@Contrarius"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.
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"
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
@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;and2. 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.
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.
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.
Anything the Eagle Forum is against, I will support. They are extremists who
are a danger to our political system.
Contraixx from middle tenn, yes I disagree with you & the
discrimination ordinance. Right nowI'm visiting family in the Pacific
Northwest & in Portlanda cake decorator was forced to close to me
that's Discrimination so yes in this case I would disagree with
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.
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!
@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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
@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.
Sen Steve Urquhart, few questions: howmuch money have you received from
the legalcommunity to introduce this bill?Since full disclosure is
so important,just thinkAbout the AG's office: Is there money or
influence you are receiving or will receive for being the sponsorof
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
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?
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
As expected the herd of liberal posters jump on thisBandwagon. Thank
goodness for this pushback. Wait untilBishops are forced to perform same
sex marriages. Then templerites have to be made available to same sex
couplesor tax exemption is not allowed. My opinion is after Hollywood and the mainstream media has trashedReligious pro-life people
and those that believe marriageIs a man & woman. It is time to push
back.The senatorHas the wrong bill at the wrong time .
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
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.
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.
“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.
@ AZKID -"Three words: Camel. Nose. Tent."Not to worry, the
GOP's incredible shrinking tent is so small now, there's only room for
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
reg comment by Kings Court, question what 'special rights' to to
whom? Are the Bill of Rights applicable to only some citizens?
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.
I hope they find a real Conservative to run against Steve next election. The
man has sold out his constituents.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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
Three words: Camel. Nose. Tent. If you don't get it, Google
"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.