Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Statutes require facts’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 17 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
isrred
South Jordan, UT

Isn't your religious belief an internal sense? Your religious beliefs are just that, beliefs. They are not innate characteristics you are born with. They are not immutable. Unlike sexual orientation and gender identity, they ARE definitely a choice. And yet religious beliefs are protected in non-discrimination statute (and rightly so).

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

"objectively discernible facts that are unmistakably clear and not dependent upon any individual’s “internal sense or perceptions” of anything at all."

Isn't religion one of the protected groups under the current law? Isn't religion based entirely upon "any individual’s “internal sense or perceptions” of anything at all."
Why is a choice or opinion about religion given special protection over sexual orientation?

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

Using the reasoning of this author, there should be no laws against threatening people or verbal abuse because although those things may make you feel afraid there is no objective proof that you would really be harmed.

And we are going to have to rewrite all our homicide/manslaughter/accidental death laws so that only the facts matter and not the intent.

And all those laws that make references to what the accused knew or should have known at the time - that stuff won't matter anymore.

Yep, using the reasoning in this letter we are going to have to change a lot of laws - the world is about to become a lot harsher.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

IMO we should ALL have the same protections. Isn't that what "Equal Protection" means? (ref 14th amendment)

The 14th amendment doesn't say that some special groups will have special protections.

No special groups should have special protections. Not a special religion, not a special race, or any special sexual orientation. Laws should protect us all. No special rules for special groups.

Laws should be designed to protect everybody (in theory).

===

Like people have said said for a long time (till now mostly from the left)... "you can't legislat morality". Some people are just jerks. They need to be educated (not legislated into submission)

I don't know the answer but I know you can't give SOME people special rights. And you can't legislate that people be moral (whatever the current popular definition of what "moral" is).

Maybe the answer is "education" (to
increase tolerance willingly)...not "government force"?

===

I don't know how many landlords discriminate on sexual orientation. Seems like it would be a small number. Most just want rent. But if one is a jerk... rent another guys appartment and leave his empty.

isrred
South Jordan, UT

"No special groups should have special protections. Not a special religion, not a special race, or any special sexual orientation. Laws should protect us all. No special rules for special groups."

That's exactly how the law is. Non-discrimination laws don't protect people for being black, Muslim, female, or gay. They protect on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Everyone has these characteristics. EVERYONE is equal under the law in protection from discrimination on these characteristics.No special rights. No special treatment.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

isrred
So how do you prove that you were discriminated against becasue of your sexual orientation, or your race, or your religion?

Would the landlord have to say, "You can't have this appartment because you're gay"? Or does the renter just have to suspect that his lifestyle was a factor?

If a Mormon is rejected by a catholic landlord... can he sue?

Part of me thinks the person who owns the property should be able to make the decision without explanation. What proof will be needed that being in a protected group was the reason? Or is any rejection of a person in a protected group no longer allowed?

Same goes for jobs. They employee can leave for any reason he wants. And the employer can end their working relationship with you for any reason they want (business needs change, they don't like you, poor performance, etc). He doesn't have to give a reason. Will this law change that? If they don't need a reason... how do you know if sexual orientation, religion, etc, were the reason?

It just seems like an un-need and un-enforcable law to me.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

On the surface (pun intended) this seems reasonable however what may seem easily discernible may not be what it appears. Outward appearances do not always reflect the internal reality of ones physical structures of the brain, DNA and chemical balances and other factors that effect a persons gender.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

To 2 bits: "IMO we should ALL have the same protections. Isn't that what "Equal Protection" means? (ref 14th amendment)"--- If the 14th amendment had been enforced from the time it was enacted I would agree with you, but it was not. For at least a century it was not only ignored it was actively subverted. Many groups were singled out for discrimination, that is why we have protected classes now.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Actually, Urquhart's wording is quite careful. The authorities are permitted to use "external objective evidence" in their determinations. I think the bill's wording is quite well balanced.

cavetroll
SANDY, UT

Re: 2bits
"Like people have said said for a long time (till now mostly from the left)... "you can't legislat morality". Some people are just jerks. They need to be educated (not legislated into submission)

I don't know the answer but I know you can't give SOME people special rights. And you can't legislate that people be moral (whatever the current popular definition of what "moral" is)."

That hasn't stopped the legislature from trying their hardest to legislate morality. I agree, some people are just jerks, you can't change them. Some people already have special rights. The LGBT community simply wants to also enjoy those rights.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@2bits
"Not a special religion, not a special race, or any special sexual orientation."

Non-discrimination laws based on race, religion, or sexual orientation protect from discrimination to any race, religion, or sexual orientation. It's just that straight, white, Christians pretty much never face housing or employment discrimination based on being straight, white, or Christian so it doesn't really come up in that regard.

RFLASH
Salt Lake City, UT

I wouldn't expect any such thing when it comes to this subject. I think they should be more considerate, but I think most people in this state would not ever take into consideration what all of this means! That is a sad thing! They can not even get the meaning of what it is to be gay! They may all have a different view about it. I asked my aunt about what she thought gay meant. We were among family members. Lets just say that I don't think I will ever do that again. I bet my face was red as a beat and I felt so humiliated. This was someone that I love and respect! If she had such a view, I can't imagine what some of these people truly think! They just don't tell you the entire truth. It is hard to know what they think. That is what makes it so hard! Not everyone is trying to offend! I hate it! I just don't ask! They don't know what it is to have to deal with this!

to comment

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