Hatch was wrong to support ENDA


Return To Article
  • p.s. MORGAN, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 17, 2013 2:50 p.m.


    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.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 2:35 p.m.

    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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 15, 2013 7:29 a.m.

    "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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 6:53 p.m.

    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.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    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.

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 2:30 p.m.

    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.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    "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.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 12:52 p.m.

    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?

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    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
    Nov. 14, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Nov. 14, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    @2bits --

    "I mean how would they KNOW....I mean does that kind of stuff actually come up in a job interview now days??"

    Yes, this "kind of stuff" really does affect real people looking for -- or trying to keep -- real jobs.

    In states that don't already have anti-gay-discrimination laws, a man can literally be fired just for saying "I'm going to the movies with my boyfriend."

    Here's just a few examples of how this sort of discrimination affects real people:

    college soccer coach in Nashville -- fired in 2010 after she told her team that her female partner was pregnant.

    legislative editor of the Georgia General Assembly -- fired in 2005 when she told her boss that she was transsexual and was going to begin dressing/presenting as a woman.

    professor in Wisconsin -- offered a job as a university dean in 2010. When that university found out she was a lesbian, the offer was rescinded.

    schoolteacher in Minnesota -- she was fired in 2013 after acknowledging that she's a lesbian.

    Gay people shouldn't have to hide. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a bad policy for the military, and it's bad for civilian employment as well.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    "Is this our America — an America where we have to choose between our livelihood and a religious conscience that supports morality in society?"

    Spoken like the owner of a "whites-only" restaurant in Mississippi circa 1962.

    Seriously - there is absolutely nothing to distinguish Mr. Reid's claim of a morality-fueled excuse for discriminating against gays and the shibboleths of southern legislators railing against the Civil Rights movement of the early 1960's.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 14, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    2bit,I know you think all Liberals want government to control every aspect of our lives ... but that's not true. We just want government to be the size necessary and focused as possible, so it serves it's function of providing freedom and justice for all and is controllable by the people (not the other way around).

    There's a lot of common ground in our views, still there's a lot of disagreement. Disagreements that come from different world views.

    The most troubling trend right now for me though is the very vocal faction of your party that refuses to cooperate with anyone. Cooperation is foundational to our very existence. When cells don't cooperate with one another it's called cancer and it leads to death.

    Cooperation based on common interests is how life exists. It's also troubling that the DN seems to becoming the official (through editorials) voice of this faction. Principles are one thing rigidity and destruction are another.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Nov. 14, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    It's 2013 -- 50 years since MLK Jr. "I have a Dream" speech.

    Bigotry is still alive and well in America if we have to pass laws to change people's minds.

    Senator's Reids comments prove my point.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 6:57 a.m.

    "You should not get fired for your sexual orientation or gender conflict... but are a lot of people actually getting fired for that?"

    Enough people are, so they need the same protections that you get for possibly being fired based on your religion. Being hired or fired should be based on you ability to do the required job and not on anything else. Perhaps you don't see the discrimination because you have not been the target of such acts; that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 14, 2013 12:03 a.m.

    Wow, so I'm reading that oped and I'm thinking to myself, does the DNews have no discrimination at all? (See what I did there?) Will they print any pack of nonsense that someone sends to them?

    And then I get to the end, and I see it is written by a Utah State Senator! A State Senator. Can you imagine? Of course. Utah.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 11:16 p.m.

    You cannot acknowledge that discrimination exists…

    then try to fabricate reasons why it should not be combatted.

    I mean, heaven forbid LGBT in America want to have a JOB! (Note: Sarcasm)

    'Study: Gay Men Offered Fewer Job Interviews' - By Winston Gieseke - The Advocate - 10/04/11

    'According to a study published today in the American Journal of Sociology, men whose resumes indicate that they’re gay are 40% less likely to be called in for job interviews, especially in the south or Midwest.' – article

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 6:25 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal

    All things in common MUST be voluntary.

    Why would anyone want to live under a dictatorial system where all goodness (as defined by government or elites) is compelled by the power of government, how atrocious and enslaving that would be.

    It's not the idea it's the method.

    The exact same with enda.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 5:41 p.m.

    Sorry, stuart. Rights accrue to individuals first, and the state should not be acting as muscle for religion. I won't say it often, but hatch did the right thing.

  • Liddle Bruda Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 3:11 p.m.

    Mr Reid. I cannot fire you for being religious or not. But I can fire you because you are straight. Are you ok with that? It is my business, and I am sure you are great at your job, but I just found out what you do in private, so I am going to have to let you go. My religion says straight people are inherently evil and therefore I will refuse to hire an out and proud straight person. Are you ok with this?

    This is a ridiculous op-ed, and discrimination against another human being for something out of their control is idiotic. You probably are against laws that protect racial minorities from being fired for their skin color. Being homosexual is just as innate as being black.

  • Gandalf Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 2:55 p.m.

    This poor man. Nonceleb has it right in pointing out the incongruous logic of this editorial. I pity the legislature if Sen. Reid's approach represents the average analytical skills that go into the making of public policy in Utah.

    Enough of these attempts to blend church and state! Has the good Senator not read D&C 134:9? It states: "we do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    "My right to discriminate trumps any of your rights" is what Mr. Reid seems to be saying.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 2:30 p.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    No --
    Those reasons you sighted are precisely WHY his song is becoming more and more prophetic.

    The older I get, the more Eternally Progressive, having all things in common, living life in peace I become.

    The reasons our world is so screwed up is because of;
    "the love" or "worship" of money,
    my religion is right and yours is wrong - so I must kill you, because my God told me too,
    You swim over that river, cross that maountain, or climb that fence and I will have to kill you for coming into MY country,
    you can't force me to give up a few crumbs of my wealth that I'd never miss anyway to help feed or vaccinate starving children - they're not my mine, so they aren't my problem,

    I can actually hear the words of Christ in the lyrics of that song.

    Zion and the City of Enoch will be just as he describes...

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 2:14 p.m.

    Mr. Reid,
    If you replaced the word gay or homosexual in your article with christian or mormon would you feel the same way? You know that religion(and your religion in particular, mormons) are not popular in many area's in the country. Should you be able to be fired or denied housing solely for being mormon? I find it ironic that a group of people who benefit from these type of laws, are so against extending this same right to others?

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    I forgot to mention this one

    "Imagine there's no countries
    It isn't hard to do
    Nothing to kill or die for
    And no religion too
    Imagine all the people living life in peace"... Wouldn't that be sweat. No religions, no countries.... Sounds like Lennon would have fit in GREAT with the Occupy Wall street folks.

    The problem is... Countries and Religion aren't what's keeping us from living in peace. They are what HELP people live in peace.

    I know you think all Conservatives want to do away with the Government completely... but that's not true. We just want government to be as small and focused as possible, so it is controllable by the people (not the other way around).

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,
    I don't think Lennon's "Imagine" is actually becoming any truer... it's your perspective that's changing.

    I like the song but there are some concepts in it the still bother me.

    "Imagine no possessions"... obvious reference to his solidarity with Marxism.

    "Imagine there's no countries".. again the Marxist dream of governments being wiped out and the people taking power (problem is that gets REALLY messy and bloody).

    "No greed or hunger" Again the Marxist dream and fallacy that just doing away with capitalism will end hunger (hint... it doesn't, it just makes it worse)

    "Imagine all the people sharing the world as one"... (the dream of Progressivism, Global governance and New World Order rhetoric on steroids)

    "And the world will live as ONE"... again progressivism, globalism and New World Order agenda creeps in.

    Lennon was great... but this song was a tribute to his core belief in Progresivism and what he saw as the eventual triumph of Marxism.

    I get the dreamy togetherness sentiments feeling more true today... but the longing for no governments, no capitalists, the fallacy that this Marxist triumph will end hunger... no truer today than it was then.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    The older I get,
    The truer and truer John Lennon's song: "Imagine" becomes.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    Just how does it violate YOUR religious freedom to not be able to refuse to hire someone exclusively because they are homosexual? Does it make you an accessory to their "sin." How about someone with same-sex attraction who is celibate? Homosexuality is no longer considered criminal behavior in our statutes. Would you also refuse to hire a single person because they might be having pre-marital sex? Or (in the case of a Catholic) refuse to hire someone who is married with no children who you suspect is using contraception? Or (in the case of Mormons) how about someone who drinks coffee? If you refuse to hire a qualified person only because they are gay I would say there is something seriously wrong with your morality and that you are not the least bit "Christ-like." Now that Orrin Hatch is serving his last term, he does not have to pander to the rightwing nuts, and we might being seeing his true compassionate side for the first time in 37 years. He would not have criticized Mike Lee if he was up for reelection in 3 years.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Nov. 13, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    Sen. Reid's mindset is troubling. He maintains that discrimination is inherent within any legal system, and so completely distorts the meaning of "discrimination." We all know today that this word is shorthand for depriving people of equal protection. Mike Lee (and presumably Reid) would've voted against the Civil Rights Act on the same basis. My question for Reid is how he defends the conclusion that ENDA is wrong based on the premise that "discrimination is inherent in law"? Seems to me there's a glaring middle term missing here.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 11:58 a.m.

    It used to be that you had to be a racial minority or minority gender to get preferential treatment in the job interview process. Now it appears you need to be gay or trans-gender to have laws that say companies can't reject you after a job interview (or they will be hearing from your lawyer).

    I mean how would they KNOW you were gay or trans-gender from an interview, much less make their decision based on your gender or sexual preference?

    I mean does that kind of stuff actually come up in a job interview now days??

    Are companies really firing people in droves when the find out they are gay or trans-gender?? I really haven't seen a huge trend towards that.

    Maybe this really IS America's biggest problem we need Congress to solve right now. I guess it could be.

    You should not get fired for your sexual orientation or gender conflict... but are a lot of people actually getting fired for that?