Quantcast

Comments about ‘Hatch was wrong to support ENDA’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 13 2013 11:35 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Gildas
LOGAN, UT

It used to be, I believe, that you could hire and fire in Utah for any or no reason. That may make some jaws drop but it is just leaving people alone to make their own decisions and use 'discrimination' - a word that used to be positive- in deciding who will be best for the job, will be most likely to stay with the company, who will work best with existing productive staff etc.

For those employers who do not hire the best person for the job: they will face certain natural consequences such as succeeding less well than those who made more rational hiring and firing decisions. When it is government which hires they need to be more meticulous: assign a number to all applicants initially and take a selective examination. Not that government always does that.

Making special cases for certain groups is unfair. Then again why should we trust government to organize hiring for us and not trust employers to know what is in their own best interest? Most of us don't trust government nowadays and think that one should be able to hire who we wish for our own privately owned company.

Ranch
Here, UT

Gildas says:

"Making special cases for certain groups is unfair."

---

Then you should be perfectly happy to remove "religion" from the list of protected groups, since it is clearly "unfair".

By adding "sexual orientation" to the list of protected groups, Gildas, we do not create "special cases" since, guess what, YOU are included in this group because you have a "sexual orientation" (straight), right? Nothing "special" about that, is there?

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

I would like to add this comment: that what we are establishing (yet again) is a government-mandated system of reverse discrimination where, in this case, a straight man or woman can be fired but a homosexual cannot be. Let me describe how this can be in practice.

I know a woman who was fired for being "intolerant" of homosexuals. The lesbians in question would stand beside her cubicle and talk loudly of their last night's sexual activities. They were disturbing the woman's ability to work to begin with. Secondly they were engaging in "sexual harrassment" as usually defined and harrassment in repeated and loud, objectionable sexual references.

Both practices would have led to a dishonorable firing if the harrassers had been straight. This company was scared to deal with the issue, putting the blame unfairly on the straight woman, who was not known to make prejudicial statements and who just wanted to do her job in peace.

I could add another similar scenario. Many readers could do the same. We are aware of the mischief that is caused by such policies that protect an already outspoken group and make them impervious to criticism.

1covey
Salt Lake City, UT

How will this law affect organizations such as Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts of America, various churches that hire people for certain responsibilities (even ministerial),etc.; Schools- elementary through secondary ? What will be the unintended (by some-not by all) consequences?

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

"How will this law affect organizations such as Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts of America, various churches that hire people for certain responsibilities (even ministerial),etc.; Schools- elementary through secondary ? What will be the unintended (by some-not by all) consequences?"

I imagine it would mean that employees there would be hired, promoted, demoted and fired on the basis of the merits of their work, and not on personal irrelevancies that are none of their employers' business.

Sexual orientation has zero predictive value in determining if a person is qualified to work in any of these organizations.

2 bit
Cottonwood Heights, UT

pragmatistferlife,
Sounds like we agree on the important stuff. So why the need to vilify what you ASSUME is "my faction"?

I didn't post what I think you want. I would never assume to know that.

I just say what I think (not assume I know what you or your faction think). No need to vilify your faction based on my assumptions and what political stereotypes suggest everybody from your faction wants.

If you really want a Federal Government that is focused on "freedom and justice for all and is controllable by the people"... we really have nothing to bicker about.

But if you REALLY want just those things.... how does government controlling our health care protect our Freedom... or provide Justice... or make the government smaller and more controllable? I don't think it does.

Very little of what the brief Democrat super-majority tried to pass had ANYTHING to do with Freedom, Justice, or making the government smaller or easier for the people to control. Do you disagree?

If it had nothing to do with those 3... and mainly GREW government control of our lives... I have no problem with my representatives opposing it.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Yeah, see Gildas, I don't believe you're example. Or more to the point, if there is any truth to it, you are leaving out a big part of the story. All you say happened is that two people are standing by someone else's cubicle talking about their intimate life and then the person in the cubicle got fired.

Well there has to be more to the story. What did she actually do?

But anyway, you're story has nothing to do with the proposed law, it hasn't been passed yet.

And I think that most of us are aware that at one time businesses in Utah (and the rest of the country) could practice racial and sexual and religious discrimination. It's good we passed laws and got over that.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Gildas says:

"...what we are establishing (yet again) is a government-mandated system of reverse discrimination where, in this case, a straight man or woman can be fired but a homosexual cannot be."

That is 100% a lie. Heterosexual is a sexual orientation as is homosexual and would fall under the protections of "sexual orientation" category of ENDA. You would NOT be able to be fired for being straight just as a gay couldn't be fired simply for being gay.

Here's one of your 10 Commandments: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

Ponder it.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"Sounds like we agree on the important stuff. So why the need to vilify what you ASSUME is "my faction"?"...woops 2bits. Actually I assumed just the opposite. That's why I didn't say directly your faction but rather referred to your party.

I've followed your posts and responded to them many times and have on more than one occasion agreed with some point. I personally don't associate conservative with tea party. I probably disagree with most conservative policies (again there's a difference between principles and policies) but there are operative differences in the traditional conservative faction of the party and the tea party.

The tea party's resistance to cooperation on any level is plain dangerous, conservative principles aside.

RBB
Sandy, UT

One of the fundamental freedoms is the freedom of association. I do not believe that the government has the right to tell you what to do in your bedroom. Likewise, I do not believe the government has the right to tell me what I have to do in my business. Contrary to what many now believe, you do not have the "right" to work for me. I have freedom of association and I have the right to hire who I want. The government may try to strip me of that right, but it does not change the fundamental rights of individuals.

If I am trying to sell the latest fashion, I have the right to hire attractive people who take care of themselves to do so. (I am about 60 lbs overweight - so this is not a hate thing - it just acknowledges reality).

Likewise, if I own a moving company, I do not want the guys on my moving crew to suddenly show up in miniskirts and fishnet stockings wanting to be called Mandy. You have the right to do what you want to do. I have the right not to associate with you. That is what freedom is all about.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@RBB;

Since is the state that grants you permission to operate a business, the state has the right to tell you how to operate that business. You do not have the right to discriminate (associate) in your business, as you run your business at the allowance of the state.

p.s.
MORGAN, UT

I applaud the author for sharing the truth about ENDA. ALL law discriminates. Understanding this truth is critical to the topic discussed. This law jeopardizes the religious freedoms of all who embrace it, as proven in all the states who have adopted it thus far. Mike Lee stands with the First Amendment, and so do I.

to comment

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