Published: Wednesday, Dec. 11 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
"Being fair to all is a hallmark of Utahns."-- Really?
Truly? Is that why Utah voted to prevent loving couples who don't meet the
"Gold Standard" from marrying their SO?"... in favor of
special rights for a few."-- Heterosexual is also a sexual
orientation. Hence No "special rights for a few". In fact, EVERY human
being has a "sexual orientation". Thus, ALL would be protected: not
JUST the heterosexual."These laws prioritize sexual rights over
rights of conscience."-- When you discriminate against someone
you have NO conscience."The whole purpose of any
non-discrimination law is to protect innocent people against discrimination, not
to violate the rights of others."-- The whole purpose of this
screed of an opinion piece is to "violate the rights of others"."It gives special rights to some people at the expense of other
people. "-- A blatant lie. Again, ALL people would be
covered."Your kind not served here." What if the "your
kind" were actually YOUR kind, Paul?
My first thought: The LDS church supported orientation-based anti-discrimination
legislation when it was proposed in Utah recently. If even the church could
support it, what makes you think you need to oppose it?And as for
that transgender-in-the-locker-room case that so horrified you, as the article
clearly states, the problem was solved very simply with the installation of
privacy curtains -- which, actually, the locker room should have already had in
the first place. The true problem here was not the transgender student, but the
poor design of the room.Despite your claims to the contrary, nobody
wants "special" rights -- only EQUAL rights. And, no, respecting equal
rights for the LGBT population is no more a challenge to conscience than
respecting the rights of other races or religions -- something that has been
legislated for decades, and a principle that is firmly ensconced in the US
Constitution.It frequently amazes me how people could ignore the
far-ranging consequences of adding a "conscience" exception to
anti-discrimination laws. Can you honestly not see how that would end up gutting
the laws entirely? How can anyone possibly be that blind?
I wish I could do gymnastics like Paul Mero. I would never wake up with a sore
back again if I could twist and turn into a pretzel like that.
"Being fair to all is a hallmark of Utahns."Hogwash.
Utah's Amendment 3 is proof of the opposite."Nineteen
states now have laws offering same-sex marriage or civil unions...These laws
prioritize sexual rights over rights of conscience."More
hogwash. Those laws _genuinely_ express a state's commitment to equal
constitutional protections to _all_ its citizens."The fact is
that the simple inclusion of “sexual orientation” and “gender
identity” in Utah law challenges freedom of conscience and religion, and
could subordinate those freedoms to sexual rights."Wrong on so
many levels. What's being challenged is your presumption that the state
exists to enforce your personal religious beliefs on others - even when your
religious beliefs clearly violate the Equal Protection language of the US
Constitution."A statewide non-discrimination law on the basis of
“sexual orientation” and “gender identity” would
inherently violate the rights of other people."Nonsense. This
assertion has been tested in many courts, and every single time it has been
examined objectively it disintegrates. Your rights are not jeopardized by
marriage equality. You are not harmed in the slightest way.You have
no right to expect the state to enforce your bigotry.
There are limits to "freedom of speech". Libel laws do exist for good
reasons; you cannot yell "Fire!" in a theater just for the fun of it.
Other rights are also abridged for reasons of safety, health and conflicting
rights. But, those who advocate so-called sexual rights seem to have a problem
It does seem, with all that has been going on, as if "sex" has become
the MOST important civil right. And in attempting to legislate/judge this issue
it may end up being a "more equal" result. My fear is not so much in
where we have come, but what battles the liberals will embark upon after this
issue is resolved. I don't doubt that the exemptions given to any
religious institutions will come under a full attack, sooner or later. The
Hobby Lobby case in a good example of just the beginning of this. And to open
another issue, since the Supreme Court will ultimately decide many of these
cases, it matters more than ever who is sitting there. Democrats or
Republicans. Let's face it, the Supreme Court is as much of a political
appointment as any Cabinate post the President gets. So, these next two
national elections are going to say the most about where we are going as a
Nothing in the First Amendment says religion must be protected from
discrimination by private businesses. When those who oppose anti-discrimination
laws based on gender or sexual orientation also push to remove
anti-discrimination laws based on religion, then they will have a leg to stand
on. When you can be fired or kicked out of housing because of your
religion or the number of kids you have, when you can be told not to use a
locker room or to use a different locker room because of the way you dress, then
I will believe that you oppose anti-discrimination laws because they infringe on
rights of conscience. But as long as you enjoy the protections of
anti-discrimination laws, denying that same protection to others is
hypocritical. Everyone has a race, religion, ability, age, national
origin, military service background - and sexual orientation. Either oppose them
all or support them all. Stop this hypocritical hair splitting.
The arguments employed in this piece are exactly the same as the arguments used
against the Civil Rights Act and against inter-racial marriage.
As a Mormon and someone who supports marriage equality as well as
non-discrimination laws, it violates my conscience to know I may attend
sacrament with people like Mr. Mero.
The problem with "Non-discrimination laws" is.. they are
discriminatory.If you are not in one of the protected groups... you
don't get the same protections.In America we are guaranteed the
right to "Equal Protection" under the law. That means we don't
have special groups that get EXTRA protections.---I know
it would be nice if these groups didn't NEED extra protection. But I
think the solution is to work on that (work on understanding and getting along
so they don't need extra protection) rather than legislating that some
groups have EXTRA rights, and EXTRA protections, that the rest of the population
don't have.Just my opinion.
In other words, we should not have anti-discrimination laws because that would
prevent people from discriminating in the name of faith or conscience.
@happy2bhere;1) What has "sex" got to do with equal marriage
rights? If you only married for sex, then you shouldn't have married in
the first place because your marriage isn't going to last; especially if
the "sex" goes away or slows down.2) "Equal"
doesn't mean "more equal". Heterosexual is ALSO a sexual
orientation.3) Hobby Lobby is NOT a person, it is a corporation and
as such has no "religion" to violate.4) Religions already
enjoy the First Amendment and won't be forced to do what they don't
want to do.5) We, as a country, are moving in the direction of more
equality, and away from superstitous nonsense. Personally, I find this to be a
@2 bits --"If you are not in one of the protected groups... you
don't get the same protections."That's baloney.EVERYONE is a member of those protected groups.Race is
protected: you have a race. Nobody is allowed to discriminate against you
because of your race.Gender is protected: you have a gender. Nobody is
allowed to discriminate against you because of your gender.Age is
protected: you have an age. Nobody is allowed to discriminate against you
because of your age.Religion is protected: you have a religion. Nobody is
allowed to discriminate against you because of your religion.And so
on.And yes, you have an orientation too.EVERYONE is
protected by anti-discrimination laws.Minorities want EQUAL rights
-- not special rights.
There is no "special right" created. Heterosexual persons and those
with traditional gender would be protected just as equally. The bill prohibits
based on ORIENTATION or Gender IDENTITY, not solely on if someone is gay or
trans. Gay and straight are protected equally.The fact that you
view this is as a "Special right" because a heterosexual person would
never need such protections, just goes to show that you are incorrect about
these laws not being needed.
Mero: "Existing protections for race, national origin and disabilities make
perfect sense because they don't violate the rights of other
people."Mr. Mero might try spending some time sampling white
supremacist websites, where racism and nationalism are enshrouded in religious
justification. Likewise, many people devoutly believe that that a woman's
role is ordained by God as mother and homemaker and that seeking employment
outside the home is against God's will, so they don't hire women.
That we find these minority views repugnant and backwards is immaterial.
Antidiscrimination laws based on sex, race, and national origin DO infringe on
the conscience rights of some people.A hypothetical: A Saudi
immigrant owns a taxi company. He rejects female job applicants because his
faith-informed cultural tradition prohibits women from driving and being
unchaperoned in public. Does Mr. Mero side with the conscience rights of the
company owner to make hiring decisions consistent with his religious beliefs or
with the right of the female job applicants to be free of discrimination not
related to their ability to do the job? If he sides with the women, how is this
different than the "LGBT rights versus conscience rights" case?
To "Ranch" but you are wrong. Utah did not vote to "prevent loving
couples who don't meet the "Gold Standard" from marrying their
SO". They voted on a Utah constitutional ammenement that defines the legal
definition of marriage.Gays are still free to find a willing
minister or official to perform a marriage ceremony. They can do so without any
fear of being arrested.
RedShirt says:"To "Ranch" but you are wrong. Utah did not vote
to "prevent loving couples who don't meet the "Gold Standard"
from marrying their SO". They voted on a Utah constitutional ammenement that
defines the legal definition of marriage."---Which
is effectively the same as voting to prevent loving couples from marrying the
person of their choice, right? Restricting legal marriage to one set directly
denies the right to legal marriage to the other set. Would there be any other
reason to define marriage such as they did other than to restrict it to those
who don't meet the definition's qualifications? Nope.A
marriage without legal recognition is not the same as a marriage with legal
recognition; and you know that.
@RedShirtYou are wrong, RedShirt. Here's the text of
Utah's Amendment 3:1) Marriage consists only of the legal union
between a man and a woman.2) No other domestic union, however denominated,
may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent
legal effect.As you can see, there is a second clause in Amendment 3
which goes considerably further than establishing a definition of marriage. It
spitefully sweeps the back of its hand across the faces of all gays and
lesbians, specifically denying them ANY privileges and responsibilities of
RedShirt: "Gays are still free to find a willing minister or official to
perform a marriage ceremony. They can do so without any fear of being
arrested."But what good is that? A marriage that is not legally
recognized may provide some emotional or spiritual comfort to the couple, but
does it get the couple any of the legal benefits of marriage? Can one spouse be
added to the other's health insurance plan? Can they file joint tax
returns? Do they have hospital visitation rights? Or survivor benefits? Sure,
the couple can go through a wedding ceremony, but if they are not legally
married it's a sham exercise.In your example, a gay couple
won't be arrested simply for saying "I do" in front of a preacher,
but don't they risk arrest for tax fraud if they act like a legally married
couple and file a joint tax return?
To "Ranch" no, nobody is preventing them from being married to the
person of their choice. The best example of this is the polygamists. They may
have one marriage recognized by the state, but every time they add a wife they
go through a marriage ceremony and are married to the person of their choice.In their minds, are the 2nd and 3rd wives any less married than the
first?Don't call it "legal" marriage. Call it for what
it is. Say it with me. The gays don't want marriage, they want the legal
benefits of marriage.Now, if you want to redefine marriage to be any
2 people, are you prepared to support those that want to redefine marriage so
that polygamy is legally recognized?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments