of view childish and mike Richards called them foist yet you only call out open minded, why would that be?

George
Bronx, NY

That was suppose to be fools not foist. Sorry.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Zoar63,

for you information, on this board, "open-minded" means anyone who agrees with the liberal philosohpy. anyone who does not is automatically labeled a close-minded hateful bigot who does nothing but listen to hate radio all day.

to comment

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