Published: Monday, March 11 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
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
@georgeNot sure how you are relating this to the subject of the
thread, care to expand I this thought?
Good letter. Agreed.
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.
4word thinkerUnless 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
4word thinker, think again. It is NOT legal to discriminate against fat people,
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.
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.
Miss PiggiePheonix, AZIs 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.
@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.
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.
AntiaircraftDid you skip history in school? Are you really that unaware of
our history and our laws?
@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?
@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?
Good letter and I'm blown away that it appears in the DN.
@miss piggy It seems you think a lot of your own random thoughts.
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
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.
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.
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?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments