@ Jenica: The opposition to that bill has been in full force since the end of
the legislative session last year. There is no way that bill would have passed
this year - it probably wouldn't have even made it out of committee again.
If you think the only reason that bill isn't going to pass this
year is because of Judge Shelby's ruling, you don't know the
Legislature very well. (Heck, since the State has to prove lack of
animus, his ruling briefly increased the chances if the bill being passed.)
Congratulations, Judge Shelby. You managed to kill any hope of getting a bill
passed that would allow gay people to live and work in peace.
I know it...: "I don't believe it's fair to force the small
business owner to hire someone he disagrees with."Just out of
curiosity, do you also oppose the nondiscrimination laws that apply to other
demographic categories, such as race, age, gender, national origin, and
religion? They, too, put employers in the position of having to hire people
they may disagree with (religion, especially). If your position is that that
civil rights protections apply only to immutable characteristics, how does that
apply to religion, disability (people can recover from serious illnesses), or
(ever since Christine Jorgensen returned from Denmark) gender?"Animus" was a key word in the Perry (California Prop 8) and Kitchen
(Utah Amendment 3) court decisions. In both cases, the states were unable to
provide persuasive rational arguments for limiting marriage to heterosexual
couples, leaving the courts to conclude that the laws were motivated by
irrational animus and thus failed the 14th amendment equal protection test. If
animus equals hatred in your book, fine, but in the eyes of two courts it
applies to proponents of the status quo.
@ I know it. I Live it. I Love it.You wrote: "Disagreeing about
what makes us free, but calling it "animus" is the same thing as calling
us "haters"."I think William Shakespeare gave you and
answer a long ago:"Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:What’s in a name? that which we call a roseBy any other name would
smell as sweet;"The name, the word is irrelevant. If the action,
if the effect is the same, who cares how is called?
Lagomorph,I believe it's more than fair for a small business
owner to hire someone he disagrees with.I don't believe it's
fair to force the small business owner to hire someone he disagrees with.Having that belief doesn't mean I hate people. I don't.I
believe that we should choose to better ourselves, not that others should choose
it for us.I believe homosexuality is leads people captive into despair.I believe in the right to express that.I believe in the right to express
it through democratic recognition.I don't believe in forcing people
apart or making their choices for them.I don't believe in forcing
people to hire my way by making their choices for them.Freedom ends
are your own nose.Disagreeing about what makes us free, but calling
it "animus" is the same thing as calling us "haters". And
everyone knows who's really doing the hating here. It's those who use
the label to describe those who disagree with them.
That is the problem with the Courts presently, they inhibit the work of a
democratically elected government. The Courts should bow to the will of the
people instead of the will of the people and their democratically elected
officials bowing the appointed will of the Court. This is how democracy dies.
There are freedoms in this country that need to be protected. Laws need to be
carefully considered. I am glad that there are people looking at these changes
carefully, so to protect everyone's freedom. They will figure it out and
everyone will be happy in the end. We just need to be patient. And maybe even
kind to each other...respecting each others different point of view.
A good way to help show the courts that Amendment 3 was not motivated by
anti-gay animus would be to pass SB100 by a definitive margin. On the other
hand, delaying a vote on SB100 out of fear that the legislative record would
include inflammatory anti-gay testimony from legislators and groups like the
First Freedoms Coalition only bolsters the case that Amendment 3 was driven by
animus against gays and not by concern for children.SB100 is
distinct and separate from the marriage question. There is no reason not to
consider and pass it this session. Justice delayed is justice denied.
"Laura Bunker, president of United Families International, said.... Her
group supports those seen as protecting religious liberties but opposes the
statewide nondiscrimination measure."I don't get it. Please
can somebody explain this to me. How can you be for "religious
liberties" but be in opposition to "statewide nondiscrimination
measure".?That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Well, may be is
Any time the Utah legislature gets together, the result is comedic if not
What's the hold up? The appeal is a fools' errand.