Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Equality under the law; teach values, but also teach respect

Comments

Return To Article
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 13, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    To "atl134" you are wrong, they were chased out of Missouri because they were becoming a large voting block that would outnumber the original residents of Missouri. Missouri was afraid of losing control of their state to the LDS members.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 12, 2013 6:19 p.m.

    @John C.C.
    "We also need to uphold the highest standards of morality and protect the family as the basic unit of society."

    A group of people got chased out of Missouri because of people who felt that way.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 12, 2013 5:35 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal;

    Those of you who believe homosexuality is "immoral" should not participate in it. Those who believe it is natural, and therefore, "moral" for homosexuals to be homosexual should avoid heterosexuality. Any discrimination, treating others differently than you wish to be treated is hypocrisy and Jesus had only negative to say about that.

    @JohnCC;

    "Love the sinner hate the sin" is a passive-agressive way of saying "ha ha, you're nothing but a sinner" (i.e.; judging).

    Protecting the family INCLUDES protecting families that are DIFFERENT than your own; again, if you refuse to protect those families, you're practicing hypocrisy. Please search what the bible has to say about hypocrites.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 12, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    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?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 12, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    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.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    March 12, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    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.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 12, 2013 12:36 a.m.

    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.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 11, 2013 10:18 p.m.

    @miss piggy

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

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    March 11, 2013 9:20 p.m.

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

  • Miss Piggie Pheonix, AZ
    March 11, 2013 9:13 p.m.

    @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?

  • George Bronx, NY
    March 11, 2013 7:50 p.m.

    @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?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 11, 2013 6:21 p.m.

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

  • Latuva Spanish Fork , UT
    March 11, 2013 6:09 p.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2013 5:40 p.m.

    @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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 11, 2013 5:32 p.m.

    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.

  • Miss Piggie Pheonix, AZ
    March 11, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    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.

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2013 3:06 p.m.

    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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    March 11, 2013 1:29 p.m.

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

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    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.

  • 4word thinker Murray, UT
    March 11, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    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.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    March 11, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    Good letter. Agreed.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 11, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    @george

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

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    March 11, 2013 7:07 a.m.

    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.