Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Equality under the law; teach values, but also teach respect’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, March 11 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
george of the jungle
goshen, UT

Manners are learned. I don't see how fair has any thing to do with emotions. The average person has the mentality of a 13 year old. How emotional is a 13 year old. All I see is that the mentality can go to that of a 5 year old soon.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@george

Not sure how you are relating this to the subject of the thread, care to expand I this thought?

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Good letter. Agreed.

4word thinker
Murray, UT

But the legislature declined to make discrimination by size illegal. It is still legal, and PC to discriminate against fat people, Mormons, Amish, Christians, Caucasians. I know we have legislated to not discriminate by religion or race, but when it isn't enforced or isn't enforceable under the law, that is the same as making legal.

We need to stop making protected classes at random, and respect everyone. Adding one more special class is not the answer.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

4word thinker

Unless one does NOT have a sexual orientation or gender identity, everyone is considered under this bill.

It does not protect only gays, but heterosexual too.

Yes, this bill respects and protects everyone.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

4word thinker, think again. It is NOT legal to discriminate against fat people, Mormons, etc.

anti-liar
Salt Lake City, UT

To say that a private property or business owner has no right to discriminate is to say that a given person has a RIGHT to live in a given person's private property and a RIGHT to work at a given business. No they do not have such "rights." SB262 implies that they do. The premise is fundamentally wrong. It violates basic, private property and business rights. Therefore SB262 must be rejected.

Miss Piggie
Pheonix, AZ

Is this about not being able to marry?

-----------------

To the monitors: I have edited my denied post for resubmission. I hope this modification meets with your approval. But, of course, it basically obliterates most of what I had to say.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Miss Piggie
Pheonix, AZ
Is this about not being able to marry?

-----------------

To the monitors: I have edited my denied post for resubmission. I hope this modification meets with your approval. But, of course, it basically obliterates most of what I had to say.

5:00 p.m. March 11, 2013

===========

READ the article and the Bill.
It has nothing to do with Gay marriage -- therefore, your comment must've been considered OFF topic.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@4 word thinker
"Mormons, Amish, Christians"

Nope, they're protected by the anti-discrimination laws that say you can't fire someone due to religion.

"Caucasians."

They're protected by the anti-discrimination laws that say you can't fire someone based on race.

Latuva
Spanish Fork , UT

Access to home and work, absolutely. What is difficult is the "respect towards... varying sexual orientations" part. There are far many combinations of 'sexual orientations' in existence, many currently illegal; I think a sweeping 'acceptance' of the phrase would be a significant mis-step. We seem to repeatedly take this topic in all inclusive approach without weighing the multiple states that exist within and external to the traditional LGBT construct. There are elements 'external' to LGBT that it cannot "respect" which are, so far, illegal.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Antiaircraft
Did you skip history in school? Are you really that unaware of our history and our laws?

George
Bronx, NY

@anti
So if a hospital does not want to serve African Americans they should be able to turn them away? Have you learned anything from history?

Miss Piggie
Pheonix, AZ

@LDS Liberal:
"READ the article and the Bill. It has nothing to do with Gay marriage -- therefore, your comment must've been considered OFF topic."

Here's what I read in the article: 'Part of that education should include respect towards those of varying sexual orientations and to give them equality under the law, like anybody else.'

Silly me. It looked alot like a same-sex marriage issue, among other things. Besides, the monitor said it was 'disruptive.' I thought it was astutely observant and manifestly helpful to the edification of DNews web site readers. But, whaado I know?

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Good letter and I'm blown away that it appears in the DN.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@miss piggy

It seems you think a lot of your own random thoughts.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

Here's what I read in the article: 'Part of that education should include respect towards those of varying sexual orientations and to give them equality under the law, like anybody else.'

Silly me. It looked alot like a same-sex marriage issue, among other things.

=============

Imagine that, respect for everyone and equal treatment under the law. If only there was such a country founded on that. Something along the lines "We hold these truths to be self-evident...that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

If only there was some religion that would teach love and tolerance toward everyone, especially with those with whom we may disagree. Something along the lines of "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?" If only some respectable Man could have taught something like that.

The search continues.

John C. C.
Payson, UT

Yes, Darrell has it right, that we need to love all people without judging. We also need to uphold the highest standards of morality and protect the family as the basic unit of society.

Conservatives define marriage as only between a man and a woman and expect abstinence outside of marriage. Liberals defend any minority which has been subject to discrimination and persecution. They're both right. It is not inconsistent with Christian principles to both condemn the sin and love the sinner. Also, there is no sin in being "oriented," but it does make it harder to live a chaste life.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints calls for the protection of the rights of same-sex couples in hospitalization, housing, and employment, yet is a leading advocate of traditional family values.

That sublime combination seems beyond the ken of our legislators.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

Isn't this just social engineering? Lets ask ourselves how effective government is at shaping the US culture.

In the late 1960's they started to teach us about what they thought was the ideal diet for us. Now we have an obesity problem.

In the 1950's they started teaching sex ed in schools. Now we have a problem with out of wedlock births.

In the 1980's they said that girls need extra help in school, now we have boys that never grow up.

Given the government's track record on social engineering, I would rather they don't get involved again.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . it is important to make clear that we are not seeking preferential treatment . . . ."

Except, you are. You're singling out one immorality among the many and exalting it to a state-protected virtue. And, this law is particularly scary to real people because of the issue of what comes next.

Killing unborn babies is enshrined as a state-protected virtue. Objecting to religious expression is exalted above freedom of religion. The right of self-defense is under attack. Unfairness in taxation, health care, voting, racial policy, and immigration has been enshrined as the new "fairness."

So, state protection of which perverse idea or practice will follow state protection of homosexuality?

If the state can force people to hire, rent to, or enter into business with those whose practices are perverse or immoral, why couldn't it force them to rent to someone who expresses intent to use the property for an adulterous rendezvous? Or to those who can't pay? Or those who have a history of cooking meth in rented kitchens?

Where does it stop?

to comment

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