Comments about ‘Ad campaign targets proposed Utah nondiscrimination law’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 18 2013 7:50 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
New to Utah

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 .

Big Joe V
Rancho Cucamonga, CA

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.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

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?

Provo, UT

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.

New to Utah

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?

mid-state, TN

@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.

Riverton, UT

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?

West Jordan, UT

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.

West Jordan, UT

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.

Clifton Palmer McLendon
Gilmer, TX

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!

mid-state, TN

@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.

Lexington, MA

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!

Cedar City, UT

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.

New to Utah

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.

bill in af
American Fork, UT

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

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Clovis, NM

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.

mid-state, TN

@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.

Provo, UT

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.

Marsha N.

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.

to comment

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