Comments about ‘Protesters demand LGBT anti-discrimination bill be heard’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Feb. 10 2014 3:34 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
USU-Logan
Logan, UT

There are 72 percent of Utahns favor a statewide nondiscrimination law, and the survey was conducted by DN, not by a liberal institute.

I wonder why Utah legislature don't want to give such bill a hearing and a fair up-or-down vote.

desert
Potsdam, 00

But they were free to come and go as they pleased.
Such activism is directed for rights.

I once heard a sacrament meeting talk on rights, in which we were reminded that if you have rights you also have responsibility.

The church is known for its tolerance and loving kindness toward others of different believes, is the gay-community known for serving the poor and needy or some other agenda, maybe well known as for caring the elderly e.g. the catholic church is well known for ?

All I am saying is, LGBT community and activism is known for demanding more rights,
but how about earning some reputation ?

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

Is it illegal to deny housing to someone based on gender?

For example, if a woman is renting out a room in her house, does she have the right to only rent to other women if she does not feel comfortable renting to a man?

Or does a woman have no right to deny me from renting that room if her reason is simply that I am a man and she wants a female roommate?

It would seem logical to allow her to deny my "right" and not rent to me if she feels more comfortable with a female roommate.

Similarly, it should be my right to only rent to a straight person if I do not feel comfortable renting to a gay person, just as a woman may not feel comfortable renting a room in her house to a man.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

Laws prohibiting discrimination have lead to employers being forced to allow members of the GLBT community to use any restroom they want. My employer had to deal with very angry women when a person going through gender reassignment surgery wanted to start using the women's restroom.

It has also led to photographers being force to photograph same gender weddings; cake decorators being forced to provide wedding cakes to the same.

It is impossible not to discriminate. Every decision involving money discriminates against everyone that you don't give the money to. The only difference between freedom and a dictatorship is "who makes the decisions". A free man makes his own decisions. In a dictatorship the government decides almost every importing issue.

Sorry, but I would send this crowd packing.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ Desert
You wrote:
"The church is known for its tolerance and loving kindness toward others of different believes, is the gay-community known for serving the poor and needy or some other agenda, maybe well known as for caring the elderly e.g. the catholic church is well known for ?"

The answer is , YES!
The Mormon church has thousands of members who are LGBT and yes, we participate as everybody else.
The Catholic church and all other churches and organizations have LGBT among their members and we participate there too.

You may not like it, but we are your brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, neighbors, teachers, accountants, lawyers, construction workers, football players, etc., etc. we are members of your community and you are my brother a/o sister.

It makes me proud to see our brothers and sisters in Utah fighting for their rights. No more hiding, no more secrecy.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

their protest is misdirected. the governor cannot decide which bills get a hearing or a vote and which do not; why are they protesting at his office?

why don't they protest for anti-discrimination laws against EVERYONE who suffers some type of discrimintaion? why just them?

FT
salt lake city, UT

@ Desert
"The church is known for its tolerance and loving kindness toward others of different believes, is the gay-community known for serving the poor and needy or some other agenda, maybe well known as for caring the elderly e.g. the catholic church is well known for ?"

Gays serve our community in many facets. They serve in many non-profits, social organizations and even in the churches you reference. I work and live alongside many gays and they have earned their reputations long before requesting and fighting for the very same rights you and others already enjoy.

mecr
Bountiful, UT

I read the bill. I found it is actually an update to the existent one that prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, etc. It says, and I quote: "A person may not be considered "otherwise qualified," unless that person possesses the following required by an employer for any particular job, job classification, or position:", and then it lists "moral character".

For that fact alone, I can disregard an application based on the moral character clause. Did the senator leave that on purpose? Because right now, half of the state doesn't consider gay behavior of moral character at all. You got to love politicians. However, and I do wonder, how do I explain my travesty neighbor to my elementary age children? or the ones that like smoke pot? or the man-eater girls? or the gigolo guys? either they define moral character or we will be back to point one. I do think business owners should be allowed to decide who lives in their house or who does not. Isn't your home, your property protected under the constitution?

nycut
New York, NY

@desert's comment shows a severely limited view of what constitutes gay community, and seems to (incorrectly) assume that gay people exist separately from "everyone else" and are not religious.

@chris b's questions demonstrate a limited understanding of how discrimination protections in housing law works, and under what circumstances they are applied.

@the rock's tells of an employer resistant to "allowing" a trans woman use the women's room because she wasn't "female enough" -- according to the employer.

All of these are examples of why the bill should be heard.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

"It is impossible not to discriminate. Every decision involving money discriminates against everyone that you don't give the money to. The only difference between freedom and a dictatorship is "who makes the decisions". A free man makes his own decisions. In a dictatorship the government decides almost every importing issue."

So would you be okay with losing your home, education, and job because you're white and Mormon?

The same posters who spout off about this bill clearly haven't read it. This display of ignorance shows even more why this bill should be discussed, not swept under the rug during some secret caucus meeting.

desert
Potsdam, 00

In the above post, that rose to some exitement, I was refering to the church as organization, it's reputation well known. The LGBT community consists of single people as well, and I hope they are being treated by Mormons as their loving Sisters and Brothers.

But, that was not the point. What I wish for the LGBT community as they are organized, that any event we read about in the news will shine some reputation for their good.
Not that "fighting" standing in line to demand rights.

Next on the news I wish to see in the head lines. "LGBT community thanks Utah for being tolerant and thanks SLC for giving them a stage to protest". How about that.

Christopher B
Ogden, UT

usu - logan,

Would you please address my actual point, that there is no difference between a straight man not wanting to rent to a gay man who may be attracted to him just as a woman may not want to rent to a male?

Why is it ok for a woman to discriminate against a man and not rent to him but not ok for a straight man to not rent to a gay man if he doesn't feel comfortable?

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

This delay is unconscionable. It's a matter of right and wrong--it's simply wrong to discriminate against a person because of what he or she is.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

"Here we stand for justice and liberty for all," said gay rights activist Troy Williams who organized the demonstration.

Well, what about justice and liberty for all (including the majority of Utahns) The gay community would deny our religious liberties to speak about morals and immoral behavior in the public square. The gay community does not want religion or God included in the discussion at all outside of our Churches and homes. We have a consitutional right to voice our opions including OUR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS anywhere we please - including in the public square!

Everyone has needs, concerns and rights, not just the gay minority.

Ted H.
Midvale, UT

@Usu-Logan - You seem to not be understanding what Chris B is getting at. He's pointing out that discrimination is allowed in situations where a woman may want to rent only to other women.

This is discrimination, by definition. So why shouldn't the same rights apply to a heterosexual person wanting to live with other heterosexuals, just as a woman wanting to live with other women.

sid 6.7
Holladay, UT

Of course this bill would mess with Amendment 3. If you started treating Gay's/Lesbians with equality then you might have to let them get Married too. That's not what Amendment 3 is about. Amendment 3 sounded great on the ballot in 04 and I am thinking it did not cross the minds of many during the vote the issue of Gay Marriage would be front and center in Utah just 10 short years later.

Some folks in our state had some very good foresight regarding this matter. If Amendment 3 were around Gay Marriage would be a non-issue, right? It seemed in 2004 after 108 years it was time to modify the States Constitution. Those responsible for Amendment 3 probably never thought the Gay's would stand up and demand their rights but here they are just like Women and Blacks who bravely fought for their rights before them.

Any way you slice it Amendment 3 is dirty. It was designed for the sole purpose of excluding Gay's/Lesbians from ever enjoying the freedom of marriage. If not that, what purpose dose it serve?

Dirty indeed.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@Ted H and Chris B
"Would you please address my actual point, that there is no difference between a straight man not wanting to rent to a gay man who may be attracted to him just as a woman may not want to rent to a male?"

------

That is exactly why I suggest you read the actual bill first before jump to any conclusion.

The situation you said is perfectly fine with SB100, because it is a private home. You are just making a straw man here.

Once again, Do you really think 72 percent of Utahns would favor a statewide nondiscrimination law, if such a law does not allow a woman to rent her private house only to a woman? Or does not allow a straight man not wanting to rent it to a gay man?

Trevvor
Sandy, UT

"It would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace and housing."

Lets review a few scenarios then.

Its ok for a woman to not rent to a man because its ok to discriminate on gender. But it would be against the law to discriminate based on "gender identity" so it would be illegal for a woman to not rent to me if her reason was that I'm a male, even if I tell her I "identify" as a female? So in other words as long as I think I'm a female then she can't deny housing to me because I identify as a female? But if I(being the same person) decided I identified as a male then she CAN discriminate because its ok to discriminate based on gender and not gender identity?

So in other words I control whether a female renting a room has the right to rent to me or not, by simply telling her I identify as male or female, regardless of whether I truly am male or female?

Chris, I don't often agree with you, but you're spot on here.

O'really
Idaho Falls, ID

They tried this tacky trick in Idaho. They all got arrested. It didn't make a very good impression.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Polling shows strong support for adding the LGBT community to the other classes listed in the state antidiscrimination law. The DesNews's own polling shows 72% and that other paper shows 60%. Either case is a clear majority. Several communities representing a large portion of the population already have similar protections at the local level. So why is the legislature so reluctant to hear a bill that normally would be a slam dunk with those kinds of numbers?

The answer from legislative leadership is concern that some legislator would let slip an undiplomatic remark that could be construed as "animus" thus taint the state's current marriage lawsuit. Can the GOP leadership not control its own caucus and keep to a defined message? Perhaps there is a fear that the bill would not pass at all and thus demonstrate that the legislature is guided by an animus not representative of the population it represents. I concur with the protesters and others here that refusing to read the bill is (ironically) demonstration of the very animus they are trying to hide.

to comment

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