Ad campaign targets proposed Utah nondiscrimination law


Return To Article
  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 9:56 p.m.


    "If even the church could support it, why can't you?"

    Only the First Presidency, in unanimous agreement with the Quorum of the Twelve, has a right to speak in official behalf of the LDS Church in support of NEW Church doctrine, policy, or posture. Church endorsement of a non-discrimination law easily qualifies as "new." Handbook 2, 21.1.29, D&C 107.

    The statement which Michael Otterson read to the Salt Lake City Council in supposed official Church support of that city's non-discrimination ordinance did NOT carry the required, express imprimatur of the First Presidency. In fact, it carried no name nor signature nor name of any priesthood office at all. And Otterson himself is NOT a Priesthood Authority. He merely is a church employee. Indeed Otterson read his statement in the FIRST PERSON.

    Otterson's statement was, therefore, utterly null and void as an AUTHORITATIVE utterance of official LDS Church policy and posture and should be REJECTED as such.

    Authority matters in LDS doctrine. Latter-Day Saints are given various keys for ascertaining and authenticating required authority.

    Otterson's statement utterly fail these tests. Indeed his very appearance at the City Council meeting was a complete and utter sham.

  • justareader Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    Because "Utahans bend over backwards to be kind and accepting and caring of everyone" is a reason for a law that says we have to bend over backwards to be kind and accepting and caring of everyone. EVERYONE she said it. I think these people do not have enough to do in life, working to make it better than making allot noise, worrying about OTHER people making their life better .Better than WHAT?? Will a nondiscrimination law protect ME or THEM it seems somebody does not want us to get along as it is. If nobody wanted to be better than or have more than most people few people would feel "discriminated" against...IMHO

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    AZKID said in his/her comment ...Three words: Camel. Nose. Tent...If you don't get it, Google it.

    Three words: Camel. Nose. Tent.
    Are these words off topics, if being understood that the slower the move the less likely people going to get upset. If this goes on we may count the results stated in Lamentations of the Old Testament. This is a matter of intelligence to read it !

    "How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed! the stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street.

    The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter!

    For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her. (chapter 4)

    Can we learn a lesson from that regarding the new approach for non-discimination laws ?
    Are we wearing out the meaning of greater laws by introducing smaller rules all the time ?

  • FelisConcolor North Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 8:16 p.m.

    What's funny is that after the way the Federal government forced gay marriage on Utah today this proposed law is deader than a doornail. Like old Marley himself.

    No politician outside of liberal bastions of Park City and the east bench would dare vote for it now.

  • Marsha N. SANDY, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 11:38 a.m.

    The nondiscrimination laws all over the nation ARE trying to remove religion from the social climate today. No public prayers, no "Christmas" in schools, no "In God We Trust" on our money, no importance attached to traditional marriage. I simply cannot understand why a gay man or gay woman would want to use toilet facilities designed to accommodate the opposite gender. It will effect many small and medium sized businesses in alterations and the majority of people will not use public facilities if it means co-mingling the sexes. This is not common sense; it is nothing more than another attempt to do away with conservative values.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    Nothing in economics supposes that people act only on the basis of monetary value. The (instrumental) rationality relevant to economics is that people maximize their personal utility, which is determined by their values, tastes, etc. Nor does economics assume an individual's values are "congruent with the values of the larger society." Disagreement about values, even including racial preferences, does not constitute instrumental irrationality, does not lead by itself to market failures, and is not incompatible with "proper" functioning of a free market and the effects I described. See Nobel laureate Gary Becker's work on the economics of discrimination.

    Your phrase "the majority white population" is incorrect for many jurisdictions; Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi had statewide black majorities until the Great Migration, well after Jim Crow laws were passed; all Southern states except Arkansas and Tennessee were over 40% black and would have had black majorities in many locales. Even in areas where whites held slight majorities, not all whites favored Jim Crow laws. So these laws would not have passed in most jurisdictions had there been fair voting, nor would they have persisted without the continual use of force and the near-universal disenfranchisement of blacks.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 20, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    @Rustymommy --

    "If you are going to protect gay rights to marry, why not polygamous rights to marry? "

    Here we go again.

    There are at least TWO criteria for the legal recognition of any individual right.

    1. There are actually a substantial number of citizens who want to do it;


    2. Legally allowing them to do it won't significantly increase the risk of harm to other citizens.

    Look up the harm principle.

    Gay marriage does not significantly increase risk to anyone, compared to other forms of marriage.

    Polygamy, incest, and so on DO significantly increase risk.

    Therefore gay marriage is becoming legal -- and those other forms are not.

    "...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but) does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships....the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. ..."

    In re Marriage Cases, slip op. at n. 52, 79-80.

  • Rustymommy Clovis, NM
    Dec. 19, 2013 8:59 p.m.

    Anti discrimination laws are on the face discriminatory because they don't protect everybody's rights. If you are going to protect gay rights to marry, why not polygamous rights to marry? You are talking about consenting adults and sexual orientation. Why should one group be protected but not all? If you are going to say that somebody ought to be able to marry anybody they choose, then why is it fair to not include 5 women who all choose the same man (or vice versa)? If you are going to change the definition of marriage, why not open all the floodgates? Banning discrimination for one and not for all would be like banning discrimination against blacks but allowing it against Hispanics.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 6:22 p.m.

    Prodicus: "The pre-Civil Rights Act South was the way it was because of nearly a century of Jim Crow laws, many of which restricted people's rights of association, and many other injustices in law and in government action."

    It's a chicken/egg question. Jim Crow laws did not spontaneously arise de novo. They were passed by democratic processes reflecting the cultural values of the majority white population. Jim Crow did not create racism. Racism created Jim Crow. But they both sustained and perpetuated each other. If Jim Crow was somehow thrust upon an unreceptive public, how did it persist so long?

    Going back to your original post, free markets only function properly when people behave in an economically rational manner, when people act in what is in their economic best interest. Racism, or prejudice in general, throws the wrench of irrationality into the machine. Prejudice distorts the perception of economic self-interest to make association with "like" more valuable than association with "other." The perception of self-interest is not congruent with the values of the larger society (where association with "like" and "other" have equal value). Market failure results.

  • bill in af American Fork, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 5:49 p.m.

    Anything the Eagle Forum is against, I will support. They are extremists who are a danger to our political system.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 5:16 p.m.

    Contraixx from middle tenn, yes I disagree
    with you & the discrimination ordinance. Right now
    I'm visiting family in the Pacific Northwest & in Portland
    a cake decorator was forced to close to me that's
    Discrimination so yes in this case I would disagree with the
    LDS stance.

  • Conservative Cedar City, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 2:51 p.m.

    Anti-LGBT is deeply ingrained into our society. It wasn't long ago when it was a felony to have intimate relations with a person of the same sex. We are very much discriminatory against LGBT. That is until there is one in our family.

    I suspect at one time BYU didn't allow whites and blacks to room together, or even to be in their dorms.

    We need to put these things behind us asap. Just like deeply ingrained racial prejudice still plagues some of us, deeply ingrained anti-LGBT will leave a deep, dark and evil cancer in our hearts. We don't have a century or a decade to get over these changes. In this case, LGBT marriage is around the corner for Utah. We have to be quick to accept the law of the land.

  • jsegovia Lexington, MA
    Dec. 19, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    What's happening to Phil Robertson of TV's Duck Dynasty is indicative of how this works: folks say they just want equal protection but this necessarily leads to everyone being forced to agree with the gay lobby and anyone who doesn't will be punished. Where gay marriage is legal such as here in Massachusetts, people are fired from their jobs and kept off of college faculties and newspaper and TV news staffs if they dare to express a traditional religious view about homosexuality or say they are against gay marriage. Teachers speak openly to children about gay sexual matters and gay students are given rights no heterosexual student has - if a heterosexual male child kisses a young girl's hand he's suspended for sexual harassment but gay students get away with much worse on students of the same sex because they're just expressing their sexuality. Gay people already enjoy the same freedoms and protections under the law as heterosexuals - where's the law that says if someone criticizes my heterosexual marriage or sexual practices they have to be fired from their jobs? Vote no and vote out the Republican state senator who proposed it!

  • Contrariusiests mid-state, TN
    Dec. 19, 2013 2:23 p.m.

    @Clifton Palmer McLendon --

    ""To discriminate" means "to notice a difference.""

    No. You are confusing the "everyday" meaning of "discrimination" with its specific legal meaning.

    The legal definition of discrimination: "In Constitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes."

    Notice especially the word "arbitrary", and the phrase "where no reasonable distinction exists". Lawyer types often also use the phrase "similarly situated".

    Federal anti-discrimination laws aren't actually ridiculous at all.

  • Clifton Palmer McLendon Gilmer, TX
    Dec. 19, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    Federal law forbids discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, handicap, or veteran status.

    "To discriminate" means "to notice a difference.

    Therefore, by Federal law, everyone is of the standard race (whatever that is); everyone believes the standard creed (whatever that is); everyone's skin is the standard color (whatever that is); everyone is descended from ancestors that came from the standard nation (whatever that is), so that everyone is of the standard national origin; everyone is of the standard sex (whatever that is); everyone was born on the standard day of the standard month in the standard year (whatever that is), so everyone is of the standard age; everyone suffers from the standard handicap (whatever that is); and everyone enjoys the standard veteran status (whatever that is).

    Whenever you are expected to fill out a form and indicate your race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, handicap, or veteran status, the only response required by Federal law is "standard."

    ... and thus we see how ridiculous Federal anti-discrimination laws are!

  • Kelliebelle66 West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    In my previous comment I mentioned I am LDS with gay family. My brother was raised in the LDS church. We have both agreed that we support and love each other 100% despite our differences. When you have someone you love it is easy to see how it is possible to get along with people who are different and have love and respect. He and his partner come to family activities without being excluded. It is too bad that we have to have a law to see that it is common sense that people should not be fired from their job if they are different or that they shouldn't get an apartment because they are gay. And conversely my brother doesn't demand i change my religious beliefs. In fact he recently commented that he felt sad that in his culture he felt forced to divorce himself from spiritual things. I encouraged him to still have a relationship with God which has brought him peace. In being kind and tolerant and realizing it is part of God's plan that people come to earth and have the agency to live their lives is not anti-religious.

  • Kelliebelle66 West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    If anybody is suffering discrimination because of their beliefs in the housing market, the job market I believe that is wrong. And by ensuring that everyone is enjoying basic freedoms and rights as set forth in the Constitution doesn't mean that we are condoning behavior or lifestyles we disagree with. If one person is suffering real discrimination then we should be worried and wonder if our group is next. I am LDS. I have gay family members and I would hate to see them persecuted and vice versa. I was disturbed to read a story about a family who lost their bakery because they refused to bake a cake for wedding for a lesbian couple citing their religious beliefs. The lesbian couple, citing discrimination, sued the family and they lost their bakery. The courts upheld the suit. The couple was still able to get their cake elsewhere and they had their wedding, yet they wanted to force their beliefs on someone else who cited their constitutional right to freedom of religion. The same group begging for tolerance and rights refused to have tolerance for the bakery owners. Equal rights and tolerance goes both ways.

  • JenicaJessen Riverton, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    I'd like to actually read the bill before getting up in arms about it. Does anybody know the official name/number of the proposed law?

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 19, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    @New to Utah --

    "As expected the herd of liberal posters jump on this Bandwagon. "

    Hmmm. This is probably the first time I've ever heard the LDS church grouped with a herd of liberal anything. ;-)

    Remember -- the LDS church officially SUPPORTED anti-gay-discrimination legislation when it was passed in SLC. If even the church could support it, why can't you?

    @Prodicus --

    "It did not arrive at that state through a process of free individual decisions regarding association."

    Nope. That particular process led to slavery.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    Sen Steve Urquhart, few questions: how
    much money have you received from the legal
    community to introduce this bill?
    Since full disclosure is so important,just think
    About the AG's office: Is there money or influence
    you are receiving or will receive for being the sponsor
    of this bill?

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    Lagomorph: The pre-Civil Rights Act South was the way it was because of nearly a century of Jim Crow laws, many of which restricted people's rights of association, and many other injustices in law and in government action. It did not arrive at that state through a process of free individual decisions regarding association. Without the legal framework that kept blacks disenfranchised and impoverished and kept private citizens from accommodating them as they wished, the post-Reconstruction South would have evolved along the lines I mentioned. To the extent that government intervention was justified, it was only justified as a short-to-medium-term attempt to correct evils caused by previous government intervention, not as a permanent intrusion on the freedom of association.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    We once thought we had the freedom NOT to provide cakes and flowers to people for their gay wedding.
    And we thought we could turn down requests to provide photos and music as well.
    We were wrong.
    Do I have a right to refuse to subsidize sex change operations? Must I pay taxes so public employees in Utah can have that benefit?
    How about Hobby Lobby? Do they have to provide such coverage to their employees?
    Does the church have to hire gays and provide same-sex coverage?

  • Big Joe V Rancho Cucamonga, CA
    Dec. 19, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    Give an inch, take a mile. It's the old game of wearing down the opposition. You may talk about all the noble principals you think are more important than the reality of their effect, but you have still diminished my liberty and agency. When life was governed by respect (by both sides) and common sense in general is now being replaced by over regulation to replace your conscience.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    As expected the herd of liberal posters jump on this
    Bandwagon. Thank goodness for this pushback. Wait until
    Bishops are forced to perform same sex marriages. Then temple
    rites have to be made available to same sex couples
    or tax exemption is not allowed. My opinion is after
    Hollywood and the mainstream media has trashed
    Religious pro-life people and those that believe marriage
    Is a man & woman. It is time to push back.The senator
    Has the wrong bill at the wrong time .

  • Erika Salem, Utah
    Dec. 19, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    In a perfect world, nondiscrimination laws would be a waste of time. Laws don't need to be made where there are no problems. If we are so inclusive, why would we need to make a law enforcing it? We don't have "no punching people" rules in my house because it has never been a problem. The bill of rights would have effectively covered everyone, except the country had some problems applying them to everyone. Are the laws we have with regard to fairness in employment and housing enough as they are? That is the significant question.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    Article: "The 'First Freedoms Compact' includes tolerance, fairness, mutual respect and working toward the common good."

    Then they should be first in line to support the legislation.

    Prodicus: "For instance, generally, without Jim Crow laws, a business which refuses to cater to people of one race loses business to its competitors."

    Your example fails in places like the pre-Civil Rights Act South where racial prejudice was deeply ingrained in the culture. In that case, the business that opened its doors to blacks would lose market share because the white majority would go elsewhere. Sometimes government intervention in the marketplace is justified to correct a structural imbalance.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    The trouble with these kinds of laws is that to prove discrimination against anyone is like trying to read peoples minds. Rarely will an employer or apartment owner put out a sign that says no (fill in the blank) allowed. The laws of this country already cover these issues. Bottom line, this is nothing more than ammo for LAWYERS IN UTAH, to make more money. Stinks.

  • Dirty Hippee Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    “I think Utahns are very hospitable. In a lot of ways we bend over backwards to be kind and accepting and caring of everyone, so for that reason, a lot of Utahns think a nondiscrimination law would be a good idea.”

    Yep, Utahns are hospitable and bend over backwards to be kind even in rush hour traffic.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    @ AZKID -"Three words: Camel. Nose. Tent."

    Not to worry, the GOP's incredible shrinking tent is so small now, there's only room for his "Nose."

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 19, 2013 7:55 a.m.

    As pointed out in the article, the LDS church itself supported SLC's anti-gay-discrimination ordinance.

    If anti-gay-discrimination laws are good enough for the church, then who are y'all to oppose them??

    It's been said before, but it's worth saying again: anti-discrimination laws protect EVERYONE. Everyone has a gender; everyone has a sexual orientation; everyone has a gender identity.

    These laws protect YOU against discrimination just as much as they protect anyone else.

  • TDS Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 7:10 a.m.

    Democracy cuts both ways. On the one hand it may give us certain rights but simultaneously it can also take rights away. For instance if you choose not to marry or have kids, as a working adult you will pay more taxes over your life time than someone who is married with dependants. Discriminatory? While there may be a rational for this decision it benefits one group at the expense of another.

    However, the nondiscrimination act as layed out in this legislation is a universal protection as we all have virtually the same set of classifications - it will enhance freedom for all. Moe specifically, it will help groups like refugees, women, Hispanics, gays, and disabled individuals, who are frequently discriminated against find, housing and employment opportunities. People that don't like this legislation are disingenuous in saying they shouldn't be forced to "associate" with others - immplying that they will somehoe lose their ability to form individualized social relationships. Landlords, businesses, and employers do not form the same social relations as do individuals but rather are driven by profit. Therefore anyone with green money, or appropriate work skill set, should be given equal opportunity to access housing, commerce, or emloyment.

  • djc Stansbury Park, Ut
    Dec. 19, 2013 7:06 a.m.

    After all Utah has such a proud history of inclusion as was told last week in all the media. I am amazed that people who have been subject to massive amounts of discrimination are against protections for others. It is high time that we followed the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and practiced loving all of our brothers and sisters on this planet. Because some are different is the reason some folks here in Utah feel the need to treat them badly. If a law can help protect these children of God then the law should be passed. Those that wantonly treat these people are badly are the problem, not the law.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 6:48 a.m.

    If someone could show me how being fair to gay couples in housing hurts peoples traditional marriages, I would consider not supporting this bill, on the condition that other accomidations are made for gay couples, such as special housing.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 6:36 a.m.

    It is all about freedom and the willingness to take it away from other people. The examples in numerous states of people being forced to participate in gay weddings or artificially inseminating lesbian couples should be a warning to all. What you do is not my business and what I do is not yours. If I do not like what you do, I have the right to not be invovled in it in any way. Otherwise I am not really free.

    Moreover, the loss of freedom is one way. Look at the guy from Duck Dynasty, he expresses his opinion and he is off his show. He is being discriminated against based on expressing his belief. Do you think an antidiscrimination law will be used against A&E? Nope. It will be illegal not to rent or employ gays and transgender folks, but if you express your religious beliefs you will get fired or boycotted. When was the last time you heard of someone getting fired for making anti-christian comments.

    Non-discrimination law take away freedom and become a tool of the left to go after those they do not like. This change is a bad idea.

  • Florien Wineriter Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 6:21 a.m.

    reg comment by Kings Court, question what 'special rights' to to whom? Are the Bill of Rights applicable to only some citizens?

  • TimBehrend Auckland NZ, 00
    Dec. 19, 2013 6:05 a.m.

    AZKID is right with his camel's nose allusion. In this case the camel is greater fairness, a slightly closer step towards equality, than some prefer not to allow into their tent of privilege.

  • adamgale La Verkin, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 5:27 a.m.

    I hope they find a real Conservative to run against Steve next election. The man has sold out his constituents.

  • CP Tooele, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 4:42 a.m.

    To AZKID: I get it! I have known about that for quite awhile and we always tell our children that story. Camel, Nose, Tent! And you're slowly out! And that say's it all.

  • pcguardian Santiago, 00
    Dec. 19, 2013 4:33 a.m.

    Despite its pious appearance, no civilization has ever been built or sustained under the sterile principle of "non-discrimination".

    The game with these laws is to confuse basic human respect with public acceptance of conducts and demands minority groups push against the structure that conforms, and has made a community viable in the first place. This is were the left meets the big economic interests, as we now see in the whole Western world, where these non-discrimination laws serve primarily two functions: silence dissent from the ongoing reativistic deconstruction of moral norms, and prevent opposition to the liberalization of the labor market (mass immigration), both under the threat of legal prosecution and/or media vilification.

    Sadly, one sees well intended people adhering to these initiatives that corrode the social fabric, because they are well trained by the media in the religion of feelgoodism.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 10:01 p.m.

    Religious conservatives so often deride racial and sexual minorities as playing the "victim". It is becoming obvious to me that such labeling represents a classic example of Freudian projection.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 9:49 p.m.

    @Kings: it's not that discrimination doesn't exist, it's that the government should not be overriding our freedom of association to force one group's social opinions on everyone else.

    Laws that force people to associate against their will are no better than Jim Crow laws that force people not to associate in such ways.

    "Discrimination" just means recognizing a distinction; all social decisions involve recognizing and acting upon distinctions, whether that's "no shirt no shoes no service" or "who will we allow to join our bowling team."

    Absent laws that override people's freedom of association, in the long run the distinctions that people base their actions on will be ones that make sense for society. For instance, generally, without Jim Crow laws, a business which refuses to cater to people of one race loses business to its competitors.

    The government has no business meddling in these decisions or trying to come up with a list of which distinctions people may or may not take into account in choosing who they will give their money to, who they will make a contract with, who they will befriend, or who they will spend their lives with.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 9:19 p.m.

    Everyone has a race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Nondiscrimination laws protect everyone.

    And if you think there is no need for nondiscrimination laws, let's remove religion and see how that goes.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 9:12 p.m.

    Three words: Camel. Nose. Tent.

    If you don't get it, Google it.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 8:39 p.m.

    "Even though nondiscrimination laws sound reasonable, they're not. They give special rights to some at the expense of others, and they'll harm our first freedoms," Bunker said.

    If we extend this logic to its "logical conclusion" then we shouldn't have any nondiscrimination laws on the books at all. Laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc is giving special rights to some at the expense of others. These groups that are against "nondiscrimination laws" are basically saying that discrimination does not exist, so there is no need to define the various forms of discrimination and codify them into law.