Quantcast
Utah

Same-sex marriage debate could impact proposed Utah nondiscrimination bill

Comments

Return To Article
  • luvbug WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 7:08 p.m.

    Not agreeing with a gay person's lifestyle doesn't make a person discriminatory. Everyone has a right to live and stand up by their own convictions and morals.

  • Kora Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    People supporting this anti-discrimination law forget that they too discriminate, just in other ways. The gay rights community consistently discriminates against those who disagree with them. After Prop 8 passed in California, many Mormons lost their jobs when they were discovered to have supported the proposition, especially those who gave many to support it. The gay rights community reserves the right, and constantly refuse to do business with stores organizations that don't support their agenda. Is that not discrimination? Why is it acceptable by these groups? I suspect many gay supportive or gay run businesses want the right to not hire someone who is opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage. Why is this protected and considered acceptable?
    Christians are being required to provide services they disagree with to protect the "rights of gays", but I don't see the same protections offered to neo-nazis and racist groups. Why is that if we are supposed to not discriminate against anyone.

    Here is the reality of liberalism, they are tolerant only if you agree with their viewpoint. Once you disagree, the tolerance goes out the window, and you are labeled as a hateful person or hate group.

  • formerteacher Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:49 p.m.

    I appreciate your article bringing this issue to light. The proposed legislation has nothing to do with the marriage debate. Groups such as the Sutherland Institute obviously have their own agenda! The proposed legislation would do nothing to stop any business from their beliefs. Look how long the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" has been in existence! It would not compromise any business from not accepting a customer that differs from their philosophical difference. This legislation would only work to curb work and living discrimination, which I believe we can all (or should believe in...

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 6:02 p.m.

    I think that comparing homosexuals to child predators and molesters is old, inaccurate, and highly inflammatory. How can we keep the discussions here civil when we allow such comments through?

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:31 p.m.

    How, may I ask, does a law that fights discrimination, take away freedom of religion? Well, they mentioned all the lovely people who discriminated against gay people and said that they were forced into doing something they didn't believe in! So, actually their freedom of religion is freedom to discriminate! Poor picked on mam probably almost died making that cake for gay people! I would be embarrassed to act that way towards somebody! I have a problem with people who think that discrimination is acceptable!

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 14, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    To "Baccus0902" why are you lumping me into something that I have said nothing about. I never said that the LGBT people are trying to destroy something sacred. I have only said that those who claim that discrimination is evil are hypocrites because they discriminate all the time. The difference is when and why you discriminate.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 14, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    @Vanceone, your "the sky is falling" routine is getting old and more desperate. There is no such thing as a "lawless liberal judge," unless he lives out back in your "Jewish pork restaurant."

    Any time in its history, can you point to a Mormon Temple being ordered to marry anyone? Can you point to any major or minor religion in the United States ever being ordered to give baptismal, confirmation, marriage or funeral rites to anyone? Ever? No, never. Go reread the First Amendment, slowly.

    Back in the secular world for a second: Public accommodations law is about who can sit at the lunch counter, not what's on the menu.

    Having solved Utah's homophobia problem, let's work on that transphobia one, although it's not at issue here. Do you know how many MtF and even FtM trans folk have been raped and/or murdered because of who they are? It's in the thousands. The reverse is not true. When it comes to public safety discussions, let's please take into account who the victims are here.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Jan. 14, 2014 3:13 p.m.

    VanceOne wrote: "Why do they hate the idea of churches being legally exempt from marrying gays unless they had plans to force churches?"

    That is a good question. I believe that very few gays harbor desires to "force churches," but I know that Satan very much desires to weaken churches.

    Gays deserve this employment and residence protection, and their cause is just. The law should be passed, hopefully with a few appropriate amendments.

    However, this law will add to other laws, past and future, and their combined weight will make religion and religious people very vulnerable.

    One day when the time is right, Satan will entice anti-religious groups to use this combination of laws as a weapon against the First Amendment, and the damage to all of us will be enormous.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    From Vermont’s Same Sex Marriage law:

    Statutory provisions on who may solemnize marriages were amended to include this provision:
    [18 VAA Sec. 5144(b): ] This section does not require a member of the clergy ... to solemnize any marriage, and any refusal to do so shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.


    NJ does not have a religious exemption, but they still must live by the constitution and part of the constitution is freedom of religion.

    Can you show me where any state or country that has gay marriage has had a gay couple sue to be married in a temple there? London? Alberta? Boston? Los Angeles? Hawaii? Buenos Aires? DC? Copenhagen? South Africa? New Zealand? CT? Madrid? Manhattan? Mexico City? Paris? Sweden? The Netherlands? Etc.?

    I think you may be fear-mongering. There is no reason to have this fear and especially to pass it on.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 14, 2014 2:40 p.m.

    Vanceone, Redshirt,

    How can we communicate when you are not stating facts?

    You are acting under "the presumption" that LGBT are after destruction of religion and businesses.

    Unless you can provide irrefutable facts, which you have not, we have to take your statements as emotional outburst produced perhaps by fear, bigotry, misunderstanding or a myriad of other possible reasons.

    Most LGBT in the western world identify themselves with a religion, Catholic, LDS, Episcopal, or other. Why anybody would like to destroy something they consider sacred? or Why anybody would like to marry in a church that doesn't want to bless his/her union?

    Have you ever asked or known somebody who have asked for pork in a Jewish/Kosher Restaurant? Why would LGBT people many of whom run "fabulous" eating places would like to do something that may come back and hurt them?

    The DN published an article about being "civil". Part of that civility requires that in order to communicate we discuss issues bringing to the table facts, laws, history and any other verifiable tool. Is that too much to ask?

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 2:02 p.m.

    Lane: I read about the case, yes. Unscrupulous lawyer or no, the next one will be filed with all the requirements filled. I don't think that anyone else, like a Catholic, has ever wanted to be married in an LDS temple and tried. Can you point to a case where the LDS (or any other church, for that matter), has been sued for not providing a religious ceremony? Most people get it. It's only the SSM advocates who are on record as saying the 1st Amendment freedoms are overruled by gay rights.

    You want to know how I know the gays have designs on our religious freedoms? Because in several states that have tried to work out compromises--legalized gay marriage in exchange for statutory exemptions for churches ensuring they won't be forced to marry gays--the gay lobby has turned it down unless the exemption is removed. New Jersey, Vermont stand out. Why do they hate the idea of churches being legally exempt from marrying gays unless they had plans to force churches?

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 2:01 p.m.

    Vanceone, all we have to do is look at the case of Hosana Tabor vs EEOC to see that yes, the First Amendment does give religions wide exceptions to the laws which businesses must follow. In this case SCOTUS unanimously said that churches have full control over their doctrinal beliefs.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:50 p.m.

    Vanceone

    "But the LDS church has married millions of people. Why wouldn't a judge tell them that they have to marry gays too? Because "1st Amendment?" It hasn't protected anyone else so far, why would some liberal gay judge let it interfere here? We already saw a lawsuit against the LDS church for "depriving gays of their rights to marry" in the first couple of days after Shelby's ruling."
    -------------

    Has the LDS church ever had to marry someone from another religion in their temples? Why not? Because they have that freedom to discriminate. Not only no one from another religion has been married in there, but they are abole to say No to people of their own faith! Look to MA - no gay couple has filed to marry in the Boston temple yet and it has been about 10 years.

    If you had been reading the paper, you would have noted that the law suit was a hoax--it was not entered into by the gay couple who wed, but by a lawyer who is going to be brought before the bar for filing a law suit without the knowledge of those whom he filed for. Very unscruplous.

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:50 p.m.

    People...people...Gays and lesbians are not asking for any special status. They are just asking for a seat at the table. We all are entitled to our religious freedoms but when those freedoms relegate good tax-paying citizens who are not hurting anyone to a second class status then a line must be drawn. We are protected by law to have our religious beliefs in our homes and in our houses of worship. But when we enter the public arena and demand our beliefs to be the law of land we are asking for trouble. Please stop this nonsense and understand our lives will not change. The only thing that will change is our further acceptance of our fellow citizens.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:37 p.m.

    Lane Meyer: But the LDS church has married millions of people. Why wouldn't a judge tell them that they have to marry gays too? Because "1st Amendment?" It hasn't protected anyone else so far, why would some liberal gay judge let it interfere here? We already saw a lawsuit against the LDS church for "depriving gays of their rights to marry" in the first couple of days after Shelby's ruling.

    Look, this state is UNIQUELY experienced with what it means to be on the "wrong" side of the marriage debate in this country. I have ancestors who spent time in jail because they disagreed with the culture of marriage that the Feds imposed on them. And right now gay marriage is the culture of marriage that the Feds are trying to impose on the country. And if you think groups like GLAAD will ever rest until Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, and any other Christian who refuses to sanction gay marriage are stripped of all their rights (as indeed happened in the territory of Idaho to Mormons)-then you are indeed Naive. Look what they tried to do to Phil Robertson, the most popular reality star.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:37 p.m.

    @Vanceone
    "Should a Jewish Restaurant be forced to serve pork and non-kosher food? According to the gay rights people on here, yes."

    No. The issue is whether a business can provide a service to some poeple but not all people. A Jewish restaurant not serving pork at all is not an equivalent situation.

    "Should the Little Sisters of the Poor be forced to pay to abort children? The liberals say, YES! It's business, after all. "

    Actually they have a religious exemption in the healthcare bill. Their lawsuit is because they feel having to file the paperwork to claim it is too much of a burden.

    "Jenny and Jane, a lesbian couple, apply to work custodial at the Salt Lake Temple, midnight shift. Should the Church be able to turn them down? The liberals say no. "

    It's a church-specific position (rather than a church owned business) so yeah the Church can turn them down.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:22 p.m.

    @A Quaker illuminates the heart of the matter: the tension between the dominant religious/political culture's desire to rule without restriction, based on a religiously-fueled majority will, versus the fact that Utah is indeed part of the United States and subject to Constitutional principles and decades of jurisprudence protecting individual freedom and equality.

    There's a poignancy in the confusion on display. People who consider themselves good-hearted (who obviously are in many ways) find themselves characterized as small-minded and bigoted, not recognizing they've behaved in small-minded, bigoted ways-- expressing ignorance and prejudice, rushing to enshrine their religious views in exclusionary laws targeting the object of their prejudice-- are hurt by charges of mean-spiritedness.

    While arguing the *right to their beliefs* exempts them from charges of bigotry, they fail to see that those *beliefs* are the REASON for their bigotry. This creates pathos. Like fish that do not know what water is.

    A self-centered worldview infrequently challenged causes empathy to atrophy.

    Peace of mind requires the humility to recognize that one's own religious choices, however strongly felt, are one's own, and do not rule the day in a pluralistic society.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:09 p.m.

    DeepShirt, no one is talking about abridging the rights of the consumer. Your example doesn't fit.

    How about this one? I disagree with Mormon doctrine. I shouldn't be forced to hire Mormons. How's that? But guess what. Religion is a protected class, tho already protected by laws like this. This isn't creating special rules only for LGBT people, it's including them in the protections you already enjoy.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    Anything to denigrate the gay and lesbian community just like they used to do to us African Americans.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:57 p.m.

    Vanceone: "Should a Jewish Restaurant be forced to serve pork and non-kosher food? According to the gay rights people on here, yes. If they don't want to, they shouldn't be in business. "

    -----------

    If the Jewish restaurant has served pork to one of its customers, it needs to serve any all all customers that ask for it -

    The law does not make a business do something it has never done before, it just makes it do the same for all people. Why is that so hard to understand?

    The LDS church and all churches have always been exempt - as they would be with this law.

    I think you have convoluted this issue when it is pretty simple: The golden rule.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    It is funny how we have people on the left denouncing discrimination like it is a bad thing. Discrimination can be a good thing too.

    Imagine you have a teenage daughter who needs help in math. There is person in you neighborhood that offers to tutor her for a reasonable price, however he is on the sex offender registry for molesting several teenage daughter. If you are a liberal that says discrimination is bad then you are a hypocrite if you say that you would not send your daughter to this man for help in math.

    Discrimination can be a good thing when used to protect.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    Meckofahess: "I believe the silent majority of Utahns agree with your assessment."

    Perhaps not. Another paper is reporting new polling today showing support for SSM in Utah at 48% (equal to the opposition), support for any legal recognition of SS relationships at 55%, and support for SS civil unions at 72%. That's not national polling, that's right here in Utah. The handwriting is on the wall. The trend is towards increasing support for LGBT concerns.

    Meckofahess: "I would ony add that I think both the gay and straight communities should see if there is some 'middle ground' which respects the needs, concerns and rights of both sides."

    The middle ground for both sides is that the nondiscrimination bills are worded in terms of characteristics that all of us have (age, race, sexual orientation, ability, etc.). They do not give anyone "special" rights, they only guarantee equal rights for groups that historically have been discriminated against assymmetrically. SB100 is a gay bill only in that gays have taken the brunt of employment and housing discrimination relative to straights and stand to benefit more, but it protects both gays and straights.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    @NewToUtah 11:33 a.m. Jan. 14, 2014

    The cake bakers in New Mexico and Portland Oregon did not lose their business by having "conscience issues" -- they lost their business because they broke the nondiscrimination laws in place and which they agreed to follow when they obtained their business licenses. If they in fact had "conscience issues" then they would have problems with serving fornicators or adulterers or thieves, or profaners, or divorced people . . . fill in any other sin -- and would not provide cakes for them too. The bakers in question just wanted to discriminate based on sexual orientation -- something they had agreed not to do -- and were held accountable.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    @Meckofahess
    "I would ony add that I think both the gay and straight communities should see if there is some "middle ground" which respects the needs, concerns and rights of both sides. "

    Being able to be fired or booted out of an apartment just because of sexual orientation is not really compromisable (other than I suppose church owned positions/housing). By the way, they wouldn't have "special rights" non-discrimination ordinances on sexual orientation apply to straight people too, if somehow a person would ever be fired from a job just because they're straight.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    Quaker,

    The most basic of all LDS beliefs is liberty. God gave us to the opportunity to choose to be good of our own free will. Satan's plan was to force us to do good. The US Constitution enshrines those rights. Tyrannies use force. Contrary to your post, the LDS Church believes in gentle persuasion and free will.

    I'd bet the vast majority of those on this thread who have a differing view from yours, believe that gay people should be treated with kindness and respect and that it is wrong to discriminate against them. The question is how much government force should be brought into the equation. Given the way the judiciary has a tendency to overstep its bounds, I understand the reluctance to give it more ammo.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:59 a.m.

    It's openly admitted in this thread: the gay rights supporters here state that you can practice your religion in your home and inside your church--but nowhere else. That you do not have the right to practice your religious beliefs in business dealings, or in public discourse. You MUST bow to their demands otherwise.

    Should a Jewish Restaurant be forced to serve pork and non-kosher food? According to the gay rights people on here, yes. If they don't want to, they shouldn't be in business. Should the Little Sisters of the Poor be forced to pay to abort children? The liberals say, YES! It's business, after all.

    Tell me, what freedom of religion do we have if all our activities are judged to be "business" or in "the public square?"

    What about this? Jenny and Jane, a lesbian couple, apply to work custodial at the Salt Lake Temple, midnight shift. Should the Church be able to turn them down? The liberals say no.

    In the gay rights era, there's not much left of the freedom of religion.

  • philipcfromnyc Far Rockaway, NY
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    @KarenR -- "Discriminate all you want in the privacy of your temples, churches, and homes. But the minute we or our businesses step into the public sphere, we are ALL accountable to the same public laws. That's the deal of our republic. We need to stop exempting religious institutions that offer services to the general public from meeting the same standards the rest of us must meet."

    THANK YOU! This is precisely the point which I have made repeatedly, and it is an almost verbatim repetition of what I have been saying for many years! Separationist churches -- continue, by all means, to refuse to marry interracial couples. That is your right. But when members of your congregation enter the free market, they are required to play by the same rules as any other group. Perhaps the non-discrimination bill in question would stand a greater chance of passing were this principle to be made explicit in the bill's provisions...

    PHILIP CHANDLER

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    Michael D, recent cake bakers in New Mexico and Portland Oregon lost their business by having
    conscience issues with baking a cake for gays and lesbians. I have lived in liberal land and the there is no protection if you are not politically correct. That includes judges,city officials, and the state goverments.Look at the facts and make your own conclusions.

  • philipcfromnyc Far Rockaway, NY
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    When a person enters the realm of commerce, some rights taken for granted in the personal realm are either sacrificed or are greatly watered down in the public arena. I refer, for example, to comments made by Rand Paul, who claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (one of the most widely praised legislative initiatives of the last century) should not apply to private businesses. In Paul's world, a restaurant should be able to turn away an interracial couple. Whether or not Paul likes it, this Act DOES apply to private businesses -- the owner of a motel cannot refuse to rent a room to an interracial couple on the grounds that his religious beliefs are affronted by doing so.

    And so it is with sexual orientation. In roughly half the states in the country, legislation exists which prevents sexual orientation discrimination in housing, employment, and access to places of public accommodation (e.g., restaurants, hotels, and department stores). These laws have been held by the courts to be legitimate exercises of the Commerce Clause. Quite simply, when you enter the public domain, you sacrifice some of the rights you enjoy as a private citizen. This has been established repeatedly.

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    Red Corvette "RE: "The legislation, Assembly Bill 1266...Trust me. That is NOT going to happen in Utah. That nonsense was passed by the Democratic state legislature. A very liberal left-wing legislature. Utah does not have such a legislature. Never has and never will."

    And yet, Utah is in this battle over same-sex marriage.

    Yet, Assembly Bill 1266 happened, and now some of the country's most conservative counties are forced to apply the law. A 14-year old girl may have to see a young man in her locker room.

    For this reason, the northern counties are voting in the fall to secede from California to form the State of Jefferson and the southern counties; San Diego, Orange, Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, are discussing to do the same. (Then it goes to Congress that won't pass a Democratic Senate.)

    Trust me. The liberal agenda DOES happen in conservative America.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:15 a.m.

    @Susan Roylance

    Bravo Susan for speaking the truth and for having the courage to raise your voice in defense of everyone's rights!!

    You said:"What is the point of the non-discrimination bill before the legislature? It is probably on a list of bills that the gay and lesbian community are trying to pass, to get special consideration. All people should be treated equally, not receive special consideration because they have chosen a specific lifestyle".

    I believe the silent majority of Utahns agree with your assessment.

    I would ony add that I think both the gay and straight communities should see if there is some "middle ground" which respects the needs, concerns and rights of both sides.

    Alas,the comments posted depict a dearth of that spirit from the gay community. Many Gay citizens seem to only have an agenda to try to FORCE their will on the citizens of the state.

    We must stand up for rights that are fair to all citizens and avoid creating a "special class" of citizens that have different rights than the rest of us!

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    "or a baker for religious reasons refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding."

    What?

    I understand the photographer in New Mexico that was forced to attend a same-sex marriage and take romantic pictures of the couple. ...you can't make people do stuff like that. The court is wrong.

    But, c'mon. The proposed story like the baker is just making your case look worse not better.

  • dbrbmw Orem, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    Breaking news, judges don't read comments.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    I suspect the legal battle over Gay Marriage may make any other kind of legislation about Gay rights "radioactive." That is what has happened in other states. Its easier to kick the can down the road than try and have a rational discussion on the merits of this particular bill.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    @ tgurd: Have you read the bill? It very clearly defines everything.

    @ Meck: "The notion that the right of privacy of individals in public restrooms and locker rooms is allowed to be violated..." You are the one that wants to violate privacy. You want to verify that every individual who enters a locker room or restroom has a physical appearance that matches their genetic code. Contrary to popular fear mongering, we are not talking about men with full beards wearing dresses or high school boys who are seeking a thrill. We are discussing individuals who dress, look, and act like the gender they identify with and who you would never know are transgender without being told.

    Speaking of beards and dresses, though - about a year ago there was a news story about a picture on the web of a woman with a full beard wearing yoga pants and sandals. Someone took a picture because they thought she was a freak. The woman is Sikh. Sikhs believe in honoring the bodies God gave them and feel that any body modification is a sin. Should this woman with a beard be forced to use the men's restroom?

  • BlackDiamond Provo, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    Just Stop It!

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 14, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    Reading some of these comments, I find myself having to ask a question...

    Why did Utah ever even want to join the United States in the first place? What was that all about? You could have been your own little insular theocracy off in the desert, with a fence all around, persecuting whoever you wanted, not just excommunicating heretics and apostates, but imprisoning or executing them as an example to others. The Book of Mormon could have been not just your religious foundation, but the basis of your entire government, with the Prophets as governors and the Twelve as your Supreme Court.

    Why did you just throw away such a perfect chance at your religious Utopia?

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    The majority of the comments opposing the bill show exactly why it is necessary.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    After reading the comments on the Deseret News over the past year, I have come to the conclusion that people only see and hear what they want to see and hear. The hyperbole that is expressed on both sides of the issue are what is keeping us from coming together and looking out for the interests of all citizens. There is a wide gulf separating people, and it's keeping Utah from becoming a truly great state it has the potential of becoming.

    The only way I see us coming together is by declaring 2014 the year of service. With that in mind, I think we should set aside our differences and work side by side to serve the underserved in our communities. Together--gay and straight--we could serve at the homeless shelters, clean our parks, and work on ways to clean the air along the Wasatch Front. We don't talk about politics nor our particular agendas during these times of service; we just serve. That's the only way we will learn to love and accept one another.

    I am serious about doing this. Who's with me?

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    LOU Montana, Guess what! People everywhere discriminate, even in your precious liberal Pueblo Colorado. They discriminate against Christians, conservatives, whites, and males, or especially Christian conservative white males. Discrimination is discrimination no matter who it is against.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 14, 2014 9:02 a.m.

    Gay marriage is just one step in a progression.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    I've found a serious lack of civility and palpable lack of empathy coming from the advocates of gay marriage lately. When it was still an inkling in the minds of a few, those seeking consideration were a lot more genteel. they would appeal to the common decency we all hold. Now it is being treated like a given--something they demand or the world will end.

    I find this transition in attitude very destructive. It's as if those now starting to see their political agenda fulfilled have no care for any person or need to show respect for any who might struggle to find the legalization of their personal mindset.

    Oh well, I guess this is the new body politic. More emotion, less reason. More protests, less compromise. All hail our new masters! The beatings will continue til morale improves.

  • sjames AMERICAN FORK, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    @Bob K
    "Take the example of Catholic hospitals not wanting to provide contraception. Do women working their have fewer rights?"

    No they don't. Contraception is not a right. That's like me saying that I have a right (for my health) to a job that provides me with a gym pass and that my employer should pay.

    It is unconstitutional to FORCE any group to exercise their freedom of religion. If the Catholic church does not support abortion or contraception, they can't be forced to provide it.

  • Michael-D Riverton, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    A private business / organization has the RIGHT,, to refuse service to anyone they choose, Gay or Straight. If a Baker does not want to bake your cake,,that really is his / her business decision,, however I think the Gay crowd will find that they are met with kindness and respect in Utah by the majority usually referenced in these articles.

    Governments are run and bound by law, usually dictated by the constituents through representation. In Utah, this was already ratified in 2004 by the majority in Utah. SSM is not recognized by the states majority of constituents. There are other groups in Utah that feel their unions should be recognized by the State, the country and other religion as well, why not allow them to stand up, file a law suite in contrast to the beliefs of the majority in Utah.

    There really is no point of being a State if the Fed can manipulate the laws of the State.. There are so many states violating the Constitutionally given rights vis loophole regulation and executive order these days.. It is rampant across the country.. Hopefully the law stands.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    Utah voters are acutely aware of how one unelected judge can overstep his bounds and force his will on all the people. The anti discrimination bill should not be passed. There are plenty of laws on the books to protect home buyers and renters. It is legislation that in so many other states has set the stage for liberal judges to be creative in forcing their agenda on the people.

  • Susan Roylance
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    What is the point of the non-discrimination bill before the legislature? It is probably on a list of bills that the gay and lesbian community are trying to pass, to get special consideration. All people should be treated equally, not receive special consideration because they have chosen a specific lifestyle. Yes, I said "chosen." I have been involved in the international public policy area for over 20 years, and I have seen an almost missionary zeal from homosexuals to promote their lifestyle. In Beijing, at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, one of the lesbian promoters said to me, "try it, you'll like it." And, in 1977 at the national Women's Conference, celebrating the International Year of Women, the huge conference hall in Dallas, Texas, was filled with booths promoting lesbian devices and how-to manuals. They have been very successful in moving their agenda into the legislature and the courts. Those who support the natural family of a husband and wife, with both a mother and father for the children they conceive, as the best method for raising children, need to speak up!

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    So conservatives want to be able to resort to discrimination? It's that simple. This isn't Christianity at work.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    The proposed bill should be amended. If amended, It may be worth passing. There is a blog post "Problems with 2014 SB 100" that has several of them.

    If the sponsor is not willing to amend the bill, I believe it will fail to pass. I believe there are those in favor of the bill that are OK with it being amended. I am not sure those that are opposed with change their mind no matter the amendments.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:55 a.m.

    To my post about a new law in California which ... "would even permit high school males who say they identify as females, to use a woman's locker room" a commentator evidently from the gay community stated:

    "Why is that a bad thing? It is not like they can change their mind from class period to class period".

    I must ask how can any society disregard basic morality and decency with impunity? The notion that the right of privacy of individals in public restrooms and locker rooms is allowed to be violated by so-called "non-discrimination laws" is ludicrous.

    Both common sense and basic decency tells my brain, heart and concience that such thinking is simply wrong. I believe the majority of citizens in Utah have a moral compass that tells them that we don't want to go down that road.

  • tgurd Gonzales, LA
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:21 a.m.

    I note that the individual trying to pass the sb 100 bill didn't define what he wanted. When bills are brought up define each point so they can not be used against you to bring more hardship upon the general populace. How many thoughtful and wonderful bills have been passed that are misinterped and are open for the wrong things to be made law? Think about bills that feed the poor, taking care of the sick helping the downtrodden, each of these were written without any thought as to how they would end up being used, such as food and money given for relief from poverty used for drinking, gaming sex, and everthing that shouldn't be gotten. Why not write a bill and explain what is meant perfectly clear? It takes more time however in the end it would be much more difficult to change and have the wrong interpatation by those who desire to defraud and waste taxpayers money and change laws.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    People in Utah discriminate? Noooooo Never! LOL

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 6:55 a.m.

    "But Bunker said Utah is in a unique situation and uncharted legal territory. "At this point, there are no rules to follow, she said". Laura Bunker, United Families Utah 1-14-14

    Now let's see from where a civil society could draw guidance for this issue. The Bible, The Book of Mormon,The Talmud, The Koran, the US Constitution, the Civil Rights movement , the Joseph Smith Papers, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas,Walt Disney, Looney Tunes, Marvel Comics and many many more. All you have to do is to want to do the right thing. There is nothing in the least "unique" about this civil rights issue. There is undoubtedly a hidden agendas and an animus towards the persons to be covered by this Bill.This lady, Laura Bunker should turn to her Church, if she has one, for guidance and maybe they will advise accordingly. Or, MAYBE they already have ??

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 6:47 a.m.

    The passage of this nondiscrimination bill could work to mitigate the very apparent animus held by a lot of Utahns against people who are gay/lesbian. If the legislators don't want to pass the nondiscrimination bill because it s the right thing to do (and it IS the right thing to do) then they should pass it to give a talking point that could be used to counter arguments of animus. For whatever reason serves their interests best, the nondiscrimination bill should be passed.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 14, 2014 6:42 a.m.

    "Laura Bunker, president of United Families Utah, said her group will continue to oppose the bill because she believes there is a connection between same-sex marriage and nondiscrimination laws. 'Together, they cover more bases and ways of impacting our religious freedoms'"...

    Is this not a pretty plain admission that the intent is to discriminate and on the basis of religious beliefs?

    Discriminate all you want in the privacy of your temples, churches, and homes. But the minute we or our businesses step into the public sphere, we are ALL accountable to the same public laws. That's the deal of our republic. We need to stop exempting religious institutions that offer services to the general public from meeting the same standards the rest of us must meet.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 6:32 a.m.

    It is interesting how those who want the freedom to do what they want are the first to try and deny others the same privilege. Why pass a law preventing discrimination in hiring or housing for any group if that group is able to take economic action against another? For example, when Orson Scott Card merely stated his belief in traditional marriage, gay organizations threatened to boycott the movie Ender's Game. So, you must hire me regardless of my sexuality, but I am free to boycott your business if I do not like your religion. Sounds hypocritical.

    I once attended a function with multiple employers. One indicated that they prefer not to hire Mormons. I commented to several of my classmates that openly stating such was unwise. Interestingly, all of my classmates in the conversation argued for the right of the company to do so even though all of them would have been outraged had the company said Jews instead.

    People should have the right to hire or rent to whomever they want. It is their business or property. Otherwise, make it illegal to boycott a business based on the beliefs of the owner.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 14, 2014 1:15 a.m.

    If you're against anti-discrimination laws, you should support this one. It replaces 18 others around the state.

    If an anti-discrimination law is good enough for SLC, which passed in 2009 with LDS leadership, shouldn't it be good enough for all of Utah?

    I don't understand the arguments that seem to claim that religious freedom requires keeping the right to discriminate against people in employment and housing. Since when is inflicting intentional misery on others the loving Christian thing to do?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 12:20 a.m.

    "Laura Bunker, president of United Families Utah, said her group will continue to oppose the bill because she believes there is a connection between same-sex marriage and nondiscrimination laws.

    "Together, they cover more bases and ways of impacting our religious freedoms,"

    At some point this notion of religious freedom becomes absurd. For example the LDS Church has always opposed union shops, and has favored "right to work" laws. I tend to favor unions and oppose right-to-work. I guess according to the thinking of Ms. Bunker I am out to abridge the religious freedoms of LDS. At some point this becomes ridiculous.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:16 p.m.

    From the article: "... it's possible that a Utah nondiscrimination law could factor into the court's decision over same-sex marriage."

    Utah has to prove that the law prohibiting same-sex marriage is not based on animus. Much of the opposition to the proposed anti-discrimination law doesn't work in Utah's favor - in fact, a lot of it aggressively works against Utah.

    We don't hate gays, we just think we should be able to fire or evict them because of their sexual orientation and we should be able to prevent them from patronizing our businesses.

    @ Blue AZ: It is a real problem in Utah. There are many individuals who have been fired or evicted and there are many others who live in fear of loosing employment or housing should their sexual orientation become known.

    @ Meckofahess: "... the bill would even permit high school males who say they identify as females, to use a woman's locker room" Why is that a bad thing? It is not like they can change their mind from class period to class period.

    "create a "special class" of citizens " Do you not have a sexual orientation? I thought you were heterosexual?

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:11 p.m.

    I was appalled at your claim that "The groups [like Sutherland], in general, advocate for traditional marriage and families and following constitutional principles." Such a claim is pure propaganda because it's simply untrue.

    These organizations advocate for a privileged marriage exclusivity, and the promotion of majority [mob] rule over constitutional protections for minorities.

    If they advocated for traditional marriage, they would support policy positions that make all families stronger, not just some 1950s fantasy of family. In addition, a basic provision of the Constitution is the promise of Equal Protection, which is the legal analog of the biblical Golden Rule. These "values" organizations certainly don't treat others the way they want to be treated. Thus, they fail a very basic test of the Christian values found in the US Constitution.

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:04 p.m.

    The bill gives special status to a group of people that practice something which is a determinant to society. Giving special status should not be something that is so easily won. Additionally it would undermine keeping marriage between a man and a woman because now they have the standing of law to say "hey we are a special class of people that needs the heavy hand of the government to force people to associate with us."

    Basically it violates the freedoms guaranteed in the first amendment.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 13, 2014 10:49 p.m.

    "....businesses owned by religious organizations and small businesses would be exempt from the law."

    What a couple of huge loopholes! Inevitably leading to:

    "Oh, sorry, didn't know you were Gay, I have to fire you due to my religion.
    (Substitute "Can't do your taxes, won't make your cake, wont sell you a dress, etc)

    Now, there has been a rash of firings of church music directors who are Gay --- can you really imagine many fields that are as full of Gay men? Should they all lie?

    Ask yourself if another State can allow businesses to refuse mormons, or blacks, or whomever!

    The reason businesses owned by religious organizations and small businesses should be covered is also about fairness to employees. Persons working minimum wage jobs often must take whatever they can get, and try to fit in.
    --- Take the example of Catholic hospitals not wanting to provide contraception. Do women working their have fewer rights? (remember that 90% of catholic women have used contraception, so we are talking about a ridiculously antiquated rule)

    Just looking at the tenacity of the objection is saddening.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 10:28 p.m.

    Watch out! Political ambitions know no bounds, are scented with the most pleasing fragrance, and peddled with words dripped in honey!

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    Jan. 13, 2014 10:01 p.m.

    While this law seems to be in line with the LDS church's stance (i.e. those with same-sex orientation should not be discriminated against in terms of housing / employment), it makes me wonder if Utah really has that much of a problem with discrimination that it requires a law. People have opposing views on the matter, yes, but how often are people missing out on housing or employment in Utah simply because of their sexual orientation?

  • Grandma 20 Allen, TX
    Jan. 13, 2014 8:05 p.m.

    Stop it!

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 6:57 p.m.

    In August of 2013, Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a new law into effect on Monday afternoon affording students confused about their “gender identity” a host of new rights, including the ability to use either a boy’s or girl’s restroom and either locker room.

    The legislation, Assembly Bill 1266, authored by Democratic State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano from San Francisco, allows students in grades as young as kindergarten to use “facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

    Ammiano’s spokesman, Carlos Alcala, told TheBlaze on Monday afternoon the bill would even permit high school males who say they identify as females, to use a woman’s locker room

    This is the sort of thing that these so called "non-discrimination" laws may lead to. Utah already has non-discrimination laws and does not need new ones that create a "special class" of citizens that have different rights than the rest of us.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 6:53 p.m.

    It appears that most of the special interest groups' stated concerns with this law are exempt from it. That they fight on makes me wonder if they have another agenda.